I had the f/2.8 21mm since the early 1970's and enjoyed it. It was a great lens. the f/4 lens if I remember correctly required the mirror be locked up. I much perferred the f/2.8 because I could see what I was going to get.
I really do like the lens, mine is everything I would expect in terms of performance.
I also have the 21mm F2.8 MC Rokkor, but the 21mm F4 feels a lot like a rangefinder lens in operation.
Really I am glad I have both of them, but I would recommend the 21mm F4
The 20mm F4.5 Pentax Takumar hood on mine has been replaced by the hood for the 20mm F2.8 MD Rokkor
Here it is on one of my Minolta SRM's
001 by Nokton48, on Flickr
I think it's nice to have both. The 21mm F4 gives me a sort of rangefinder-like shooting buzz.
And the 21mm has floating elements, is faster and has reflex viewing. But it's quite large with the hood on it
Cameras are almost as cheap to try as just the film was once, but now is more expensive with processing and CD... One can easily buy a good under-$20 camera and spend the same amount with t he first two rolls...
I have to admit I'm tempted to pick up one of the late model Minoltas just to try, even though I have zero accessories and would have to buy a lens with the body.
The XD-11 is a very nice camera but built like a tank? I definitely don't think so. You do need to treat it with tender loving care.
Is this to say that Nippon Kogaku (Nikon) and Tokyo Kogaku (Topcon) weren't? Interesting.
My first SLR was my SRT-101. I shot 56 rolls in it 1995-2001, before I crossed over to Pentax to get both AF capability and access to cheap MF lenses.
This summer, when a Stereo Colorist died mid-roll, I finished the roll by taking my SRT down Memory Lane.
Got this at a garage sale (I hate these things but, alas, my wife loves them). Cost me $35 including a 50/1.7 lens. Everything works at it has a few things other film cameras don't have. Can anyone guess what that might be? Anyway a nice rig.The X-570 was my first Minolta, arriving right after my Pentax ME Super died. It remains my favorite Minolta body. I have 3 X-700's (1 for parts) and an X-370 that I have come to like a lot. Last week I picked up a pristine SRT-201 that will go in for conversion to modern battery and a CLA and I should then have enough bodies that there will always be one loaded with every kind of film I shoot. They are wonderful cameras with fantastic lenses and extremely accurate light meters.
Minolta was an SLR brand that I never connected with well.
(Canon was another, with the AE1 which just felt wrong to me, but at least they had the EF and F1n winners.)
Was the XD11 the last decent Minolta model before the awkward dynax era with creative expansion cards? Did anyone like that?
(Sorry, this post is a negative one. It's not my usual type of post. Don't we deserve one of those every now and then?)
I bought a broken European-market SRT 101b with a bunch of lenses for 11 bucks one time. Since then I've bought a SRT 200 for 6 bucks at a thrift store, which worked perfectly and which I used for a long time (at times my main SLR, due to having all those lenses), then upgraded to an original SRT 101.
The two working SRT's I've had have been very great, if a little eccentric. In the end I do get a little tired of the two-needle system, but it sure beats stopped-down metering. Right now my 101 isn't in my active rotation, but with all these lenses I don't doubt it will be again.
Honestly, I get why people don't like these. They're really odd in some ways, owing to the fact that they hit on a good design QUITE early, by adding really ingeniously-engineered open-aperture metering to their earlier SR series, and then kept making incremental updates of it for what, twenty years? They show their roots in early 60's SLR design.
I don't know why Minoltas were/are looked down on. When I was in high school, our local weekly newspaper used Minolta SRT-101s
and they were great cameras that could take a beating and keep going. Since I filled in for the paper's darkroom tech when he went on
vacation, I was also allowed to use one of the cameras from time to time. That's where learned how good Minolta Rokkor lenses are.
Minolta C.E. Rokkor-X enlarging lenses are also top quality lenses.
Exactly. Thanks to the ignorance of those people, I have been able to build up a real nice setup based on my SRT-101 where nearly allAgreed. The SRT series is hard to beat at any price; they are pure, unadulterated functionality, have superb optics and are rugged to boot. I think people like to dislike them because there are no bells and whistles to distract them...
I didn't say it wasn't of quality. In fact built like a tank isn't a quality I want from a camera. I treat all my cameras with tender loving care. The better ones deserve it even more.You may not be familiar with tanks but they came in wide range of configurations - from light and fast to super heavy and slow.
The Modern and Popular Photography reviews of the XD-11 indicated they were well designed and used good materials - saving weight without sacrificing durability. May not be a main battle tank but it certainly has a feel of quality.
I didn't say it wasn't of quality. In fact built like a tank isn't a quality I want from a camera. I treat all my cameras with tender loving care. The better ones deserve it even more.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?