Minolta slr's

[DF]

I shot over half a dozen rolls of Ektachrome (ouch-expensive) this summer with my SRT-101, MC 58mm.
Shutter buttery smooth - and the 58 is a GREAT light-gathering lens !!!
Highly recommend if you don't mind lugging around a weighty apparatus - just make sure it's protected in the old
school thick leather case.

 

[DF]

Here is my Holy Grail at last: a Minolta SRT-101 (silver dial) with MC Rokkor 58/1.2 -- I lusted over this in 1971 but there was no way I could afford it. I bought a Pentax SP500 instead (I deliberately did not by an SRT-100 because it would always remind me of the "big sister" SRT-101 I didn't have). With great symbolism, this photo shows the SP500 as well.

The black Minolta AF lenses are for the Maxxum 7, barely visible in the top right.

'Just curious - how much $$ was the/that SRT W58mmf1.2 going for back in'71?

 

[Paul Howell]

Been a while as I've been shooting with the 9 or 800si, took the 600si or classic out. I forget how nice of a camera it is to use, readout in the viewfinder is bright, same metering and AF as in the 800si, motor drive not as fast. After shooting with the 9 with battery grip the 600 is light. I normally use it when traveling.

 

[pbromaghin]

i'm dropping a x-700 and SRT-201 at Englewood Camera today for overhaul. Hopefully to get the SRT updated to modern battery too. That is, if Dave the repairman is in the mood for doing it.

 

[Duceman]

Went for a walk around the neighborhood today, and brought this to try and catch some Fall colors. I've only got one or two years on this camera, but it still functions flawlessly.

 

[Les Sarile]

Went for a walk around the neighborhood today, and brought this to try and catch some Fall colors. I've only got one or two years on this camera, but it still functions flawlessly.

Smoothestr film advance in my collection! I think it is is probably the most underrated of the manual Minoltas. So much so that it's not even on http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Cameras.html

 

[Huss]

Smoothestr film advance in my collection! I think it is is probably the most underrated of the manual Minoltas. So much so that it's not even on http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Cameras.html

Yup, insanely smooth film advance.

 

[beemermark]

My opinion only (but over 40 years I've owned a lot of cameras) Minolta made some really great cameras but very few excellent lenses.

 

[Huss]

My opinion only (but over 40 years I've owned a lot of cameras) Minolta made some really great cameras but very few excellent lenses.

35-70 3.5 in MD mount, 58 1.2 in MD mount, and 40mm f2 in Leica M come to mind as three superb lenses that I own. I'm pretty sure there are a lot more.

 

[beemermark]

35-70 3.5 in MD mount, 58 1.2 in MD mount, and 40mm f2 in Leica M come to mind as three superb lenses that I own. I'm pretty sure there are a lot more.

Yes they made some good ones but Minolta made way, way more mediocre ones. This while Nikon, Canon, and even Pentax never turned out a so-so lens.

 

[Helge]

Yes they made some good ones but Minolta made way, way more mediocre ones. This while Nikon, Canon, and even Pentax never turned out a so-so lens.

That is just the purest male bovine feces.
I could name the first dozen from either of the brands you mention that are considered mediocre to bad.

Minolta made some of the greatest lenses in their class.
Some of the 50 1.4 are as good as they get.
The 135 2.8 is superb.
The MD 24 2.8 possibly the best of its type.
The MD II 85 1.8 is unequalled.

They made their own glass (as in mixing raw ingredients to smelt), which they sold to others.
Their lens designs was used by Leica among others.

 

[Les Sarile]

Yes they made some good ones but Minolta made way, way more mediocre ones. This while Nikon, Canon, and even Pentax never turned out a so-so lens.

I can't say I've encountered a poor performing lens from Minolta. Perhaps the ones you've had were damaged somehow?

At that time, Minolta was only one of two in Japan that made their own optical glass and lenses.

Minolta brochure 1 by Les DMess, on Flickr

 

[Bikerider]

Yup, insanely smooth film advance.

I will go along with that - very very smooth.

But as for Minolta lenses tell me a really bad one and I will match it with some of the others from the top level. My latest acquisition is a 28/85MD zoom and at all apertures so long as the camera is on a tripod a 12x16 print will match any other that I have or have owned.I also have a 24/35MD zoom and despite a marked front element that is no slouch either.
The lens I bought immediately before the 28/85 was a 28/28.8MC with the mildly Radio Active thorium element. This element has turned to a real yellow and as I have never used it in 'anger' I am going to try it out this week given a decent bit of sun. The yellowing should be a pretty effective filter to enhance the rendering of clouds against a blue sky. Seeing that I don't use coloured filters for effect what I get should be immediately obvious.

 

[BradS]

.... it still functions flawlessly.....

looks nice too!

 

[Paul Howell]

I have only a few MF lens, all are sharp, I have a wide range of AF lens, first generation AF to G lens, even the kit lens are pretty good, can you give an example of a bad Minolta lens?

 

[Bikerider]

I can mention a few Nikon lenses that were not quite up to par. The 43-86mm AI zoom was a soft as a cushion and more up to date the 24/120 AFD 3.5-5.6 is truly awful at any aperture/focal length (Not to be compared with the 24/120 F4 AFG lens which is superb in all departments.

 

[unwantedfocus]

I stated this once in the forum somewhere which is a very important argument against Minolta in my opinion which people easily overlook. Canon lenses are superior in the sense that you are able to clean them and fully service them. Minolta glass is cheap specially the 50mm f/1.7 but some of the lenses have a design "flaw" in a sense that you can't fully service a lens or restore them in case of fungus or dust. I can't specifically tell which lenses have this problem, but there is a couple.

Lets say your lens has a little bit of fungus or dust inside depending on which element the problem occurs on in the lens you either be able to clean it or throw the lens away simply because there are 2 elements glued together which you are unable to separate from what I have seen. I still love Minolta, my favourites are the XE 5, felt so good in hand and the Minolta x500. My favourite lens is the Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8, the combo with any MD body is just great.

Here is a video which illustrates the problem with the 2 lens elements glued together. Maybe I'm wrong and you are able to separate them but I haven't found any info on this yet. So my advice look closely at the lens before you buy because in the worst case scenario you will not be able to clean it, which in 90% of the cases you can on a canon FD lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

Guess living in the desert has a benefit, never had an issue with fungus, for that matter with all the dust we live with never had to have a lens cleaned of internal dust. And if the elements are cemented together how would dust get in? Fugus can use the cement as a growth medium which I have seen in used lens and maybe I'm misinformed but fugus can etch the glass as well in which the lens is probably gone. If Minolta MD/MC lens were expensive I might worry, other wise get another lens.

 

[Bikerider]

I stated this once in the forum somewhere which is a very important argument against Minolta in my opinion which people easily overlook.hem hem. Minolta glass is cheap specially the 50mm f/1.7 but some of the lenses have a design "flaw" in a sense that you can't fully service a lens or restore them in case of fungus or dust. I can't specifically tell which lenses have this problem, but there is a couple.

Lets say your lens has a little bit of fungus or dust inside depending on which element the problem occurs on in the lens you either be able to clean it or throw the lens away simply because there are 2 elements glued together which you are unable to separate from what I have seen. I still love Minolta, my favourites are the XE 5, felt so good in hand and the Minolta x500. My favourite lens is the Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8, the combo with any MD body is just great.

Here is a video which illustrates the problem with the 2 lens elements glued together. Maybe I'm wrong and you are able to separate them but I haven't found any info on this yet. So my advice look closely at the lens before you buy because in the worst case scenario you will not be able to clean it, which in 90% of the cases you can on a canon FD lens.

Being able to take them apart to clean them (Minolta Lenses) is a quite narrow view of these lenses. No good lenses were or are designed to be taken apart by a non skilled person without the correct training. Doing so, you risk upsetting the very fine adjustments that are engineered when the lens is manufactured, nor will they have the absolutely dust free environment where the elements can be reassembled. Then some lenses have multi-start screw threads, how do you know which point to start re-assembly. Nor will the average DIY person have the optical instruments to set the lens back to the exact factory specification.

Why anyone would wish to split a cemented two element assembly defeats all reason. Dust or fungus is very unlikely to be able to get in between the elements.

OK some lenses seem to be more prone to fungus or dust than others (Older zoom lenses seem to have this problem more than prime lenses due to the zooming action sucking in aid and dust), but I would never ever risk taking them apart just to clean up a bit of fungus or getting rid of a bit of dust. I would always leave it to a trained engineer who actually knows what they are doing. O and possiblyK it may cost me money, but so will having to buy a replacement lens or getting it repaired professionally if everything goes belly up!

So, saying Minolta lenses are 'cheap' because they can be taken apart is not a sound argument. Minolta lenses are anything but cheap, they are up there with the best lenses of the period.

 

[unwantedfocus]

Minolta lenses being cheap is not my argument it was the poster after me, he stated to just buy a new one since some are really cheap. I rather have something that is being able to be fully serviced and repaired than being a throwaway waste. Do I know how often this problem occurs between the two elements no. Which lens would you consider the better option a canon fd lens which can be fully disassembled element by element cleaned and serviced or have 2 elements glued together. Which one has the longer lifespan? I go with the lens that can be fully serviced rather than being unrepairable because of 2 elements glued together. This doesn't mean minolta is bad I prefer minolta over canon but it is still a major flaw in lens design in my opinion.

 

[Bikerider]

Minolta lenses being cheap is not my argument it was the poster after me, he stated to just buy a new one since some are really cheap. I rather have something that is being able to be fully serviced and repaired than being a throwaway waste. Do I know how often this problem occurs between the two elements no. Which lens would you consider the better option a canon fd lens which can be fully disassembled element by element cleaned and serviced or have 2 elements glued together. Which one has the longer lifespan? I go with the lens that can be fully serviced rather than being unrepairable because of 2 elements glued together. This doesn't mean minolta is bad I prefer minolta over canon but it is still a major flaw in lens design in my opinion.

I think you are trying to defend the indefensible.

Without the correct instruments and training the risk of restoring a lens to the original condition without upsetting settings is slightly less than zero. Leave it to the people who know what they are doing it is almost certain to be cheaper in the long run. You are not dealing with reinstalling sheets of glass in a window when one gets marked or broken.where an extra mm makes not one jot of difference. Lenses are set in measurement of fraction of a mm and I doubt unless you are doing things on a regular basis one will have the correct collimation equipment.

However it is your choice, if you wreck a good lens that only needs cleaning that is entirely up to you. Incidentally just how often do you need to clean a lens? In all my time of working with lenses in photography, (approaching 60 years) I have only had to have a lenses cleaned on two occasions, One when I had a 2nd hand lens which I bought knowing it had with a scratched front element. and the 2nd was when I accidentally dropped an enlarging lens in water. (don't ask)

 

[Paul Howell]

Other than a dinged front thread on a couple of lens that had to be repaired, don't recall ever having to have a manual focus lens repaired. I am more concerned about having to repair or service auto focus lens as they age.

 

[BradS]

.... unrepairable because of 2 elements glued together..... it is still a major flaw in lens design in my opinion.

This makes absolutely no sense at all. I think you should do a little research into lens design and construction. The vast majority of optics used in photography, including virtually all of those considered to be "excellent". have cemented groups of elements.

 

[ciniframe]

Other than a dinged front thread on a couple of lens that had to be repaired, don't recall ever having to have a manual focus lens repaired. I am more concerned about having to repair or service auto focus lens as they age.

Over the years, to reduce the problem of dented filter rings, I’ve bought cheap used filters at photo shows, (ones where the glass is retained by a threaded ring), removed the glass, and just threaded the ring onto my lenses. The couple of times I’ve dented these rings they were easy to replace. Also, some of my wide angle Zuikos have front elements uncomfortably close to the front of the lens and the rings have afforded a bit more protection.

 

[Paul Howell]

Over the years, to reduce the problem of dented filter rings, I’ve bought cheap used filters at photo shows, (ones where the glass is retained by a threaded ring), removed the glass, and just threaded the ring onto my lenses. The couple of times I’ve dented these rings they were easy to replace. Also, some of my wide angle Zuikos have front elements uncomfortably close to the front of the lens and the rings have afforded a bit more protection.

That's a good idea, will it a try.