what are the best minolta lenses for the XD-11?

[68degrees]

I am getting a XD-11 shortly to add to my camera collection and try out. Im not at all familiar with the different Minolta lenses, Rokkor, MD, Rokkor X, Celtic.. I have no idea.

I had a X-700 in 1984 with a Minolta Lens 70-210 macro. Took a lot of pictures and in 2006 or so I gave the camera away thinking Id never do photography again and film is dead anyway. So now looking back to my minolta days I picked up an XD-11.

What variety of minolta made lenses are for the XD-11 and how do they compare to Nikkor? I heard that Minolta and Nikon were the only ones who made their own glass.

Any Minolta enthusiasts here. Please advise. Thanks.

 

[cramej]

Any of them, really. Except maybe the Celtic series. Though even those can be ok. Anything with 2 letters in the name (PG, HH, etc.) will be older. The letters denote the element configuration. MC Rokkor is next. MD Rokkor and Rokkor-X are newer. Lenses with the sliding tab for Shutter Priority or Auto are the newest. The Rokkor Files website goes into all the details. The only lenses not fully compatible with later cameras are the pre-MC lenses as they don't have meter coupling.

As for a comparison with Nikon, you wouldn't know the difference looking at a print. Although, you might notice your pocketbook is a bit fuller after shopping Minolta over Nikon. I shoot both and would have a difficult time choosing only one if I had to.

I have (and like - haven't been disappointed yet):
20mm f/2.8
24mm Rokkor (non-x) f/2.8
35mm f/1.8
45mm f/2 (small, light and sharp)
50mm f/1.7 (nothing special, just a good lens though I hardly use it)
58mm f/1.4 PF (possibly my favorite)
135mm f/2.8

I would love to have a 85mm f/2, 135mm f/2 and a 200mm f/2.8 but I haven't been able to drop the cash on one yet.

 

[68degrees]

thank you for the reply. Thats great. I saw the site but I found another that I like as well if not better.
http://minolta.rokkor.de/minoltalenses.htm

 

[Theo Sulphate]

For shutter priority on your XD-11, you'll need the MD lenses or newer.

 

[68degrees]

Oh ok, I was just going to ask if MC Rokkor lenses would work but I guess they wont allow shutter priority right? Do you think there is much difference in quality between the MD Rokkor-x and the MD? Is there a MD Rokkor without the x as well? What does the X stand for? Thanks for helping me sort all this out.

 

[vsyrek1945]

IIRC the X lenses were originally offered for the US market. They should be identical to Rokkors without the X.

 

[Les Sarile]

I have a few Minolta bodies and lenses and there isn't a poor performer available.

Over the years, they did get lighter due to material selection just like all the other brands, but the glass as you pointed out, have only continued to improve.

Needless to say - unless you got a lens that was badly used or stored, they will not be the reason your results are not good.

This is a very good Minolta website with camera and lens reviews -> Dead Link Removed

 

[68degrees]

IIRC the X lenses were originally offered for the US market. They should be identical to Rokkors without the X.

what about just eh Minolta MD without the rokkor. Are they the same as the MD Rokkors?

 

[halfaman]

My favourtites lenses were the 24 mm f/2.8 MD (55 mm thread) and the 85 mm f/2 MD. The first is super sharp (sharper than Canon FD and Nikon AI) and the second has a wonderful 3D effect wide open.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Agree that Minolta manual focus lenses are generally pretty good. Subjectively, the later MD models don’t have the build quality that earlier lenses did.

 

[neilt3]

The Celtic lenses were the budget models .
Best not to bother with them as best quality ones are just as cheap these days .
Best to go for the MD or Rokkor MD .

 

[BMbikerider]

I am a great follower of Minolta and the corresponding lenses, I have a well used but recently fully service Minolta XM (XK in the US). It is a beast, very heavy but does the job superbly. My lenses I have kept to a minimum and have a 24-35 zoom, 35-70 zoom and a 70-210 zoom. Used with care - that is without camera shake on a tripod they are as good as any other film camera lens. Especially the 35-70. That was one of the ones adopted by Leitz to fit their R3 onwards SLR's which demonstrates how good it was. Optically it wasn't changed but was built into a barrel which was more robust.

The 28-85 is also a good lens and was adapted mechanically for the auto-focus mount when they started in 1986, optically it didn't change. I have had both the 28-85 and 28/105 in AF mount and the shorter zoom was by far the better better.

I am in the market for a 300mm and a 20mm but as they are as rare as hens teeth, I think I may be waiting a little bit longer. There seems to be plenty of 20mm on sale on E Bay but they come from Japan. If I am going to pay what they are asking, then I would like to see it first.

The 20mm and the 24mm F2.8 lenses have internally moveable elements for close up compensation which can be useful if you do that type of photography.

Reputation has it that the 'Celtic' lenses were a cheaper version of the MD lenses, possibly sacrificing quality by simpler optical designs and coating. However Nikon did the same idea with their 'E' series manual lenses and they appeared non the worse for it.

 

[68degrees]

I am a great follower of Minolta and the corresponding lenses, I have a well used but recently fully service Minolta XM (XK in the US). It is a beast, very heavy but does the job superbly. My lenses I have kept to a minimum and have a 24-35 zoom, 35-70 zoom and a 70-210 zoom. Used with care - that is without camera shake on a tripod they are as good as any other film camera lens. Especially the 35-70. That was one of the ones adopted by Leitz to fit their R3 onwards SLR's which demonstrates how good it was. Optically it wasn't changed but was built into a barrel which was more robust.

The 28-85 is also a good lens and was adapted mechanically for the auto-focus mount when they started in 1986, optically it didn't change. I have had both the 28-85 and 28/105 in AF mount and the shorter zoom was by far the better better.

I am in the market for a 300mm and a 20mm but as they are as rare as hens teeth, I think I may be waiting a little bit longer. There seems to be plenty of 20mm on sale on E Bay but they come from Japan. If I am going to pay what they are asking, then I would like to see it first.

The 20mm and the 24mm F2.8 lenses have internally moveable elements for close up compensation which can be useful if you do that type of photography.

Reputation has it that the 'Celtic' lenses were a cheaper version of the MD lenses, possibly sacrificing quality by simpler optical designs and coating. However Nikon did the same idea with their 'E' series manual lenses and they appeared non the worse for it.

BM what do you think of the 135 2.8.. Im reading that I need one with 4 elements that they are the best. Is the Minolta MD 135 2. 8 the right lens? or must it say rokkor on it?

 

[BMbikerider]

The 135/2.8 will be priced at not a lot of money more than the 3.5 version. Yes they are good but more bulky than the F3.5 version. Bulk means weight! Not a lot, granted, but it all mounts up.

As for having the work 'Rokkor' on it what is more important for use on the XD11 is that it should be a MD type lens. Pay attention to the quality of the glass, cleanliness rather than names. I think I can say all Minolta lenses will outperform anything we will do with them. Yes even the 'Celtic' versions.

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

135/2.8 is a great focal length for portraits and street photography. I use 135/2.8 on other cameras, one of which is Minolta, and enjoy it. Not too heavy.

 

[AndroclesC]

The lenses without the "Rokkor" on them are just as good. My favorite of the 50/1.4 lenses is the MD 50/1.4, although all of them are excellent. Another favorite is the MD Zoom 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5. It's impressively sharp, not just for a zoom of its day but period! There's a great review of it on rokkorfiles.com. I also agree with BMbikerider above; the Celtic lenses shouldn't be overlooked. Some of them are very good. I think the biggest difference is that they don't have the same level of coating that the other lenses have, and the build quality is not as robust, but they're still great performers.
Andy

 

[Sirius Glass]

The best that I owned were the f/1.2 58mm Rokkor lens and the f/2.8 21mm Rokkor lens. I liked the 28mm lens which I bought because the 35mm lens was just to close to the 50mm and 58mm lenses.

 

[elmartinj]

My two cents would be my personal favorite is the 50mm 1.7 (I do have the 1.4 too, but I just like it less); it's just gone with me everywhere, and it's versatile, and light, and well built, and balanced.

 

[68degrees]

I have a few Minolta bodies and lenses and there isn't a poor performer available.

Over the years, they did get lighter due to material selection just like all the other brands, but the glass as you pointed out, have only continued to improve.

Needless to say - unless you got a lens that was badly used or stored, they will not be the reason your results are not good.

This is a very good Minolta website with camera and lens reviews -> Dead Link Removed

Hi Les, thats a nice collection of cameras you have there. Which one is your favorite?

 

[Les Sarile]

Hi Les, thats a nice collection of cameras you have there. Which one is your favorite?

Of my Minoltas, I seem to be using the XE-7 more often then the others.
Although I am still trying to figure out a good way to put the intervalometer on the X-700 to use.

 

[Pentode]

I’ve shot Minolta for almost 30 years with the XD-11 being my favorite body (I have 2). I’m also very fond of the SRT series.

Minolta dropped the Rokkor name from it’s MD lenses sometime late in the production run but the lenses themselves didn’t change.

I have a boatload of MC and MD lenses (I’ve never used shutter priority) and there’s not a bad one in the bunch but my favorites are the MD 50/1.7, MC 35/1.8, MC 58/1.4, MD 24/2.8 and the MD 35-70/3.5. I’m also very partial to an old Vivitar Series 1 70-210 zoom in MD mount.

In regards to the Celtic series, my only sample is a 135 which is actually very, very good. Maybe not as sturdy as an MD but it’s a fine lens.

Enjoy your XD-11! Ergonomically, it’s one of the nicest cameras I’ve ever used. I hope you get lots of good service from it.

 

[68degrees]

Thank you Pentode for your input. So far I have the MD 28 2.8, MD 75-200 4.5, MD 50 1. 4, MD 35-105 macro 3.5 to 4.5, 135 MD Rokkor (orange letter) 3.5, and 50 MD Rokkor 1.7 (orange letters). Its a good start. Id like an 85, a 50 macro, and a 35mm.

 

[Pentode]

I almost forgot; the MD 100/2.5 is another of my favorites. Really nice portrait lens and quite good in the street, too.

 

[Nokton48]

I have a few myself.........
The MD lenses will work better with your XD11 (if having all exposure modes is important to you).
I prefer the build quality of the older lenses myself. I have all the MCs but the 80cm F8 RF and the 100cm RF.
Plus a few MDs. They are all excellent.

001 by Nokton48, on Flickr

DSC04450 (1) by Nokton48, on Flickr

005 by Nokton48, on Flickr

 

[Sirius Glass]

I never had a Minolta sr that I did not like: SR-7, SRT-101, SRT-102, SRT-201, ... X-700.