Won 2 Lens: 28/2.0 and 58/1.2

[xo-whiplock]

I just won 2 lens today that I've been on the look out for sometime now. They are the MC W.Rokkor-X 28mm 1:2.0 [10/9], and the MC Rokkor-PG 58mm 1:1.2. Both lenses came with cameras and accessories. The 28mm with an XE7, and the 58mm with an SRT102. The 58mm is indicated as having "dust" and "needs cleaning" so I'll know more when I receive it. These are purchases not for resale, so I think that is why I won the auctions. Clearly the profit margin was all but gone when everything was said and done. Still, I'm happy with the aquisition of these two lenses, and after I clean them up, I'll take some pictures with them and put'um up in my gallery (after I get a subscrition to APUG) and of the lenses themselves. I have another post up requestiong info on 28/2.0, as I could not find data on recent sales or much in the way of a review. Just a short sentence that is was highly sought after and an excellent lens. Please provide any feedback on it if you can...

Thanks

Craig

 

[upnorthcyclist]

Boy, you're right, Craig - I checked out all the Rokkor internet haunts I've bookmarked for information on the 28mm 2.0 and there isn't much out there on it, other than what you mention. You might try posting on Flickr Minolta Manual Focus for more details - there is a fellow named Peter Serbe who follows that discussion group that seems to be a guru on Rokkor glass, plus there are more folks in general paticipating in that forum than in this one.

Mike

 

[xo-whiplock]

upnorthcyclist, I went over to flickr posted my question there and recieved several responses. Peter Serbe is indeed knowledgeable of the Rokkor lenses. In his review, he found the 28/2 to be the sharpest from 1:2 to 1:4. The 28/2.5 and MD 28/2.8 do better above 1:4, but not by much; with the MD 2.8 edging out the 28/2.5. So the 28/2 is a fast, sharp lens that will produce the best pics wide open and up to 1:4. Above that, I'm sure this lens will be more then acceptable for my purposes. Very happy with getting this lens.

Craig

 

[upnorthcyclist]

Hi Craig,

Glad you found some info over there. Poking back through the archives on a couple of the Flickr Minolta groups, I've found that a lot of good info has been posted by Peter Serbe and others.

I don't have any of the Rokkor exotic or spendy collector lenses, yet I have a real nice kit of quality Rokkor glass. I am very happy with the MD 28 2.8 and especially with the MD 35 2.8, both Generation I lenses. The 35 is probably my most-used lens.

Mike

 

[xo-whiplock]

upnorothcyclist,
I'm thinking of using my MD 28-85mm as my 35mm after reading a review of this zoom. Apparently at 35mm, this zoom is for all practical purposes, just as good as a prime 35mm lens. I'm not sure about that, but it is good enough to not have to carry a 35mm prime (maybe not, as I need to test this theory). Right now I'm thinking the minimum kit of lenses for me should be (and from what I currently own): 28/2, 50/1.4, 58/1.2, MD 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro 1:2/1:4. So, that's 3 primes and a general purpose MD zoom. The faster glass for when I have poor light, or want to work on blurring the backgrounds, or want or need a sharper image, and the zoom to use in bright light and modest "macro" stuff. I suspect that I too will be shooting mostly at 35mm as well. Peter noted that 24,35,50 are the 3 lenses preferred in Europe for photogs there. May well be the same here in the US as well. I read that the 35mm angle of view is more like our own natural angle of view of the eye, and that is what makes it so appealing for everyday use. Any thing wider or narrower is "unnatural" if you will, and gives a perspective of the subject unique or different. I like both the natural and the unique perspectives, but it depends on the subject and what I'm trying to convey, that determines which perspective I will use. Based upon my personality, I generally try to find the unique in the natural, so I'll most likely be using 24-35mm a lot, and 58-135mm a little less, with the 50mm for when I can't decide or when 58mm is too long, and 35mm is too wide for distance I have to work with. I sure would like a 40mm??? If I remember right, the 40mm seemed to work great for me when I was shooting as a kid, but that was on a Canonet QL17 GIII range finder camera. I could take shots of just about anything and get great results, for basically a point-n-shoot back in the day. Indoors w/wo flash, and outdoors, all looked great and framed just perfect for my tastes, and simple to use. I'm working on fixing that very same camera, as I have just returned to film photography, now that Kodak has the Ektar 100, and digital leaves me with the feeling I'm missing something, like the difference between a bic lighter and a gold plated lighter. Both work for the intended purpose, but it just feels better to use the metal gold plated lighter. I get no joy from using a bic. If you get my meaning. Old metal cameras and film just feel better. I like the click of the shutter, the rolling on of the winder, and the snap back. The feel of the lens as you focus and see the focus change in the view finder. It's way better then putting a piece of plastic up to your eye, pushing a button, and looking at a lcd screen. I have a DSLR that takes great pics for its price at 10.2MP, and a 600.00 lens, but dam, I can't afford the Zeiss stuff, and never will be able to, so film is the future for me, if I want better pics. WOW, I've gone on and on...

Craig

 

[upnorthcyclist]

Hi Craig,

Looks like you've got it covered!

I, too, got tired of my DSLR awhile back - I still use it, it's a nice camera with a versatile lens but I found that I was shooting literally hundreds of images and only keeping a few - and those few, I was screwing around endlessly in software for these perfect, magazine-type shots and not really enjoying it much. I dug out my old SRT-102 at some point, got it all fixed up, and started shooting much more carefully. I'm having a lot more fun with film these days.

Funny you should mention the Canonet. About the time I started getting back into film, I got interested in rangefinder cameras. I bought about a half-dozen of them, all cheap, and got pretty good at repairing and cleaning them up. The QL17 GIII is my favorite of the bunch and I used it quite a bit for snapshots.

I still play around with the rangefinders but, about a year ago, I got a bug for an XD-11. I found a real nice one. I bought a few Generation II Rokkors, with the 49mm filters, including the 35mm 2.8., 50mm 1.4 and the teeny 135mm 3.5. These lenses were remarkably inexpensive. The XD-11 is a much lighter camera than the SRT-102 and the Gen II lenses are also very light. The XD-11 with the 35mm lens is actually a package not all that much bigger or heavier than the Canonet (and actually smaller than some of the rangefinders of the era, like the Konica Auto S2) and is a very sophisticated camera with, I think, great ergonomics. I use this setup now for most of my more casual shooting and like it a lot.

The SRT-102 balances better with longer or heavier lenses and I still shoot a lot with it - especially macro stuff, which I enjoy playing around with. I have the MC-X 100mm macro, which is an amazing lens.

I shoot mostly Velvia 50, and (talk about a Luddite) project it for viewing. Projecting slides is a real test of the quality of lenses and focusing, and all the Rokkors do a darn nice job - I'm usually the limiting factor!

One lens that I can fully recommend, that might fill a gap in your kit, is the MC or MD 135mm 2.8 4/4. This a a great performer and can still be found at reasonable prices. I find this focal length versatile and the lens, while heavy for its size, isn't huge.

Mike

 

[xo-whiplock]

Hey Upnorthcyclist, I've been away for awhile and frankly have a hard time keeping track of my posts :O)

I have an XE-7 that came with the 58/1.2 which I received just 2 days ago (Monday). To my great satisfaction, the lens was in perfect condition. The camera works, but needs the ISO knob repaired, as it wiggles and causes light meter needle to fluctuate, and read one stop too high. On another thread, Garry's is the shop it's going to get refurbished. I have the MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135/2.8 that came with one of my SRT101's. It's like new, and can't see getting the MD, even though it's most likely a better lens. I should be fine with the old PF.

At the moment, I'm trying to reconcile between my SRT/MC stuff and my X-700/MD stuff. I basically have mostly MC lenses at the moment. Here's a list of what I have acquired through local purchases and won at on-line auctions, or bought at KEH:

Minolta SRT101 Ver. 1 (#1118357) Missing thumb knob.
Minolta SRT101 Ver. 2 (#3602806)
Minolta SRT201 (#1655048) Missing thumb knob.
*Minolta SRT101(Black)
*Minolta SRT102 (Like new condition)
*Minolta X-700 w/MD1 Motor Drive and grip/360PX Flash
*Minolta XE-7 (black)

Lenses:
*MC W.Rokkor-X 28/2.0 (10/9 floating element)(55)
MC Vivitar 28/2.5 Auto Wide-Angle (#22346096) (Kino/Kiron) (62mm)
MC Auto W.Rokkor-SG 28/3.5 (#1105901) Broken
MC W.Rokkor-SG 28/3.5 (#1654424)
MC W.Rokkor-SG 28/3.5 (need to get number)
*MC W.Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 (#1444637)
MC W.Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 (#1475069)
MC W.Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 (#4568596) Lens fungus.
*MC MACRO Rokkor-QF 50/3.5 (#2520375) w/Minolta “for MC Macro Rokkor 50mm” adapter.
*MC Rokkor-X 50/1.4 (55)
MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4 (#5505524)
*MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4 (#5898705)
MC Rokkor-PF 58/1.4 (#5878232)
*MC Rokkor-PG 58/1.2 (need to get number)
*MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135/2.8 (#1155764)
MC Vivitar 135/2.8 (Komine) (#28323598)
*MC Tele Rokkor-QF 200/3.8 (#1447608)
MC Vivitar 75-205/3.8 (Kino/Kiron) (#22148017)
MC Vivitar 85-205/3.8 (Kino/Kiron) (#22443259)
MC Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5 Macro (67)
*MD 28/2.8 (49)
*MD Rokkor-X 50/1.4 (49)
MD Rokkor-X 50/1.7 (49)
MD 50/2.0 (49)
*MD 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro Zoom
MD Gemini 35-70mm

My First Camera:
*M42 Sears TLS (Ricoh Singlex TLS) black
*Auto Sears 28/2.8 (#22624) 0.3m close focus (very sharp).
*Auto Sears 55/1.4 (#291986) (very sharp)
*44-2 58/2.0 (#903386) (very sharp)
*Vivitar 135/2.8 (M42)

I may have missed one or two lenses, but the ones with the asterisk are the ones I'm keeping. The other stuff came with camera/lens auctions and not sure about any of them yet. I have yet to test most of this stuff to see which lenses shine and which ones don't that much. I'm very much in the process of weeding out the good from the bad and keeping what shows to be the best fit for me, and gives the best shots. The one thing that's slowing me down right now is lack of funds to devote to my hobby. I have setup an Ebay account to sell some of this stuff, but have to wait awhile before I start selling off any of it.

After I sell some stuff, I can put the proceeds toward getting one more lens... the MD 85/2.

Craig