Has anyone used the Minolta MC 58mm f/1.2?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by hmpws, May 15, 2010.

  1. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand
    I am getting very tempted to do some portrait with a fast lens (as in faster than the pancake), so I digged around and photos from the lens seemed to be quite sweet.

    I can't really afford the 45mm PL for a while. Also my past experience with the Minolta 50mm left me much to be desired.

    What do you guys think? (I kind of lust the Hexanon 57mm too.. but I don't want to buy another adapter.)
     
  2. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    the adapter is about 40 bucks , for some of my lenses the adapter and lens never part

    i have the hex 58 1.2.... minoltas can be good, or not so like nikon i guess
    i believe that there is a list on minolta manual glass on the internet linked somewhere on the forum
     
  3. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    another list with opinions etc
     
  4. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    MC58mm test

    Wide open, ofcourse. The lens is a bit soft wide open. I will try some more tomorrow, to compare to the Canon LTM 50/1,2, the Steinheil Quinon 50/2 and the Minolta MC 50/3,5 macro. I must say the Minolta 58 is a big and heavy beast! A bit too big for a small camera like the GF1.
    These are straight jpegs.
     

    Attached Files:

  5. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand
    Are you talking about the Rokkor Files?


    @laptopprob
    The bokeh is awesome!!! Were these from a GF1?

    It is definitely going to offset the balance on the GF1 but I have had fun with the 135mm (similar weight), so this will probably work too. In saying that, I am going to wait around and see what price I get on it and settle for the lesser 58mm f/1.4 for now.
     
  6. Rich M

    Rich M Mu-43 Veteran

    315
    Mar 2, 2010
    I have shot the Minolta 58/1.2 and own the 58/1.4. I have to say that for as beautiful as the glass in these two lenses looks, I am a little disappointed in both.

    Don't get me wrong, they are nice lenses.....and sharp. Where I find them lacking is in contrast and saturation. I have to do a little more tweaking in LR as compared to other lenses.

    IMO, the 58/1.2 is not worth what you see them going for on the auction sites.

    I am a firm convert in Konica glass.....I think the 40/1.8 and the 50/1.7 are the best deals going. I am lucky enough to own the 57/1.2 and it is (as Brian Mosley has stated) sublime.

    That all being said, if I were to start building a group of primes today for :43:, I would focus almost solely on the Contax Zeiss lenses in the C/Y mount. They are mid-range affordable and just amazing glass....sharp, saturated and with a nice contrast. My CZ 28/2.8 rarely comes off my camera.....the 35/2.8 is just as good and the 50/1.4 is wonderful. All affordable.....less by half than the Minolta 58/1.2.

    Just an opinion......R
     
  7. kahren

    kahren Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Mar 21, 2010
    my 58/1.2 rokkor was awesome on the 5d, but i would never mount it on e-pl1 type body, its just way too huge and kills the whole point of m4/3 imo. i also think that the m4/3 cameras have too high of pixel density for such glass, as is shown above in the "soft" pictures wide open.

    imo the hexanon 57mm 1.2 looks nicer on the m4/3 then the rokkor. if you must have one of these type of lenses i would go for the 57mm

    my advice is to seriously consider something like a cosmicar/pentax 50mm 1.4 that can be adapted to be used on m4/3 for much less $ and sharper pictures wide open. i have a few sample shots from this lens in the "adapted image thread" of this forum and what the lens looks like on e-pl1 in the "Show us what your adapted lens looks like on your camera" thread.

    good luck with whatever you end up going with :)
     
  8. chasm

    chasm Mu-43 Veteran

    262
    Mar 2, 2010
    I have the MC 58mm f1.2 & adored it when I was using film, but it is awkward on a GF1. However, I've just managed to track down the later MD 50mm f1.2 which only weighs 315g & it feels perfectly balanced (and really not heavy) when mounted with my Novoflex adapter. I'll probably get around to posting some test shots sometime in 2016 but in the meantime check out the comparison on The Rokkor Files!
     
  9. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand
    They do look pretty good, how did you go about converting it?
     
  10. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    Minolta 58 and Canon 50 at 1,2

    Here's more testing with the GF1. No lab test, so focus point will be shifted. But it's often about the look rather than sharpness. I might do a pure sharpness test later on.
    First: f1,2 wide open. The Minolta 58 focusses down to 60cm, I added about 4mm extension ring on the Canon LTM 50 in order to get about the same fov.
    Full size and crop.
    Striking difference in colour! The canon is too cold and showing donuts.
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  11. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    f2

    The two posted above now at f2, plus the Sonnar Quinon LTM, also at f2.
    The Canon donuts are full circles now, like on the Quinon. The Minolta still does magical cream. Crops show another story though...
    Pentax 110 zoom added. Brrr. Not for this use!
     

    Attached Files:

  12. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    f2 crops.

    Chromatics? Changes a lot with aperture.
    Pentax 110 Zoom added, even though it's 2,5. This lens should not be used for this purpose!
     

    Attached Files:

  13. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    f4

    Minolta MC macro added.
    Strangely, the 58mm's colour is warmer than all the others. The 50mm Macro is colder, unlike Minolta characteristics.
     

    Attached Files:

  14. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    Verdict so far? There is nothing like the MC58!
     
  15. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    thats the one , bravo
     
  16. kahren

    kahren Mu-43 Regular

    141
    Mar 21, 2010
    i used a c mount to m4/3 adapter, then further machining that to work with that particular lens. to make sure i get it to work with infinity focus. i can send you some pictures or i can make a thread here on how to do this, as it is too involving to post in this thread :)
     
  17. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand
    @laptopprob
    Thanks for the comparison shots! I will need to take time and look over them carefully :).

    I wouldn't want to impose the task on you! I am still not sure which lens I am getting yet after all.
     
  18. laptoprob

    laptoprob Mu-43 Regular Charter Member

    37
    Jan 28, 2010
    If you want more crops, I made more. Also compared the kitzoom, but it's only f5,6.
    Rokkorfiles did a great sharpness test. Maybe I will try to compare my collection in a similar way. Or a very lively background test. But I'm sure the MC58 will come out softer and creamier in every test. It wasn't optimised for sharpness.
    My MC58 is hacked into an AF mount. I will add the chip soon. Then RJ's new and improved adapter to m4/3.
     
  19. hmpws

    hmpws Mu-43 Regular

    177
    Apr 24, 2010
    Auckland, New Zealand