Latest additions to the Minoltarium

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by jarl, Oct 19, 2013.

  1. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    Oct 30, 2012
    This week I finally made the decision to buy a Minolta 28mm f2.8 I've decided I need, and found an -apparently- decent one at Since the shipping would cost $10 no matter how many lenses I ordered I decided to add a couple more toys... and to test my luck in the process.

    So... beside the "bargain" 28 (celtic) for $17, I got an "ugly" 200mm f4 for $11 and an "ugly" 28-85mm for $3 (yep... not a typo). And boy were these things ugly :/ Now I know what "UG" means.

    In any case, the main reason to buy these two was to practice cleaning them... except I have not received the cleaning supplies yet. But since these things look so bad, who cares?

    I started with the zoom: removed the front group (three screws and a piece of tape... AFTER marking the orientation of the components) and was able to remove the mold spot with a q-tip moistened in LCD screen cleaner (it evaporates quickly and doesn't seem to leave too much of a film behind). Cleaned the lens a bit more with a microfiber cloth, reassembled, and voila.

    The 200 was in far worse shape. I started by removing the rearmost two elements (one of them had a fungus spot) but it didn't clean *that* well. I'll need to buy some n-heptane and try again. I removed the front group (1 tiny set screw is all it takes) and found that 99% of the fungus was on the (now exposed) rear surface, and once again the q-tip+LCD screen cleaner removed all of it. There's a little bit of fungus left on the front surface of that lens, but I won't touch it until I get the cleaning stuff. I will be doing some tests when we get some sun.

    So... the conclusions of the day -and what I wanted to communicate with this post- are:
    - Keh's "ugly" lenses are an alternative after all. I sort of knew it, but it's nice to confirm it once again
    - Looks like -at least on these two lenses, but I suspect it's the same for most of them- the fungus is located mostly on the back of the front group. Since it's normally the one that moves the most, it makes sense for it to be the most exposed to retained moisture
    - No matter how bad it looks, treat every lens like it was a keeper. I wasn't careful because I though there was no hope for the lenses, and now I regret it
    - For a few minutes I thought this was the lesson I needed to stop buying used glass. (un)Fortunately it resulted to be exactly the opposite :) 

    I looks like the 28 is a little soft. I'll have to buy another one to confirm :wink:

    (Incidentally, now I have four zooms covering almost the same focal length: a Tokina SD 28-70, a Minolta MD 35-70mm with non-constant aperture, but with macro; a Minolta MD 35-70mm constant aperture, but without macro (by far the best of the group) and now a 28-85mm. One of these days I'll test them and keep just one. Or two :wink: )

    Attached Files:

  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey Photographer

    Jul 9, 2012
    Bellingham, WA
    Mike Aubrey
    Very nice. That's looking really nice.

    I recently "saved" a Canon FD 135mm f/2. The seller on ebay had not been honest in his description. "Fungus on the front element" turned into "fungus on the front element, fog on the next element in and fungus in the center elements just in front of the aperture and fungus on the inside of the rear element and and everywhere inside the mount itself. It took a lot of work. But cleared the majority of it out. I had to be content with simply killing the stuff in the middle with UV light (which works, by the way, its also how I purify water while backpacking with a steripen--awesome). I'm not going to try to get inside there. But the front two element and the rear were recovered nicely. And its an excellent lens.

    A bath of 50-50 water & vinegar does wonders if you don't have more "appropriate" cleaning supplies, too.
  3. SpicySaffron

    SpicySaffron New to Mu-43

    Nov 7, 2013
    First post here, but I have to say I'm rocking some MD primes on my Lumix G1 as well. I currently own a 28 mm f2.8, and a 50 mm f1.7. The 28 mm is great, and the images it produces are great for a lens with no advanced coatings or optics meant specifically for the camera. I've tested out the 50 mm a little, but it has a gummed up focus when you focus to infinity, so I may end up replacing it (my local camera repair tech said the cost to fix it would be more than buying a new 50 mm) I love both since my 28 effectively becomes a normal lens, and my 50 becomes a nice portrait lens, which in terms of practicality is far better than my kit zoom. I can live without autofocus :) 
  4. dadadude

    dadadude Mu-43 Regular

    Jun 12, 2013
    San Carlos, CA
    Yes, Minolta put out some great glass. I highly recommend the MC 58mm 1.4. Can be had for $50 or less.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    I got my 58mm Rokkor for about $20 bucks. :thumbup:

    My favorite is still MD 50mm f1.4. Use it all the time, fantastic portrait lens.
    • Like Like x 1
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.