Minolta 300 4.5 Rokkor lens?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by RobertS, May 31, 2013.

  1. RobertS

    RobertS Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 28, 2011
    In looking for my first legacy lens (for my E-PL2), and specifically wanting a tele prime, I was recently offered a Minolta 300mm 4.5 IN CM MC tele Rokkor HF (72) lens. Having not even seen it yet, it sounds like it might be freakishly large for my little m4/3rds camera, causing it to be difficult to hold, and too unbalanced for tripod use. Is this true? But if not, just how good of a lens (sharpness and color) is this lens? Any other comments would be appreciated as well. Thanks.
  2. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here Subscribing Member

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Offered as in given as a gift? Or offered as in a sale?

    They are pretty heavy and require a steady hand/tripod. If using tripod make sure the lens has a tripod collar, DO NOT mount your camera directly to the tripod with that lens on. Honestly I would practice with other manual lenses first before jumping into that one.
  3. Captmatt

    Captmatt Mu-43 Rookie

    Apr 7, 2013
    Homer, Alaska
    Matt Wilkens
    Too big

    I tried a 300mm Zuiko, which is a decent lens, but too much of a hassle to carry around. None of my shots came out super sharp without a tripod, so it pretty much defeats the purpose of the system. The 45-200mm lenses available for around 200, and the 45-150 ones for almost half that are way better alternatives for super telephoto. On the other hand the 50mm rokkor 1.7, I found for 3.75 at Salvation Army, is a dandy and works great as a portrait lens.
  4. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 30, 2010
    A lens like that will need some careful handling. I used a 300mm f4.5 Nikkor on my Olympus E-510 DSLR for a while until I was able to afford a Zuiko 70-300mm. As others have said, it really needed a tripod and I regularly just missed focus, but once I got focus spot on it was really sharp. I would imagine the Minolta would perform in much the same way but if it is really cheap it may be worth a punt.
  5. phrenic

    phrenic Mu-43 All-Pro

    Sep 13, 2010
    Well in fairness, the 45-150 isn't really in the same class as a 300mm if you're going to do something like shoot wildlife. And even the 45-200mm is quite a bit shorter. Now if you compare it to the Panny 100-300 at what 500-600$ retail or the Oly 75-300mm (isnt it still 700$+?) puts it into a very different value proposition compared to a legacy 300mm. I have considered the 300-400mm legacy options myself. Definitely not pleasant to use without a tripod though, and it would likely outweigh the rest of your kit. Still, there's no native option at a comparable price.
  6. RobertS

    RobertS Mu-43 Regular

    Feb 28, 2011
    I hear you. All of you. Thanks for your replies. I'll pass on this legacy lens in favor of some smaller (in size) options. This is what I thought, and this is what I wanted to hear. You did good.
  7. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    You will need to either hold it by the lens itself, or tripod-mount it by the lens itself. Basically, think of it as the camera being your fingers, and the lens being your entire forearm down to the palm of your hand. Fortunately, it has a tripod socket on the lens barrel
  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.