Minolta lens weirdness

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by OzRay, Mar 30, 2010.

  1. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    I received my Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f2.5 lens yesterday, but it doesn't look anything like an MC lens. Here's a photo of the MC variant:

    [​IMG]

    And here's a photo of what mine looks like:

    [​IMG]

    The odd thing is that my lens has MC on the front instead of the MD and every Minolta lens site that I've searched shows nothing like my lens.

    The lens is in excellent condition, but I just can't fathom the discrepancy.

    I also received my Minolta MD 50mm f3.5 macro lens and Minolta extension tube (in a case), both in mint condition. There are some outstanding bargains happening with Rokkor lenses at the moment.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  2. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    Get some pics up using your lenses Ray! I have a couple of Rokkors on the way myself and am looking forward to seeing how they work out on the G1.

    Interesting conundrum you describe. I might do a little digging myself on your problem... I am wondering if it is the difference between early and late production runs. Or maybe you have an incorrectly badged MD. Or maybe a one of a kind, a real gem!

    Bokeh D
     
  3. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    Real Name:
    John
    I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that "MC" on a Rokkor doesn't stand for "Multicoated" as you would expect, but rather for "Meter Coupled." This suggests that it is an older lens produced around the time of the SRT series of bodies that originated in the late 1960's.
     
  4. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    Real Name:
    John
  5. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    Yes, the MC/MD designation refers to the meter coupling. This site provides some good information on Minolta lenses and the more I read in it, the odder my lens seems: http://minolta.rokkor.de/minoltalenses.htm.

    Note: Mine also is a Rokkor-X, but that's supposed to be a designation indicating it's a US lens. Lenses for sale in all other countries didn't have the Rokkor-X designation.

    I hope to post some images soon, weather permitting.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  6. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    Real Name:
    John
  7. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend Charter Member

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Real Name:
    Ray, not Oz
    The best that I can find is this:

    That's what this lens doesn't have, the optical design designation, like PF, PG etc. So it must be one of the MC lenses that just preceded the MD line.

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  8. goldenlight

    goldenlight Mu-43 All-Pro Charter Member

    Jan 30, 2010
    Essex
    Real Name:
    John
    I think that must be right, Ray, in the absence of finding anything more specific. I've been having another quick Google and I didn't realize just how many variations of Rokkors were produced! Zuikos seem much more straightforward. :smile:

    Never mind, if it's a Rokkor it should perform well. Looking forward to seeing some pics!
     
  9. BansheeVulture

    BansheeVulture New to Mu-43

    3
    May 10, 2014
    This is an old thread by now, but consider this; Minolta has been manufacturing cameras since 1928 and went into making SLR with lenses since 1958 and in comparison Olympus started with 35mm SLR cameras in 1971 with the now long forgotten Olympus FLT with Practica/Pentax thread mount and in 1972 Olympus produced their first OM mount lens with the launch of Olympus OM-1. That is some 14 years later than Minolta, and then Olympus sort of went out of making traditional lenses with the Olympus OM77 or OM-707 elsewhere AF camera in 1988 as the bridge cameras with fixed lenses replaced them in 1989.
    So that makes roughly about 16 years making the traditional OM lenses versus 48 years for Minolta as they sold their camera business to Sony. I'm guessing if Olympus had been in the business of making OM lenses for the same period, they would have gone through some refinement and changes over the years.