1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

OK, who's got Minolta experience? Just got some....

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by tanngrisnir3, Nov 30, 2011.

  1. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    over the Thanksgiving holiday, and here are the highlights. I'd appreciate any input anyone has as to how well these specific lenses work in M4/3.

    I'm ordering this today: Amazon.com: Fotodiox Lens Mount Adapter, Minolta MD, MC, Rokkor Lens to MFT Micro 4/3 Four Thirds System Camera Mount Adapter, for Olympus Pen E-PL1, E-P2, Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, G2, GH2, GF1, GH1 G10: Camera & Photo

    A. Rokkor X 100-200. Long, funny looking, and while well used, it's in good shape. Nevertheless, I understand that zooms work less well on M4/3, so I don't know how great it will be.f

    B. 2 of the 50mm 1.7 Heard great things about these.

    C. 50mm 3.5 Macro

    D. 28mm (forget the f-stop)

    E. 135 f2.8 prime

    F. 135 f2.0 prime

    REALLY looking forward to playing around with the big primes, and half the fun will probably be finding creative ways to use the equivalent of relatively fast 270mm equivalent primes in landscape, but a lot of what I do is up in the mountains, so it shouldn't be too tough. That, and I've never shot anything macro before, so I'm rather excited to be able to look down rather than up all the time.

    Any experience anyone might have with these in this format would be most welcome.
     
  2. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    :hail:

    I've wanted one of those for a while. Check out the Rokkor files review.

    135mm-f2-with-body.

    I'm sure that the f/2.8 version is more practical (much smaller), but that lens just looks like fun. I have several MD lenses, but none of the ones that you've listed. Minolta made good glass.

    Edit: I just realized that I do have one that you listed, the 135mm f/2.8, but it's the Celtic (cheaper) version, which I don't normally buy (I stick to the MD's.)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Overall, Minolta Rokkor lenses are great; certainly no worse than any of their competitors (Nikon, Canon, Konica, Pentax, etc). The lenses are truly as capable as any piece of glass you'd want to put in front of your sensor.

    A. It's not that zooms don't work as well as primes on m4/3; it is that zooms are more complex: they require more moving parts which introduces less strict tolerances, and require more glass elements to accomplish their goals. This makes them noticeably poorer-performing than a fixed focal length lens, unless you have a no-compromises, all-out design like the Nikon 14-24mm (of which the downsides then become size, price, maximum aperture, and very exposed front element). If you look at almost any lens, the fixed focal length will perform better. The much-maligned 17mm Olympus for example, while not that great for a fixed length lens, still performs better than even Olympus' newest version, Type R 14-42mm. Still, they're useful; I just made a thread about a 100-500mm lens that I had in my closet, and I'm happy enough with it, for what it is.

    B. 50mm lenses are a dime a dozen, and they're all great. Why two? You can only have one lens on your camera at a time, so there is no point in having multiple redundant lenses. Are you assuming that one may not be performing as well because it's beat up? You might have wanted to get the faster f/1.4 version, but you'll see for yourself if the depth of field is small enough with this lens. If so, then you made the right choice, because the f/1.7 lens is smaller, lighter, and cheaper.

    C. There's a saying in photography that there hasn't been a bad macro lens made. Even the cheaper third-party lenses give respectable performance. The 50mm f/3.5 is a great lens, and compared to the price of the Leica 45mm macro, I think you'll be very happy with the price/performance ratio.

    D. Good lens, 28mm lenses tend to be much cheaper than 24mm lenses, but you are slightly longer than normal here. m4/3 has a diagonal of 22.5mm, so if you don't mind your normal lens having a slightly telephoto angle of view, go for it! Heck, that's pretty much how Konica users have been for generations, using that 57mm f/1.4 or 57mm f/1.7 lens! No wrong answer here; it's all personal preference.

    E. and F. Again, why the redundancy? Do you want the f/2.8 version for when you're out and about and want a more compact lens that will fit in your bag? I'd say you may want to sell one of these and put that money towards another useful lens or accessory.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Just today I saw a Minolta 135/2 sold on eBay for 1200 Australian dollars, so you've got something there! Maybe it's a bit impractical on a µ4/3 camera, you'll most probably need a tripod to use it. I'd like to know how good it is, please tell us once you've tried it out!

    I have no experience with the 100-200/5.6. Just try it, it might surprise you. On a whim I bought a 75-150/4 zoom on a fair and it proves to be an excellent lens, I use it a lot but only on a tripod.

    Almost all 28mm Minolta's are decent performers. My guess is you've got a 28/2.8 which will be fine and personally I like 28mm a lot on µ4/3, it's a longish standard lens and can easily be used hand-held.

    The 50/3.5 macro is a gem, stopped down to f/5.6 it's razor sharp both close-up and at longer range. Very useful lens, serves as a combined macro and telephoto lens when you're out in the field.

    I have had 3 135/2.8's at one time or another, Rokkors and "plain MD" (i.e. no Rokkor designation, these were the later models). All were very sharp at f/4, wide-open they show slight amounts of purple fringing. For me (without IBIS) it's on the verge of being able to hand-hold it.

    The 50/1.7 is a fine lens, contrasty and sharp in the centre from f/2.8, and light and small, a joy to use. Corners get better towards f/5.6 but never become as good as the centre. Mind you, I'm quite critical about sharpness, I want to be able to make 12x18 prints from my pictures.

    In post-processing I always notice that the Minolta pics are just a touch yellower than the Panny native lenses. They also need some contrast improvements, I do that by bumping up the black slider; this is especially necessary for earlier lenses, but I guess you have fairly late models and these tend to be contrasty enough and also have the same colour signature between them; check with a grey card if you're picky about this.

    A bit depending on the lens, but in general it's a good idea to use the same aperture for focussing and shooting; for instance the 28mm is used best at f/5.6 also for focussing. Apart from this there's nothing special to be said about using them. Flick 'em on the adapter, set your camera to P or A mode and away you go.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Ack! You guys KILL me with the depth and quickness of you responses yet again!

    Thanks! This is exactly the kind of information I'm looking for.
     
  6. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Sorry for not being more clear: I received these lenses as gifts from family members who don't shoot anymore and were going to throw them away!

    That, and two Minolta bodies. My BIL's is sort of beat up but my mother's x-700 looks like it just came out of a display case. Perfect.
     
  7. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Thanks!

    The good thing for me is that I am almost genetically attached to a tripod, and have shot handheld maybe 3 times in my life.
     
  8. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    That must have been out of envy :biggrin:.
     
  9. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Someone had an early Christmas :wink:

    I have the 50/1.7, 50/3.5 Macro, 28/2.8 and the 135/2.8 all MDs. I have the most fun with the 50/1.7 and 135/2.8.

    Minoltas produce great colors, check them out in the adapted lenses photo threats!
     
  10. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Well, seeing as I have the 14-45 and Oly 40-150 now, including these Rokkors, that means that Xmas money is going to Canon L lenses, as my girlfriend is a semi-pro and shoots Canon.

    Sigh. Prices on some of those are not what I would call cheap.

    Still, I can't wait to try these bad boys out at Joshua Tree, the Salton Sea, White Mountains, Big Sur, Kings Canyon, you-name-it.

    Life is good and I can't complain.

    OH! That reminds me: most of these lenses have goofy old 1980s filters on them, mostly from Tiffen, labeled things like 'Haze Filter' and 'Sky Filter'.

    Do I assume correctly that these are Stone Age equivalents of what we now call "UV Filter" and "Polarizer Filter"? If so, I'll toss the 'Haze Filter's, but it will be interesting to see how polarizers have developed since, say, 1983.
     
  11. addieleman

    addieleman Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 5, 2010
    The Netherlands
    Ad
    Haze and Sky filters are much like UV-filters. IIRC, sky filters also warm up the colours a bit. You can recognize a polarizer filter by a) it's much darker than a UV-filter and b) the filter can be rotated when it's mounted on the lens.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Yep. I almost never take my circ-pols off my other two rigs. It will be interesting to see how these two hold up to todays tech.

    Two other lenses I overlooked are there, as well:

    45mm 2.8 and ANOTHER 135, but a 3.5. This 135 shows a lot of wear (and is earlier than the other two) as it's from my BIL and he's a cattle rancher who used it a lot out in the elements.

    Don't know why a 45/2.8 would be useful when there is the 50 1.7, but I'm looking forward to finding out.

    Again, thanks to all for the info!
     
  13. aw614

    aw614 Mu-43 Regular

    122
    Mar 19, 2011
    you sure its not the 45mm f/2.0 pancake?
     
  14. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    UV, Skylight and Haze Filters


    45mm f/2.8? Are you sure that it isn't a 45mm f/2.0? If so, it is useful because first of all, 45mm is almost perfectly normal (35mm film has a diagonal of 43mm), and also, the 45mm f/2.0 is a pancake lens. The advantages aren't going to be useful to you, but to a film user, it was.
     
  15. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Yes, it's definitely a 2.8, but the odd thing is it isn't mentioned in this rather extensive list of MF lenses.

    Minolta Manual Lenses

    Hmm.... research time.
     
  16. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Post up a picture, along with all of the specs written on the lens. Could it be a Leica-mount lens, from something like the CLE or 35? Is it tiny, with a different mount than anything else, or is it even a Minolta lens? If it is a Minolta MC or MD lens, then the aperture suggests something like a macro. Or, you're reading it wrong :p
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. carpandean

    carpandean Mu-43 Top Veteran

    827
    Oct 29, 2010
    Western NY
    It's a very early lens from first series of SR (which later became the MC, then MD, as features were added.)

    I use this list, which is quite extensive.
     
  18. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Yes, I think that may be it, but it looks MUCH newer than 1964 (or 1978) for that matter. It looks very similar to the 50mm 3.5 that came with it.

    When I get home tonight I'll take some pics of it and post them up.

    ** ON EDIT **

    It says "Rokkor" inside the lens, IIRC, if that makes any difference.
     
  19. shnitz

    shnitz Mu-43 Top Veteran

    989
    Aug 25, 2011
    Austin, TX
    Oh wow, I had never heard of this lens. It's probably a $500 lens then, as much a collector's item as anything else! Let me guess, same person that gave you the 135mm f/2? Found this about it:

    45mm f/2.8 Rokkor TD on SR-7 photo - Pete Ganzel photos at pbase.com

    KEH claims they'll give you $200 or more on trade-in for this lens! Definitely a collector's item.
     
  20. tanngrisnir3

    tanngrisnir3 Mu-43 Top Veteran

    594
    Oct 18, 2011
    Thanks! It just looks far, far newer than that, but it IS really small. Again, when I get home tonight, I'll post up a few pics.

    I sure wish it were that lens, but it just looks too modern.

    Thanks for all the help and deep knowledge to all!