MD Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 : filter size 49mm and 55mm

hello group,

 

After buying the MD 85mm f/2 and MD 24mm f/2.8 I am interested in a MD 50mm

f/1.4 lens.

 

I have a question: what is the difference between the MD 50mm f/1.4 lenses with

49mm and 55mm filter size? Are they the same, optically?

 

bye, Jeroen

Look out for the MD 50/1.7. I tested about a dozen different standard minolta rokkor/mc/md lenses at 1.2 +1.4+1.7 and f2, and this one is simply the best.

Hi Jeroen -

 

I'm not an expert, though i will try to post a link to one!!!!

 

http://members.aol.com/xkaes/5014.htm

 

That page seems pretty complete and is one of my favorites for data tabulation.

 

Enjoy your reading!

 

fm

I had never seen Joe McGloin's web pages beforethanks, <em>Frequent Traveler</em>. There's

a lot of good info there.</p>

 

<p>Another Minolta MD "expert" would be Antony Hands. His website is <a

href="http://www.rokkorfiles.com/">here</a>. His lens reviews are <a

href="http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens%2520Reviews.html">here</a>.

Helle Jeroen,

 

 

The "standard" Rokkor Md 50mm f/1,4 lens (with 47? angle of view and 0,45 m in closest focus) has 7 optic elements organised in 6 groups and a minimum f/16 aperture. Its 49 mm filter size was set on in order to save weight(this lens has only 235 gr.)and to provide a better hand working facility. As a later Md model, it is said that this lens has a better coating, but more plastic pieces inside.

 

Filter size speaking, the 49 mm model is unique and it can not be (directly) used on other manual or AF lenses (except manual Minolta). From this point of view, the 55 mm size is a lot more suitable if you have two SLR systems.

 

best regards,

 

J.A.

"Filter size speaking, the 49 mm model is unique and it can not be (directly) used on other manual or AF lenses (except manual Minolta). From this point of view, the 55 mm size is a lot more suitable if you have two SLR systems."

 

The 49mm filter size is also very common in the manual SMC Pentax k-mount lenses!

Ivan: I've got the MD 50mm f/1.7, and a MD-rokkor f/1.7. I've got the rokkor first, and then I have read somewhere the plain MD is the best (yahoo group?, or here?), so I bought a mint one real cheap. It was probably your test... ;-)

 

So it all comes down to the use of filters, and maybe flair resistance? I've got for both sizes UV and skylight filters, and for 49mm red-orange-yellow filters, and a 55mm polar.

Update: I have bought an early MD rokkor (the text "made in japan" at the front is different from late MD rokkors). 55mm filter size, my two f/1.7 are 49mm. I am curious about the performance.<div></div>

I have the 50/1.4 MD as well as older 50/1.4 MD Rokkor-X, MC Rokkor PG and even older 58/1.4 MC lenses. The MD has slightly better coating but I don't think it's sharper than the MD Rokkor-X. They are both very good. I should say that I don't have either version of the f/1.2 standard lens (58 or 50) but my vote for the sharpest Minolta standard lens is also the 50/1.7 MD. It sells for very little now and must be as sharp as any other standard lens from Minolta or any other company.

This test from Focus photo magazine shows (source: PaulFVS) that the plain MD version is sharper than the rokkors. But it's just a test, right? On yahoo people claim the old MC is sharpest (center). And rokkorfiles has tested them also, not much difference. I think it's nice to own at least 1 f/1.4 lens.<div></div>

correction: the figure shows that the plain MD is sharper than MD rokkor, not MC rokkor.

My new f/1.4 just arrived, I have to say it's a beautiful big piece of glas. Looks good at the XD-7 too!

Jeroen, common consensus also says that the 50mm/1.4 MC Rokkor-X is a superior lens to the older (not as well coated) 58mm/1.4 MC Rokkor. However, for the two individual samples I owned (my original 50mm I bought in 1974 and a 58mm I bought used much later (>2000)), the 58mm was much sharper at f/1.4, f/2 and f/2.8. I didn't test higher than that. In the 58mm, astimatism & coma in the corners was reduced, spherical abberation in the center was reduced, and vignetting (fall-off) was reduced. This test was done using astrophotos so I cannot comment about flare or ghosting.

 

All this says is that the variations from sample to sample may be greater than from series to series. But check out the 58mm/1.4 anyway; they're cheap. If you get a good one, great, if not, who cares!

I've got some pictures back, shot with the MD-rokkor f/1.4. It seems alright. I shot some brick walls and the photo's are sharp en crispy. Color looks good.

 

Anyway, Shooting at f/1.4 - f/2 is challenging with the narrow DOF. It's smaller than I thought for objects at close range, only a few centimeter. And shooting in low-light is fun. A very interesting result is that the pictures are still bright, even shot at the end of the day (twilight). I thought they would look a bit "dull" colored.

<a href=" title="Photo Sharing"><img src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/179/463412836_44ba70e694.jpg" width="500" height="332" alt="French Bulldog" /></a>

 

50/1.4 Rokkor-MC

oops - probably shot at f1.4 or f2