pawel_kazmierczyk1 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 while I'm at it: does anyone have an opinion on the quality of Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 135mm/3,5 versus Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 135mm/2.8 ? The two lenses seem to have difference diameters (49 vs. 55 mm) and the the latter lens is about twice as expensive as the 3.5. I do not have a strong preference for neither. Aside from the half-stop difference, is there a difference in quality/ lens build / picture sharpness ? I will use the lens for portrait work mainly,and I'm curious to know the opinion of other users. Pawel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason hopper Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 The 135/2.8 has 6 glass elements in 5 groups, the second pair of elements are cemented together. The 135/3.5 has 4 glass elements in 4 groups, none cemented together. (A glass element is an internal lens piece.) The 3.5 would be lighter than the 2.8, but possibly maybe prone to minor aberrations. Except for under extreme image enlargement, it's possible you'll not notice any image quality differences. Likely you'll notice the the weight difference and less expensive filters available for the 49mm front. Durability (re lens build) depends on generation of lenses like in previous question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david_bedell Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 "and less expensive filters available for the 49mm front." They're not less expensive if all your other lenses take 55mm filters. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
douglas_green1 Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 I'd say equal quality. If you need the speed, and don't mind the added weight and cost get the f2.8. Otherwise, get the f3.5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 My experience with Minolta 135mm f/3.5 lenses: MC Rokkor-X 135mm f/3.5: (despite a nasty and big mark on the back element) really really sharp. Since it had a 55mm filter size, and no built in hood, I gave it away (I had bought it for $20 Canadian) Minolta MD 135mm f/3.5: sharp, but not as sharp as the MC version. Its tiny overall size, and 49mm filter size (my 28/2.8, 50/1.7 and 85/2 all use 49mm filters) make this lens a highly portable one, therefore it sees a lot of use. In public, unsuspecting eyes will have no idea that you are using a telephoto, and candids will be easier. Contrast, in my opinion is better than the MC version, and the built in hood is a great plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taner Posted March 24, 2004 Share Posted March 24, 2004 Minolta MD 135mm f/3.5 wide open - Kodak TMY <p><img src="http://www3.sympatico.ca/askintaner/photonet_post/Irwin-12.jpg"></p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sknowles Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 I agree with the words about the MD f3.5 lens, it's a great street photography lens, small and compact with the 49mm filter (MC version slight larger with a 55mm filter), and you only lose about a half f-stop. I don't know about the f2.8 lens, I have the f2 version which is an excellent lens for those occasions where a fast lens is necessary. If you're doing portrait photography, why not use the 85mm or 100mm lenses? Both MD 85mm (f1.7 or f2) lenses and the MC/MD 100mm f2.5 lenses are excellent lenses. The MC 100mm f2 lens is also excellent, but not very common (only made a few years in the early 1970's?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ericd Posted March 25, 2004 Share Posted March 25, 2004 My Md 2,8 is simply great. I don't know about the 3,5. I would suggest to take the 2,8 for portrait the extra aperture is good to have out-of-focus backgrounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_svensson Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I have an MC Celtic 135/3.5, which AFAIK is optically identical to the MD 3.5. I also have what I think is an MD Rokkor-X 135/2.8. The faster lens is markedly better wide open, but from f5.6 and smaller I don't really see a difference. With either one, you may want an extension ring to shoot tightly framed portraits, since they don't focus very close. The 2.8 doesn't render out-of-focus backgrounds as nicely as the 85/1.7, but the so-called "bokeh" isn't jarring. Haven't looked closely at the 3.5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peter_svensson Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 I should add that my 3.5 lens has 49mm filter thread. The 2.8 lens has 55 mm thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now