Jump to content

two Minolta ROKKOR 135mm - F3.5 vs. F2.8


pawel_kazmierczyk1

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...