Rokkor 45mm 2.8???

[david_clark4]

Does any one know if this lens is any good? The 45mm 2.8 Rokkor

Chlyoko LTM. Thanks

[frank granovski]

Never heard of it.

[robert_meyers]

In general, Minolta has a long histroy of good lenses. I have heard good things about their LTM lenses, but never seen one. For a reasonable price, I would pick one up in a heart beat.

[andrew_hall1]

I believe it's Tessar derivative. Try translating this page (e.g. altavista ,etc): http://www.ne.jp/asahi/geo/foto/dangi44.html

[andrew_hall1]

Hmmm, it says 5 elements in 3 groups, more like a Heliar then...

[peter_evans4]

<p>I shan't repeat what's pretty clear from <a href="http://members.aol.com/dcolucci/minolta.htm">Dan Colucci's page</a>.</p><p>A fleabay auction linked from the bottom of that page boasts that the lens is hard to find. Like most such boasts on fleabay, this is untrue: <a href="http://www.kevincameras.com/">Kevin</a> usually has at least one, moderately priced. (Right now he has a "99% mint" example for the same price as the fleabay "buy it now". I know which I'd regard as more reliable.).</p><p>It's compact. To change aperture, you have to grasp the aperture ring with one hand and the focus ring with the other; otherwise an attempt to change aperture will refocus. Of course hoods for this lens aren't so easy to find: my own is a push-on for some species of "Pigeon" (Shinano) camera. A push-on hood is a fall-off hood, which doesn't help (especially as I have no spare).</p><p>Optical quality is pretty good but nothing stunning. To be honest I haven't used mine much: I just noticed that they were interesting looking, cheap in the youess, and about twice the price here, so I thought I had nothing to lose by getting one from the youess. I've read that the later 50/2.8 is better. (I've also recently read that the Canon 50/2.8 is first-rate from 2.8 all the way down to f16 or whatever.)</p><p>Sorry not to be so helpful.</p><p>A comment above: <em>Never heard of it.</em></p><p>Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.</p>

[frank granovski]

As I wrote, I have never heard of this lens. Now I have.

[peter_evans4]

<p>Frank, It had never occurred to me that anybody would be interested to learn whether <em>I</em> had heard of something, or that threads such as this would be improved by such comments. But perhaps I've been wrong. Or then again perhaps it depends on the person, and <em>your</em> every thought -- e.g. about the pristineness of this or that toy of yours, or what has been placed on or demoted from your shopping list -- merits publicizing on Photo-Net and storing for the forseeable future on its servers.</p>

[frank granovski]

I never heard of that lens until now.

[jim_thompson6]

Danke Herr Wittgenstein!

[frank granovski]

Ochsenschwanzsuppe mit Sauerkraut schmeckt gut.

[jtk]

I've used two Minolta LTM lenses, 35 and 135...softer than Serenars. Minolta's SLR lenses were good and bad, depending: for example the "Celtic" versions were very soft.

[peter_evans4]

<p>The review on pp. 154–5 of <a href="http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4879560618/">this book</a> (first of what are now three volumes) tells us that it tends to flare and that contrast is not so high, but that distortion is unusually low and that even wide open it's very sharp all the way to the corners.</p>

[kymtman]

I own the camera in the above link, the Model F with the super Rokkor lens and believe me it's SHARP, and very rare.