28mm Minolta Rokkor What's Up With This Lens?

[tony_senzaorbi]

I was surfing the KEH website and they've got eight of these lenses

for the Leica M, ranging in price from $999 for Like New Minus with

Hood and Caps, down to $325 for Ugly (which it says will have marks or

fungus that will probably affect the pictures). Why so expensive?

Are these Minolta lenses that good?

[paul_neuthaler]

was prone to fungus? marks? -- a clean one is hard to find.

[stuart_richardson]

I am not familiar with the performance of the Minolta lens, but I would imagine it would be

hard pressed to beat the 28mm f/1.9 voigtlander, which is also cheaper and faster. It is said

to be better than anything before the current Elmarit and Summicron ASPH.

[jack_wilber]

This lens was designed to go with the Minolta CLE. Some of them were prone to developing white spots on the front element. You can read a summary of the problem on Stephen Gandy's website:

 

http://www.cameraquest.com/cle.htm

 

Scroll down towards the bottom of the page to see the lens and a discussion of the spotting issues. I would suspect the more expensive KEH examples are clean and the cheaper ones are white spotted.

 

I agree with Stuart, if you're looking for biggest bang for the buck in terms of optical performance for short money, the Voigtlander 28s are very hard to beat. They are stunningly good lenses.

[billc1]

Stay away from KEH at all costs. If you take this advice, you can thank me later.

[steve w]

KEH

15 times

Never a problem

Real pro's.

[mattalofs]

I've bought from them and sold to them a number of times. In my experience they rate conservatively. There prices can be a bit high on some items.

[Rich B NYC]

Never had a problem with KEH. Had a current Elmar-M 50 delivered yesterday. LN condition....looks like it just left the factory.

[steve_levine]

I have bought thousands of dollars worth of used 35 & MF gear from KEH without incident. Since they have both a liberal return and grading policy, there is no reason to avoid them.

[bert_keuken2]

The high price is because demand exceeds supply of good specimens. The Minolta 28mm is as good as its contemporary Leica counterpart.

[george_shihanian]

That lens is a lot rarer than say, the 40/2, which is one reason for its higher price, but $999 is just nuts. The lens IS that good, though. It took me more than 5 years to find one in nice shape. Every one that I saw during those years had the infamous tiny "white spots" which is supposed to signify front element separation. Even the one I bought, from PhotoVillage, has a small amount of these spots around the very outer edge of the lens. They in no way affect the performance of the lens, and it has not gotten any worse in the 1 1/2 years I've owned it, so just the fact that there may be some spots, should not necessarily prevent you from considering purchasing the lens, IMO.

[al_kaplan1]

Back in the Good Old Days Modern Photography Magazine did test reports on both the 28/2.8 Rokkor and the 28/2.8 Elmarit at about 1/2 the price. At the time the only problem with the Rokkor was it wouldn't bring up the correct frame line on an M, but almost nobody had an M with a 28mm frame line back then anyway. The white blotches had yet to start showing up, but as for sharpness and contrast the Rokkor was as good as the Elmarit. Half the price and about half the size too. The Rokkor takes standard 40.5 mm filters, but they're not really a standard size in a typical Leica kit so it may not be a big advantage to most of us.

 

Converting a 40mm lens to bring up the 35mm frame line just requires a few strokes with a file. Getting the Rokkor to bring up the 28mm frame in an M body requires adding metal. If you drill an itty-bitty hole at the end of the bayonet lug you can epoxy a short metal pin there. That'll look like crap but solves the problem nicely.

[Alex_Es]

It is day the Rokkor 28/2.8 sold for about 40,000 yen. It was and remains a light, fast and optically good lens. There are two problems with it. One is that the coating tends to flake, causing those white spots. The other is that it it is keyed to turn up the 35/135 frame on Leica M-4P, M6 and M7 cameras. On the CLE it turns up the 28 frame without the 90mm frame. It was specifically designed for the CLE and no other camera.

 

Spending any more than a few hundred dollars on this lens today is a waste of money. You can get any number of used Leica 28/2.8s at reasonable prices. The C/V 28/3.5 is a compact gem. The C/V 28/1.9 is a fine lens for its price. Wide open if gives a vintage Summicron glow. You also have available the very good Zeiss 28/2.8 at a reasonable price brand new.

[alfred_alfred]

It's a very compact and neat lens. The size of about the 35mm 4th version. Sharpness and contrast is as good as the Elmarit.

 

But the construction of the lens result in white spots which is very common for this 28 Rokkor lens. And strangely the 40 / 90 Rokkors doesn't have this problem.

 

I had one 28 Rokkor. Same problem "W.spot" Had it clean but the element which was glue was unable to be clean. As this doesn't affect the image i didn't bother about it. Use it for 2 years, great results. But the "W.spot" appear again. Now it's sitting and isolated in my dry cabinet. Will send for repair again someday.

 

Nevertheless, it's a very nice and compact 28mm. It's just the white spots....urgh...

[george_shihanian]

The Konica Hexanon-M 28/2.8 is another possible choice. I haven't used one, but I believe there's been very favorable reports of its performance.

[joel_matherson]

"Every one that I saw during those years had the infamous tiny "white spots" which is supposed to signify front element separation."

 

"One is that the coating tends to flake, causing those white spots."

 

With respect to the people who made them both of these statements are incorrect.

 

Attached is a lens diagram of the Rokkor 28 and you can see that the the front element is completely independant of any of the other lens groups there is no separation that can occur.

 

The problem that causes the white spots is in the black paint that was used in them. In time something leaches out and forms white crystals that can then etch the coatings if allowed to spread onto the glass itself. Often the spots are limited to the sides of the front element and dont afect the optical path. The coatings do NOT turn into the white crystals.

 

There is also the myth that if it hasnt happened by now that it wont happen WRONG! I know this first hand recently. I had a Rokkor as new in box no white spots to be seen at all. Checked the lens in the morning before I left and drove into the country on a reasonably hot day in Australia, made some shots with it came home that day, front element surronded by the white spots. The heat caused the crystals to form from the summers day use. None are on the coatings just at the outer edges of the lens where the black paint is. I had heard the white crystal from black paint theory before and I can say that it is really whats happening with these lenses.

 

The Rokkor itself is a great lens. The equal of the 3rd version Elmarit. Its nice and compact too. I have found it better than the 3.5 Skopar at f4 at the edges.

 

The lens was overpriced at one point but recently I have seen it sell on the bay for bargain prices so its well worth considering if the white crystal spots havent moved onto the lens surface.<div></div>

[joel_matherson]

So I forgot to mention, keep those Rokkors cool! LOL

 

But the 28mm Rokkor is not alone when it comes to white spots at the edges. Here are others and not cheap lenses by any means!<div></div>

[joel_matherson]

<div></div>

[jack_wilber]

That looks like separation to me.

[jack_wilber]

Now here is a case of white spots...<div></div>

[terence_mahoney]

Joel, the spots in your photos are the black edge paint having flaked off, which is quite common on many, many older lenses, and has nothing to do with the coatings or crystals or etching or any of the rest of that utter nonsense. Any good lens repairman can remove the element and re-black it. The white-spot ailment of the 28mm Rokkor is an entirely different matter. It does affect the surface coating of the lens and is permanent, in much the same way as fungus although it isn't fungal. It most likely is a breakdown in the coating itself due to some component, or the adhesion to the glass due to the way it was evapourated onto the glass.

[lct__]

<center> <img border=0

src="http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/Minolta28_spots.jpg"> </center>