MC Minolta Celtic 35mm f2.8

[john schroeder]

I was just given a Minolta XG-7 and an SR-1 bodies with an Auto-W Rokkor HG 35mm

f2.8, a MD Rokkor-X 50mm f1.7, and a MC Minolta Celtic 35mm f2.8. I have never

heard of Celtic. The build of the lens is quite nice. The glass seems to have

a blue tint. There is some oil on the aperture blades and they stick a bit. Is

this lens worth the trouble of servicing or should I pitch it?

[jtk]

For laughs, compare to your Rokkor 35, then pitch it. Celtic's were Minolta's discount lens series. Very unsharp by comparison to their normal (Rokkor) line.

[craig_h1]

The Celtic is a Minolta made lens. The glass is the same as the Rokkor. I have a Celtic 50mm f3.5 macro & a 135mm f3.5, both excellent performers.

 

Craig

[john schroeder]

There is also an Auto Rokkor PF 55mm f1.8 and an Auto Tele Rokkor QE 100mm f3.5. Both have sticking apertures. Both bodies are very clean and aside from needing to be re-foamed are in very good working order. I also was given an old Sekonic L-162 hand held meter. It appears to work but I already have both a Pentax 1deg spot meter and a Gossen DigiFlash meter.

[patrick j dempsey]

"For laughs, compare to your Rokkor 35, then pitch it. Celtic's were lMinolta's discount lens series. Very unsharp by comparison to their normal (Rokkor) line."

 

I would take that advice worth a grain of salt. Auto Rokkor is the 1960s line of lenses. It MIGHT be a higher quality lens than the Celtic, but probably not. What it will NOT do is meter without doing stop-down metering. The Auto-Rokkors lack a metering tab. Many people assume that because the lens is a "budget" lens that it has inferior optical qualities. Minolta saved money on the Celtics by using the old coatings used on the Auto-Rokkors, and by painting some of the markings instead of carving them into the barrel. The optical formulas stayed the same. MC stands for Meter Coupled.

 

In the late 1970s Minolta changed the optical formula for this lens from 7 elements in 6 groups, to 5 in 5... this was in both the budget and full price version. You can tell the differnce because the original formula has a close-focus of 1.25 feet and the 5/5 version has a close-focus of 1 foot. I would guess that the person who gave you these cameras loved the 35mm f2.8 so much that he got the updated Meter Coupled version when he bought the XG-7.

 

It is actually more than likely that you will find the Celtic to be more of a user-friendly lens with the same identical design, and you should be able to sell the Auto-Rokkor on the SR-1 to someone interested in fully manual photography. It is very likely that your lens has simply siffened with age. Excersize the aperature for a good bit and see if it doesnt get smoother. It is not uncommon on older lenses for this to be the case.

 

All my information came from this site:

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

[john schroeder]

I have to say the build quality of the Celtic is very nice. Yes the numbers are painted on but all the machining is top notch. The only thing that throws me is the blue tinting of the glass. Super Takamars would yellow with age is this a similar effect?

[patrick j dempsey]

Its probably just the coating... Usually yellowing in lenses is caused by radioactive compounds in the glass... I doubt Minolta would use such exotic glass for a "budget" lens.

[ralf_j.]

John - I am a member of the manual minolta yahoo group and Joe McGloin who maintains the group is one of the most knowledgable guys out there. I am a minolta fanatic and own quite a few of their classic line and lenses and I must say their optics are top notch. As Patrick said, the celtics were the cheaper line of the monlta lenses b/c Minolta cut corners on the construction of the body of the lens and a legacy coating system was used, in some of them, but the optical formulas remained the same as their wonderful rokkor-x line. I finde it quite iresponsible to state that the Celtic line is inferior optically. I have used quite a few of them and have been very happy with the results. Regards.

[patrick j dempsey]

Oh and P.S. if you are REALLY upset about that Auto-Rokkor not being able to run with a meter, you are welcome to send it to me for use with my SR-3. These are great cameras, and even though the early SR series is well over 40 years old now, I find them to be great running machines, mine shows no sign of stopping even though it probably sat for 20 years after my Grandfather stopped using it. Theres no meter to lie to you and no autofocus to screw up your pictures. ;)

[kelly_flanigan1]

The Minolta Celtic line was a late 1970's value lens line; ie lower in cost. The mounts are a tad less beefy; the optical designs are often great, mostly computer designed. The ILLUMINATION wide open is often uniform than the mainstream rokkor lens line; untill stopped down a few stops. A rokkor will often have brighter corners than a celtic when used at the same fstop; near wide open. The optical formulas are usually NOT the exact same as the rokkors. Folks here are barking up the wrong trees or having too much wacky juice to create such ill BS about celtics. They were a response to the independents of the day; the vivitar, soligor, tamron, cambron, spiratone chaps. The Minolta Celtics are like the Nikon E series of the same era; miss understood; often dissed. many are equal or sometimes sharper than the fullbore offering.

[david_m]

Celtic lenses are equivalent to Nikon E lenses. More cheaply made but just as sharp. They wont wear as well due to inferior build quality (more plastic, less metal).

[patrick j dempsey]

Kelly, I do not doubt that this may be true of some lenses, but my comments were based specifically on the lens data given on the Minman site, which you are welcome to dispute.

 

Here is the link:

 

http://members.aol.com/xkaes/3528.htm

 

Based on that source:

 

The Auto-Rokkor seems to be the second lens on the list, as it came with an SR-1. 7 elements in 6 groups. Auto diaphram, no meter coupling tab. Notice that all the Rokkor designs listed here, use the code HG for this design, and when the design was changed to 5 elements in 5 groups, the HG was dropped. (Making a wild guess, perhaps H stands for 7, and G stands for 6, similar to the Olympus Zuiko pattern of giving the lens a letter to stand for the number of elements... and maybe they dropped this designation when the lenses no longer had this configuration.)

 

The MC Celtic is either the 8th or 10th model on the list. The first version; 1972 MC Celtic has identicle optical construction to all previous 35mm f2.8 lenses... from the first Rokkor, to the Auto-Rokkors, to the MC Rokkor-X with improved lens coatings. The second version; 1975 MC Celtic has 5 elements in 5 groups, the redesign shared with the 1975 Rokkor-X, and kept for the duration of the production of the lens.

 

So this MC Celtic has two possible identities.... in one case it may be virtually identicle to the Auto-Rokkor with the exception of the addition of a metering tab for automatic stopping down, and plastic parts in its construction. On the other hand it may be of a different construction which must logically be an IMPROVED design which was used in all later 35mm f2.8 lenses which allowed for closer focusing.

 

Either way, it looks like it is a better lens for regular use.

[john schroeder]

Well this Celtic has a metering tab and is all metal construction. It's very nicely built. It's better built than the 50mm Nikon E. series lens I had on an old Nikon EM.

[User_502260]

I have a 35/2.8 MD Celtic lens. As far as I know it is the same optically as the earlier MC. I used it for several years as my standard lens, first on an X-370 and then on an X-700. It is quite sharp and it coating is effective. At the time I was collecting older MC lenses and I found that every 35/2.8 MC Rokkor I saw had oil on the blades. Getting these older lenses serviced only solved the oil problem temporarily.

 

I also have a 50/3.5 MC Celtic Macro. From all of the information I have it is identical optically to the Rokkor of the same period. When Minolta went from the MD Rokkor-X to the plain MD line the lens barrels took on a much less sturdy look. Over time they haven't worn so badly but they are not as heavy as the earlier models which had more metal. If you look at a 50/1.7 MD Rokkor-X and compare it to the later MD, the earlier lens looks much sturdier but the MD is extremely sharp and works just as well.

 

Where oil in the aperture blades is concerned, any lens which is old enough and which has had the wrong kind of storage can have this problem. In most cases it can be taken care of by a competent repair person. My favorite Minolta 35 is a 35/1.8 MC Rokkor but if the light is good and I want something easier to carry I still use the Celtic.

[elmarfudd]

Ironically, despite complaints about their build quality relative to the Rokkors, all the Celtics are considerably better built than what's on the market today.

[john schroeder]

Yesterday I gave the SR-1 and XG-7 good cleanings and re-foamed the bodies. Today I donated the SR-1 and the 50mm f1.7 to a photography student that couldn't afford a camera for his class. I hope he enjoys it and puts it to good use. The XG-7 I'll keep for it's aperture priority capability. The Auto-W Rokkor HG 35mm f2.8 will make an excellent street lens. I think it will be a nice set up to keep under the front seat of my car.

There was also a 100mm Tele Rokkor-QE f3.5 and a 55mm Auto Rokkor-PF f1.8 in the box. These were hidden inside a nondescript black leather pouch with some filters. I must have set it aside and then overlooked it. The apertures on these lenses will stop down but do not open up on their own due to oil contamination. They might be a lost cause.<div></div>

[patrick j dempsey]

Both the Tele-Rokkor 100mm and the Auto-Rokkor 55mm are great lenses, I use the 55mm Auto-Rokkor regularily and its awesomely sharp. The downside to these lenses is that they do not automatically work with the meter system of your XG-7. They were designed for cameras like the SR-1 which do not have meters. They also had the older style coatings. You can still use them fine by doing what is called "stop-down" metering, its a little slow and old fashioned, but at least your XG-7 has a meter built into it. Just search photo.net for "stop-down metering" to learn about it.

 

Unfortunately you just gave away the lens designed to use the full features of the XG-7. The MD Rokkor-X series was the newer series with enhanced coatings and allows full use of the meter without any fussing around. :( Can you find that kid and swap the 55mm Auto-Rokkor for the 50mm MD?

[john schroeder]

I still have the Celtic 35mm. That is the lens I plan on using with this body. Tuesday I'm going to talk to the repair shop I deal with regularly and see if he will clean the aperture in trade for the extra lenses. The 50mm f1.7 I gave away was a little sticky and I prefer 35mm for street photography. Used 50mm lenses are fairly common if I decide to change my mind later.

[User_502260]

I had that 55/1.8 lens years ago with an SR-1S body. It's quite a good lens. In the pre-MC days Minolta made both the 100/3.5 you show and a more rare 100/2. When the MC series came out for the SRT-101 in 1966 Minolta discontinued both old 100mm lenses and introduced the 100/2.5. I have the 100/2.5 MC and it is one of my favorite Minolta lenses. I also use a 35 as a standard lens most of the time. If you don't tell people you took pictures with the Celtic they will never know.

[ben_hutcherson]

The only piece of Minolta equipment I own is the Celtic 35mm 2.8, waiting around for me to buy a body to put it on one of these days.

 

I had it apart to clean the sticky aperture, and I didn't fine a bit of plastic in it anywhere. It's definitely much better constructed than the budget Canon lenses I've handled from that same time period.

[Pbase.commadlights]

Hi. Got a couple of Celtics, a 35mm 2.8 and a 135. The 35 seems a a lot like my Rokkors of other focal lengths, the 135 does seem quite lighter than my 135 Rokkor 2.8, but it also is a stop slower. The Celtics are both very sharp and function well. The 135, being lighter (much) than my Rokkor 135 but is much nicer to carry around in good light. I am glad that the quality of the Celtics is hidden from the masses. Haven't used the 35 so much yet, but the Celtic 135 have used with film, Micro 4/3 and Canon M50. Am getting back into film just got an XE, also have a 370 and 570. Also have an auto Rokkor 35 which I bought cheap and has fungus...that is true about the lack of meter coupling. Minolta lenses were generally made very well.

[User_502260]

If I am not mistaken, I have all of the Celtic versions in every focal length.  I have a funny story about a 50mm f/3.5 Celtic Macro.  The glass was bad but I had an MD Rokkor-X with good glass but a cracked barrel.  My repairman took the glass elements out of the Rokkor and put them into the Celtic.  It was a perfect fit.  The Celtic needed new rubber on the focusing ring and that's how I remember which Celtic has the Rokkor elements.  The funny thing is that the second version of the MC Rokkor-X, the MD Rokkor-X and the MD all have plastic barrels.  The Celtic has a metal barrel.  Both are very good lenses.  When Konica made the Hexar lenses and Nikon made the Series E lenses and Yashica made the Yashikor lenses, no Macro versions were made.  Only Minolta, with its Celtic line, made a macro lens.

Jeff Adler     

[Mike Gammill]

During the mid to late 1970's Minolta offered a package with the SRT 100 (later the SRT 200) that included a Celtic 135mm f 3.5 in addition to the camera body with an f 2 normal lens.  Completing the package was a small auto flash and a camera bag.  At the family camera shop that kit was a big seller.