a rare bird

[david_smith110]

<p>Not mine, and I wish I had the cash to buy it. I have not seen one go for this cheap even if it is a little rough on the outside. I actually only found out about this lens a while back when I was researching all the innovative ideas that Minolta came up with during its time as a camera/lens maker. From what I understand, the unique zoom mechanism allows this 40-80mm lens to act as a prime lens at no matter what focal length you have it set at, with none of the inherent compromises a regular zoom presents.</p>

<p>Whatever it does, it is unique among lenses. Somebody at Minolta sure was thinking about photography.</p>

<p>http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MC-MD-40-80mm-f2-8-Zoom-Lens-rare-/160888289961?_trksid=p5197.m1992&_trkparms=aid%3D111000%26algo%3DREC.CURRENT%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D14%26meid%3D4003700117928187034%26pid%3D100015%26prg%3D1006%26rk%3D1%26sd%3D160888289961%26</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Extraordinary, <strong>David</strong>, I've had an inkling that this lens existed, but I've never seen a picture of it. What a clever concept and ingenious construction. At least I now have a <em>picture</em> for my files...(Sigh...)</p>

[craigd]

<p>Bizarre. Just from looking at it I can see why they're rare. It's an ungainly-looking thing.</p>

<p><strong>Update:</strong> I found this quote online from photographer David Kilpatrick:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The Rokkor <em>[40-80mm f/2.8]</em> was one of the first two truly high quality midrange zooms ever designed. The other, launched in the year, was Canon's first 35-70mm f2.8. The "throttle control" zoom (like a vintage car dashboard advance-retard lever... or your lawn mower...) was also unique because the internal zooming ran in flat tracks instead of a helicoid/tube. This allowed the groups to move independently of each other with corrections for every focal length, not just an optimized correction. As a result, this lens has perhaps the highest quality of any similar zoom made until very recently... It dates, I think, from 1974 as I was still working at a newspaper when I got that lens to use for a while on the new XE-1.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looking around online, I have found images of different copies of this lens marked either "MC" or "MD", so apparently it was in production for at least a few years, and was updated for MD circa 1977.</p>

[craigd]

<p>Further info: According to the following page (search through it for "40-80"), this lens was introduced in December 1975, updated for MD in November 1977, and discontinued less than a year later, by September 1978. With less than three full years of production (and presumably weak sales -- one can assume this simply based on the lens' unusual design and the obvious clunkiness of the controls, regardless of its superb optical performance), it is no surprise that it's a rare item these days.</p>

<p><a href="http://thesybersite.com/minolta/historical/Minolta_Lens_Chronology.htm">http://thesybersite.com/minolta/historical/Minolta_Lens_Chronology.htm</a></p>

<p>Simply as a curiosity, and to have the experience of having shot with it, I'd love to have one of these, but it's not worth $395 to me for a rather scratched-up copy.</p>

<p>There are, by the way, a few more of these on eBay at the moment; just search for "Minolta 40-80" in the Cameras and Photo category. The cheapest one is $299 and looks pretty nice; it's seller-refurbished, but the seller claims to be an "Authorized repair facility for all the major brands of photographic equipment since 1969", so maybe they know what they're doing. It's still more than I'd want to pay, though, for a curiosity item.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>When Foto-Cell was still in business on 23rd Street in NY they had a bunch of these. Some were MC and some were MD. It might be fun to try one. My favorite Minolta lens in this range is the 35-70/3.5 MD with the button for closer focusing. It gives good results at all settings. I have a number of Vivitar 28-85/2.8-3.8 lenses in Minolta mount and they are quite good too. They are larger and much heavier than the 35-70/3.5 MD. Other 35-70s I have for Minolta include the 35-70 Tamron (w/adapter), 35-70/2.5-3.5 Soligor (also sold under the Access brand name) and some late and slow Cosina-made model. </p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>At the time of its introduction most major camera makers had limited offerings in the range. I think Nikon's 43-86 was one of the first, although the Voigtlander had a Zoomar that I think started at 36mm. I think I read a test report on the Rokkor 40-80 Rokkor when it came out and it did well. Unconvential controls and high price probably limited its appeal, though. We never stocked it at our family camera shop as it was well beyond the budget of most of our customers. Our best selling wide-to-short tele during that time was the Tamron Adaptall 38-100 f3.8. It was bigger, slower, less sharp, and more distortion than the 40-80. But we sold a lot of 'em anyway. I agree the 40-80 is really pricey, but if I ever stumble across one at a bargain I might be tempted.</p>

[maciek_stankiewicz]

<p>Very interesting lens!<br />Jeff mentioned great Minolta MD 35-70 f3.5 zoom. It's an excellent lens, I love it... and was wondering how it performs when compared to 40-80... </p>

[dan_fromm2]

<p>David, I know you're a strong Minolta partisan, but really. A zoom lens isn't a prime. Not to take anything away from Minolta or to say anything about their products' quality, but that's marketing fluff. </p>

<p>There are better zooms (parfocal variable focus lenses) from that era, there are worse zooms from that era, but there are no zooms for 35 mm still from that era that are competitive with the best lenses for 35 mm still.</p>

[User_502260]

<p>Herbert Keppler used to say that sometimes a zoom is the only practical way to get a shot. He was referring to the old 43-86 Nikkor. I have a 43-86 AI. It is a decent performer and much better than the older 43-86s. Like other zooms it is not optimized for something like architectural photography but it is still useful for many other types of picture taking. </p>

[david_smith110]

<p>Rick, I know how you feel. I have many photos of old gear that I can never hope to own. Glad I could help you out with this one.</p>

<p>Craig, thanks for all the extra fill-in info. Most of that I had already read but just didnt have the time to add it to my original post. Thanks so much for including it, and also for the extra auction searches. The 299 lens is pretty cheap, especially for a fully functioning piece of film history. And I agree, I would love to shoot with one just to have the experience but paying that much to own one isnt really an option. I think the crank mechanism would be awkward to use while mounted on my NEX.</p>

<p>Jeff, some more interesting back history, thanks. I wasnt aware of the close focus button you described on the 35-70 but that sounds interesting. A little more proof Minolta was really thinking about what it was bringing to market.</p>

<p>Mike, Maciek- Thanks for your comments.</p>

<p>Dan- At no point did I say a zoom is prime. And really, some zooms are better and some are worse? Sage input. But thanks for trying to turn another innocuous post into a pissing contest.</p>