Sharpest lenses for amateur on a budget

[mike walden]

Hi folks. I am , obviously, and amateur photographer with a certain

dedication to Minolta cameras. Its the only brand I own. I have

three total, X-700, 7000i, and a cheap 3000i. My favorite is the X-

700. I own several lenses for each camera, but I wanted to ask what

are the few really sharp lenses that one should not be without for

the X-700. My photo interests are nature/wildlife, landscape and

some portraiture. I am just starting to get into flash/strobe indoor

portrait shooting.

Current lenses for the X-700 are:

MD W.Rokkor X 24mm f2.8

MD W.Rokkor X 28mm f2.8

MD W.Rokkor X 35mm f2.8

MD Rokkor X 45mm f2.0

MD Rokkor X 50mm f1.4

MC Rokkor-PF 58mm f1.4 (my favorite)

MC Tele Rokkor-QE 100mm f3.5

MD Tele Rokkor-X 135mm f2.8

Soligor tele Auto 200mm f3.5

Takumar 300mm f4.0

 

I want to add or replace some of these lenses with sharper ones

eventually. I just wanted to know which ones I could improve.

[Brian]

<P>Mike, this is a joke, right? The MD Rokkor X lenses were the best line of manual lenses Minolta ever made, and your MC Rokkor 58mm is no slouch either.</P><P>The only lens in your list that I would entertain any doubts about is the Soligor. I don't know this lens: the Rokkor equivalent could well be sharper.</P><P>If you are interested in wildlife, the Minolta manual line-up does not excel at longer focal lengths, but someone else will have to chip in with recommendations.</P>

[sknowles]

I agree with the first entry. You already have excellent lenses, why change? I don't think you can replace them with "sharper" versions. The sharpest lenses Minolta made, as expected, are the two MD macro/bellows lenses (50mm and 100mm), but the rest, including the 50mm f1.4 are no slouches. For nature/wildlife photography, you'll need one of the "big" lenses, 300mm w/ TC's or a longer, 400mm to 600mm lens. For portraits, you'll probably need a 85mm or 100mm lens. The f3.5 will work, but you may want a faster version, such as the MC (only) f2 or MD f2.5 version. The two 85mm lens, f1.7 or f2, are both excellent lenses.

 

Good luck.

[david_bedell]

Replace the 24mm f/2.8 with a 24mm f/2.8 on a tripod.

Replace the 50mm f/1.4 with a 50mm f/1.4 on a tripod.

And so on...

 

Besides using a tripod and cable release, maybe you're using terrible film or processing or printer if you're unhappy with the results.

 

Your long telephoto lenses are non-Minolta. I've never used them, but they might be weak compared with Minoltas...

[david_s._berger]

As others have written, what you have really is fine. However, I can offer the following suggestions to bolster your lens collection:

 

Because you are interested in portraiture:

 

- Get a 100mm f2.5 to replace the f3.5. The f2.5's are outstanding lenses, easily the equal of the Nikkor 105mm f2.5's. The optical design changed over time, from (IIRC) 6 elements in the MC Rokkor versions to 5 elements in the MD Rokkor and MD versions. Minolta also made an f2.0 version which is excellent, but you will not likely find one, and if you do it'll be expensive.

 

- Get an 85mm. Minolta's first 85's were f1.7, large, and heavy. The lens was redesigned to an f2.0 lens in the MD Rokkor era, and is smaller and ligher. You cannot go wrong with either lens; an f2.0 should be less expensive (although not inexpensive). I have both (MC Rokkor f1.7 and MD Rokkor f2.0) and find that they have different characteristics. The f1.7 gives a "rounder" image -- not quite as bitingly sharp -- but not soft (it's hard to explain). The f2.0 is sharper corner-to-corner, and suffers less from flare. I use the f2.0 more often, but for more formal/posed portaits, I use the f1.7.

 

 

Other additions you can make, when you get spare cash, could be a 35mm f1.8 (better in all respects to the f2.8, in my experience) and an MD Rokkor 50mm f1.7 (Minolta's sharpest non-macro 50mm, again, in my experience).

 

Cheers,

 

dsb

[mike walden]

Wow, thanks for all the replies. To reply to your statements, no, this is not a joke, and I absolutely use a very good sturdy tripod, ALWAYS!

I just thought that, even though the MD Rokkor lenses were very fine lenses, that there was some mystical version of them out there that is not to be had by mere mortals. I have read in some posts of ROKKOR lenses, or other Minolta lenses that were said to be "sharp as a tack", and those lenses were always faster or different than the ones I have. I must say that I do dream of owning the 85mm f1.7, the 58mm f1.2, I think there is a 200mm f2.8(?). I have worked hard and searched harder to get the lenses I now have and am very proud of them. All are very clean and tight. The Soligor lens I kept only because it was so clean and was actually faster than the MC 200mm I also had at one time. the Pentax Takumar 300mm screw mount lens is fantastic and I wouldnt get rid of it for the world.

I guess I am just searching for more and better things to wish for. Maybe I can though, get some of the faster versions of a couple of these lenses too. And, why is the 50mm f1.7 sharper than the f1.4?

[mike walden]

By the way, I am not unhappy with my photos. Just was having a bit of equipment envy? And, I did have all versions of the 50mm lens, and sold them except for the f1.4 that I did keep and use.

[sknowles]

A 100mm f2.5 lens and an 85mm f1.7/2 would be good additions, either one of the latter is an excellent lens. Yes, Minolta made a MD 200mm f2.8 lens, along with a MC 100mm f2 (made only about 2 years, and now a collector's choice) and MD 135mm f2. The 35mm f1.8 adds another f-stop-plus but that's a choice, the f2.8 version is a good lens, which a variant was used for the 35mm f2.8 Shift-CA lens. My understanding is the 50mm f1.4 is sharper than the f1.7, and on par with some of the best 50mm lenses. A 58mm f1.2 lens is more a personal favorite of some, not really that as sharp (yes, I also have one too), but produces some good results wide open with the shallow depth of field and softer sharpness.

 

But all said and done, the best way to improve your lenses, is, as stated, tripod, tripod, and a tripod, and a cable release. As a pro said, somewhat half jokingly, "You can't have a big enough tripod." If you want the lenses you say, just keep looking for opportunities, and for some, get out your checkbook. Good used Minolta lenses are quite affordable, compared to other brands, but they seem to be holding their value too.

[david_s._berger]

"And, why is the 50mm f1.7 sharper than the f1.4?"

 

That's just been my experience. I haven't actually compared them directly with USAF test charts, but, over the years I've concluded that at smaller common apertures (i.e., f1.7 - f2.8), the f1.7 seems a bit sharper and shows better shadow detail. Again, this is the MD Rokkor 50/1.7 compared with the MC Rokkor 50/1.4, so the 50/1.7 be benefit from better coatings (it is definitely less flare prone). Ultimately though, both are excellent lenses -- just be sure to use a hood with the 50/1.4 (actually, you should use a hood on _ALL_ lenses; veiling flare can kill contrast, shadow detail, and highlights all in one shot).

 

Cheers,

 

dsb

[max zappa]

Hi Mike

 

Reckon your lenses are fine. I have a host of rokkors myself, including the 135mm f2.8 MC Tele Rokkor, which is really fine for portraits, although if I could get my hands on an 85mm or 100mm I surely would. I too like the 58mm f1.4 MC Rokkor-PF and my absolute favourite lens of all has to be the 50mm f1.4 MC Rokkor-PG. Its a beauty.

 

I also have a 200mm f4.0 MC Tele Rokkor, which I really havent tested much.

 

As for sharpness,well I think you have to try and always shoot at the best aperture for sharpness ( IF POSSIBLE ). I dont know what that figure is for different focal lengths, but I'm sure there will be someone who reads this who will be able to say if a general rule of thumb exists. I know it isnt as straightforward as this as of course depth of field and differential focusing come into play.

 

 

Max

[bob_fann1]

I have to agree with the general opinion that the lenses you have are "keepers," although I would share the doubts about the Soligor -- unless you are happy with it. (Some of the Soligors are actually quite good.) You didn't indicate whether the Pentax 300mm is an older "Takumar," a "Super Takumar" or the more recent -- and most desirable -- "SMC Takumar." Since you are really fond of it, I would guess it's the SMC (Super Multi Coated). If I ever run across one at a garage sale at my kind of price, I'll get a Pentax or other 42mm screw-mount camera just to use that lens.

 

Conventional wisdom says that a 50mm/f1.7 - f2.0 lens will be sharper than a 50mm/f1.4, even when with the 1.4 stopped down to f2, because of the compromises necessary to get the extra half or full stop at maximum aperture. The difference seems to disappear when both are stopped down to f8 or 11, which are the apertures at which most lenses tend to give the sharpest results. I can't vouch for this from personal experience, although I've used 50mm/f1.4s and their "lesser" brethren, 1.7, 1.8 or 2.0, from Nikon, Pentax and Minolta, with good results from all. Maybe that's because most of my shots tend to fall within the f5.6 - 16 range. (Or maybe it's because I haven't photographed enought lens test charts!)

[mike walden]

<p><b>Bob: </b> My Pentax/Asahi lens is the older Takumar or it is the Super Takumar, I am not sure which. The person I bought it from sais it was a Super Takumar, but I do not see that anywhere on the lens. All I see is Takumar. I use a screw mount adapter with my X-700 so I can use this faster 300mm lens. Its a huge hunk of glass with a humongous aperture blades at the front of the lens.

[hilary_cuerden_clifford]

I agree with everyone else - the Minolta single focal length lenses are fine optics. Keep them.

 

I have a 20/2.8, 28.2.5, 35/2.8, 50/1.4, 1.7, 2.0, 55/1.8, 100/2.5, 200/3.5, 300/4.5.

 

On the 50mm lenses - the 1.4 tested out just as well as the 1.7 (extra element? 7 over 6) and better than the 2.0. In fact, the 1.4 is probably a bit better but I like the 1.7 as the front element is more recessed.

 

My sharpest lenses are the 20 (though it has "moustache" distortion), the 50s and the 200. I understand that there can be a fair amount of variation between the lenses of the same manufacturer.

 

However, even my humble 35 2.8 holds its sharpness very well to 11" x 14".