MD 35mm f/2.8 non-rokkor lens

[jeroen_b1]

hello group,

 

I have a quick question: anyone has experience with the Minolta MD

35mm f/2.8 non-rokkor lens? I can only find info about the MD-Rokkor

at Rokkorfiles.

 

I have spotted this lens for my new X-500 for 35 euro.The MD-Rokkor is

probably better?

 

thanks,

 

Jeroen

[rokkor fan]

For 35 Euro this is a great price and I am sure you will be impressed with the performance. Additionally the plain MD version is of the same era as your camera.

 

Cheers,

 

Antony

www.rokkorfiles.com

[jeroen_b1]

Okay, thanks! I think I will go for it. I had read on your site the (late) plain MD's aren't that good (factory in China). If the lens performs well 35 euro is a nice price.

[andykowalczyk]

Here is my view of the consensus on the different generations of lenses.

 

Get plain MD lenses (convenient but not required) if you have an X-700 or own a lot of 49mm filters(from a Pentax k-mount). Otherwise get late MC early MD.

 

The historical time at which the manual Minolta lenses were designed represents a "sea change" in the availability of computing power and material science available to the optical engineers. So we see constant improvement (or change) in all the components of the lens. By all accounts, Minolta had their own glass factory - and we know of at least the change from the thorium glass of the early MC lenses, so we can assume continual tweaking of that component. The coatings certainly improved over time. The lens arrangements were refined (although the aspherical revolution happened later). And the housings utilized newer materials.

 

My guess is the designers were presented with the following goals:

 

1. improve, or at least maintain, the optical quality

 

2. reduce weight

 

3. reduce manufacture and distribution costs

 

I think many of us prefer the late MC-Rokkor and early MD-Rokkor because the optics probably improved over previous generation and later generations probably did not improve drastically (if at all). We don't see any advantage to us in the weight and cost savings improvements. We have a sense that the increased use of plastics may also reduce the ruggedness and repairability of the later lenses.

 

In Minolta's defense, the use of new materials promises superior performance at great savings - one can cast "perfect" plastic parts at a much greater rate than machining "perfect" metal parts. And the consistency of "look and feel" across the product line decreases both dealer inventory requirements as well as camera bag investment (it is nice needing only 49mm filters). And I'll bet that Minolta's experience with designing these superlight plastic components allowed them to be the innovator in Auto-Focus that they later became.

 

Since I have several X-570, an X-700, and an SRT-101, I try to make kits of appropriate periods. Plain MD for my X-700, late MC Rokkor-X and MD Rokkor-X for the X-570s (same as your X-500), and all metal early MC-Rokkor (with the two-letter lens code) for the SRT.

[jeroen_b1]

The good news is the 35mm lens is a Rokkor-MD, the guy from the store called me to confirm (yesterday I couldn't see a Rokkor label at the picture of the lens).

 

The also have a 50mm MD-Rokkor f/1.7 with (45mm lens) sunhood for 30 euro. I think a good price, maybe a nice lens to bridge the gap between the 35mm and a future 135mm.

 

Do I look like a fanatic? I try not to.... (It's only gear! the results on paper or slide are the most important)

 

I already own a 50mm f1/7 for AF, so if I want to obey my own rule it should be a 50mm f/1.4. But maybe that little bit extra isn't visible on any slide or negative. Shooting test-charts and world-maps is no hobby of mine.. :-)

[andykowalczyk]

Well, if you are trying to fill slots, then the MC 58 f/1.4 is what you need.

 

Of course the 58 f/1.2 is the real prize.

[jeroen_b1]

58mm, interesting choice, thanks. But, I have checked Mikkonis site, his personal opinion: "58mm f1.4: Not-so-good contrast, flare prone, heavy curvature of the field at close focusing. Good for portraits. If the above does not sound good, it is because the competition is hard. This lens is fully useable and beats most plastic zooms of today hands down".

 

I know it's his personal opinion, a 50mm seems to be a better choice. I have tried with a zoom-lens, the difference between 50 and 58 ins't that much (probably one foot-step). Off course the perspective will be a bit flatter (and we know that's good for portraits).

 

There isn't much choice else between 35 and 135.

[j.a.]

Hi Jeron,

 

There is no reason to search an alternative to original MD Rokkor lenses made by Minolta, because these lenses, with some exceptions, aren't pricey anymore and they will provide you an excellent quality for your money.

 

Don't buy cheaps zooms like 35 - 105 mm f/3,5 - 4,5 or 28 - 70 mm f/3,4 - 4,5 made by Minolta, because they are not so good. I had myself that kind of optics, but finally I sold them and replaced them with primes. Avoid to buy that kind of zooms made by a third part manufacturer, they are even worst.

 

There are some pricey alternatives MD Rokkor lenses between 35 mm and 135 mm, like 85 mm f/2 and 135 mm f/2,0, less the 135 mm f/2,8 or, the most common 135 mm f/3,5 (I recently bought one, it was very good on my X gear and it was not so expensive). The two first ones are rares and expensives, you can't get them easily.

 

If you search the macro ones, there are Rokkor 50 mm f/3,5 (priced 100 Euros on Ebay) or the rarer 100 mm f/4, both excellent lenses approaching the Nikkor's versions (beeing superior to them by some tests)

 

There is also a MD Rokkor 50 mm f/1,2 priced 60 Euros on a photo shop where I live. It is a rare lens having no concurrent in Nikkor, Zuiko or Asahi's standard lines.

 

Generally, the f/2,8 is a very good aperture for any SLR lenses and in most of situations the photographers are not shooting at this full aperture (the optical quality is rather poor), they are stopping down one or two f values. Whatever, the f/2,8 helps when you are focusing manually in lesser light, when you want to reduce the DOF, when using a flash is forbidden.

 

J.A.

[jeroen_b1]

Thanks!

 

Now I have the x-500 at home, on it's way by post a xd-7+winder and a 132X flash (so incredibly cheap...), and will pick up a Rokkor MD 35 f/2.8 and Rokkor MD 50 f/1.7. That must be enough for the moment.

 

A 135mm f/2.8 or f/3.5 will come in the future, first I want to use my 135 f/2.8 AF lens much more. Need to get some descent results first with that one before I deserve the MD version. In the long time between I can also search for a good deal for a 58, 85, 100, or macro one. The 135mm is higly available.