juan_rinito

Is the sphericalchromatic the same thing that

Longitudinal chromatic aberration?

 

Thanks

Why only one?

 

Well. I wan't to be a collector again.

 

Only lens to use. On that way, one

lens is OK.

I want to buy oonly one 50/55 -1,7/1,8 lens.

 

Among:

 

SMC/S.Takumar 55/1,8

Mamiya 55/1,8

Yashinon 50/1,7

Ricoh 50/1,7

 

Only one of them.

Which? Well. Help me please.

Which is better, if any?

 

Auto rikenon 2/50 all black. M42.

Or

auto mamiya/sekor 2/50 dtl version?

 

Thanks.

<p>In facts, there were four minolta manual focus lenses 50/1,7.<br>

1- MC (not the 1,7/55)<br>

2-MD Rokkor (X) with 55 mm filter.<br>

3-MD Rokkor (X) with 49 mm filter<br>

4- MD plain with 49 mm filter.</p>

<p>The commentaries in forums: the best is the N° 2.</p>

<p>I used the 28/3,5 (both) oly in film cams. The oldest is the sharpest and a bit colder colors, to my eyes.<br>

The 2/35 was my equipment for long time (after I took the 24/2,8 and left the 2/35) with the 1,8/85.<br>

But I didn't try, till a few days ago, the common 2,8/35 - oldest version F/16.</p>

<p>I have to say that is very sharp and almos without any CA. It's into my diary lenses, with my rokkors MC 2,8/24, MC 1,2/58 and MC 2/100.</p>

<p>I suggest to you if didn't try the hexanon AR 2,8/35, do it. Let it has a chance. Not dissapoint.</p>

My choice should be the plain md 1,7/50 or the mc pg 1,4/50. The last is better to my taste.

You can look for the following minolta lenses, they are all first class: MC 2,8/21, MD 2/28, MC/MD 2,8/24, MC PG 1,4/50, MC

1,2/58, MC/MD 1,7/85, MC PF 2/100, MD 2,8/135 4/4.

 

almost all not cheap, but excellent

<p>You have a nice tokina/mamiya sekor TL/DTL version.<br>

Very sharp from F/2,8 to F/11. Only a bit less contrast than other first brands.<br>

Very smooth focus and precise aperture ring.<br>

I have enjoyed it a lot.<br>

The Rolleinar version is the Mamiya /Tokina SX version, with more strong colors and contrast.<br>

Perhaps a better version.<br>

<br />Anyways, both very nice lens to have.</p>

<p>Congratulations Jeff!<br>

Your reality is a real dream to me. A Srt 201 with a MDRokkor 1,7 at U$S 5,51? No one seller has that price here. Nor near. Lucky man!!!!!<br>

The konica TC and T4 had the same problem.<br>

And you will have some fun with your black XG9, sure.<br>

Rino.</p>

 

<p>Matthew, thanks. I can take one 135 mm Minolta lens near 80 bucks. At that price is cheap here. No matter if it's 2,8 or 3,5.</p>

<p>Thanks Mike. I have a XG9 (because here -Argentina- the SRTs are near the 120 bucks!!!). I don't know about the minolta lenses, but for more than 20 years I used Konica (great lenses!!!!) But the cams have actually a problem with the shutter. Some of them (2/3 of the cams that I had) began to fire when you charge the shutter, before use the shutter release. I changed to Minolta. Well, here I am.</p>

<p>I found that in the end of the 70's and begining of the 80's, some brands made thier lenses a bit smaller and lighter (Pentax, Minolta, Konica, etc). Those second versions had more contrast, but a bit less sharpness.<br>

I don't know if the 3,5/135 and 2,8/135 MD (II and III) were in the same league.</p>

<p>Thanks Marc. Very useful information.</p>

<p>Thanks Frank. As was said ut supra, all are happy with their 135 mm Minolta. But the 2,8 seems to be a little step better, isn't it?</p>

<p>In M42 I had tjhe Super 1,4/50 8 elements, the Super with 7 elements, the S-M-C and the SMC. All in M42 (I repeat). S-M-C is my option. But it yellowed...........<br>

In K mount, the FA 1,2/50.<br>

Digital, the DA 1,4/55.<br>

Rino.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Hi guys and thank you a lot.<br>

Craig. My Minolta camera is the XG9 (I returned to her after 30 years). Nice, simple to use.<br>

Mike, there are two versions, the 4/4 and the 5/4 MC celtic 2,8/135. <br>

Jeff. I'm trying Minolta lenses only. I'm a minolta man now. I often use only one brand to know it. I used voigtlander, rollei, alpa, leica, mamiya, chinon, praktica, konica, M42 pentax, kodak, etc. Now, Minolta. In the future, Nikon and Canon (never used them in intensive form).</p>

<p>I need one 135 mm MC/MD. Not the F/2.<br>

I read a lot of comments about them. And almost all the people is happy with their own lens.<br>

Old TC? Auto, oldest MC, MC II, Celtic MC, MC III (MC X), MD Rokkor, MD plain, Celtic MD ?<br>

F/2,8 (7/5, 6/5, 5/4, 4/4, 5/5)?<br>

or 3,5? (4/4 or 5/5)?<br>

Any help wil be apreciate.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for the tips, very useful. <br>

About the zooms, they should be so heavy to my taste. I prefer prime lenses. My old pulse needs that way !!!!!<br>

Regards, Rino.</p>

<p>Hi Jeff. I found my S-M-C 1,4/50 of 1971 less prone to flare than my PG 1,4/50 (from 1973/4, it has a red dot painted, not the red plastic) at wide open. Individual copies question? May be.<br>

From F/2 didn't find some differences in flare between both lenses. BTW, the reflections of the coated of the lenses are more strong in the PG than in the S-M-C and generally that indicates better coated. The other face of the same coin is: More paled refections of the coated, less contrast the lens and less layers the coated has.<br>

Of course, that affirmations are only rules of MY experience and no more than this.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Winfried. Thanks for the information. In the case of the PG 1,4/50 I found it's prone to flare wide open. And the flare is there in clear cloudy sky. </p>

<p>Winfried. Thank you. I asked because at the time of the PG 1,4/50 (from 1973) another brands had multicoated lenses. Fuji with their EBC and Pentax with the Super multicoated lenses (1971 in the case of the 1,4/50) and SMC version from 1972, among others.<br>

Jeff. Thanks. SOmebody wrote in one forum that the Celtic were made by Cosina for Minolta. I don't think so. Obviously that a diference may exist, but not seems to be in the optical quality. Perhaps in the building's quality............<br>

Mark. Thank you. I have read about the Celtic 5/4 version. The users seem to not decide about which is the best. They all are happy with the 135, just in the F/3,5 or in the F/2,8 versions.<br>

I shall take the first in very good shape that can afford.</p>

<p>Craig. Thanks. Nice link, very useful and informative. The same for your words.<br>

Jeff. Thaks. You are right, so I rectify myself and say: my copy of the PF 1,4/50 produce images with more contrast and sharpness than my copy of the PF 1,7/50. Specially from wide open to F/4.<br>

Interesting cuestion about the Celtic lenses. I read and heard both opinions: for someone the celtic are almost the same lens than the MC or MD "brothers". While for others, the celtic IQ or building are inferior to MC and MD. If I could find a nice Celtic 2,8 or 3,5/135 mm lens, should buy it without any doubt.<br>

Rino.</p>

<p>Memories of a stranger. That memories do mine present. Perhaps watching the stranger's past I look for my own past. Or one that I never knew but sensed beforehand.<br>

Why didn't the stranger end the roll of film or not processed it? <br>

What can I see in the frames that could be developer of the motives? <br>

Was he or she alone? Another of billion of histories. <br>

Curiosity? Need to solve the mistery? Alteration because a person could disappear without a logical reasons leaving hanging things? The death may be involved?<br>

Thanks for sharing.</p>

<p>Rino.</p>

<p>Thank you, guys. A lot.<br>

I'm very happy with the lens. Also have a MC Rokkor PF 1,7/50. The last is nice and enough sharp, but the 50/1,4 MC has more contrast and sharpness. <br>

Very close to summilux 50/1,4 of the same time, losing at the center definition and wining at the corners in comparison with the 1980 summilux 50/1,4.<br>

An alone fault:<br>

As the lens has the F 1,4 in the aperture ring near the F/2 (distance like 1/2 aperture), the shutter selected by the camera (and watched in the finder) is intermediate. When I go from F/2 to F/1,4, the shutter speed doesn't go from 1/8 to 1/15. The shutter speed indicate is between 1/8 and 1/15. The camera reaction is the same than if I open to F/1,7 and no to F/1,4 <br>

The rest, EXCELENT lens.<br>

Rino.</p>