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.

I found your post doing a search for the history of this company. Thank you much for your great photos and description of the history. I picked up a Pentacon 30 a couple of years back, now running it on M43 and a Canon M50, both with focal reducers. I have grown very fond of this lens, which I picked up very reasonably (30USD) because of a bent filter ring, straightened out the ring, added a filter, since trusting the filters threads more. This lens has character, So many of the digital lenses seem antiseptic comparatively, the background blur is amazing, and the colors are great, as your photos show so nicely.