Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,920   Posts: 1,556,562   Online: 1299
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13
  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    riverview, florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29

    Rokkor-X 200/2.8 lens

    Greetings
    Does anyone own or has used this lens. I am thinking about making a purchase and was curious if anyone has any experience

    Thanks, Jorge

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    87
    It is fantastic!

    One of the stellar Rokkors.

    Simply a magnificence, world class optic.

    Fred

  3. #3

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    riverview, florida
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    29
    Does $300.00 US seem in the ballpark?

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    87
    If I had it, I would pay that.
    I paid close to $1000 for mine brand new, in the '80's, and it was hard to get.

    Fred

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Saratoga Springs, NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    329
    I don't know Minolta gear well, but KEH.com has the 200mm f3.5 Rokkor X MC for $59. I know its a different lens, but what a difference half a stop makes in price.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Queens, NY
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    625
    http://www.rokkorfiles.com/200mm.htm. Short of it: it's good but not as good as later telephoto lenses with apochromatic glass.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by mudman View Post
    I don't know Minolta gear well, but KEH.com has the 200mm f3.5 Rokkor X MC for $59. I know its a different lens, but what a difference half a stop makes in price.
    Volkswagon makes the Beatle which has 4 seats and needs only 1 key to operate. $18K. They also make the Bugatti Veyron which has 2 seats and requires 2 keys to run. The Bugatti costs $2 million dollars. Big differance for 2 less seats or 1 more key. There MUST be some other difference.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Upstate New York
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by psvensson View Post
    http://www.rokkorfiles.com/200mm.htm. Short of it: it's good but not as good as later telephoto lenses with apochromatic glass.
    Possibly true. BUT!

    Although I like and respect the well meaning folk who contribute a great service at Rokkor Files, one has to take with a large dollop of salt anyone whose conclusions which are based on tests run with a color negative film with the lightest plastic camera body available mounted on a tripod so light they admit that they had to add a weighted bag to even get useful results.

    What happened to the addage,"The lighter the camera the heavier the tripod"? That lens could weigh twice what the 570 weighs. Minolta made the XK, XKmotor, XD-5, XD-11 for such serious persuits. The 570 is an intentional compromise intended to do most things for most people, whose needs are weekend occasional snapshots. Light tripods do little more than prevent small cameras from crashing to the ground, and delude the person who purchased them into accepting the hype they are sold by.

    What does "good" mean? It is at best misleading to test on the least capable type of material available and then scan on a system which by default injects adjustments of its own. (Nearly all scanners do this with Color neg. film, they have to or they would drive the user nuts) I own a Minolta 5400II, which was the most obviously one used and at best any (color neg.) output from it (or most others) must be considered subjective and derivative. Objective is not possible as it comes equipped.

    Lens quality is itself subjective and cannot be expressed in numbers and measurements. Lens quality must be determined using materials which do not inject qualities of their own. Color neg. does not fit this criteria. B&W and some chrome films do. You need to make photographs in real light of real subjects and even then "good' is relative to the image that was intended to be there.

    Marketing hype does not a great lens (or camera, or tripod) make.

    Fred

  9. #9

    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    268
    Hey, we're all staring at the same lens that closes in a couple of days on ebay.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    225
    I've got one and it's good and it's heavy...bit of a handfull to use without a tripod. I prefer my trusty MD 135mm f2.8 myself. $300.00 sounds about right for a good one.Oh and the difference in quality to the 3.5 is about as much as the difference in prices indicates......

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin