Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,670   Online: 881
      
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550

    Any Opinions on the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5?

    I have both Nikon and Minolta gear. I have been mostly disappointed in the Nikon 300/4.5 AI. I do not know how to describe it, but the lens gives an odd appearance or character in the shots I have taken with it. Thus, how good is the Minolta MD Tele Rokkor 300/4.5? I welcome any relevant comments in regard to its performance and such.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minden Hills, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    215
    I just picked this lens up at a camera show last weekend. Came with end caps and Minolta round case.
    Takes a 72mm filter and has built-in lens shade. Will be testing it this week on my two SR-T101's, and
    my X370N. Will let you know the results.
    Best regards,
    /Clay

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    Thanks, Clay...I will look for your comments.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    14
    Hi FilmOnly,

    I do not own the MD Rokkor, but the older MC Rokkor 1:4.5 300m. The MC is a different construction and therefore it is not really comparable.
    But nevertheless I want to share my findings for the MC.

    The MC lens draws somewhat soft (especialy less contrast) wide open, but sharpens up very nicely at f5.6. I would rate it razor sharp here.
    Chromatic aberations become visible slightly under special circumstances. Here it becomes visible that it is not a APO lens. In sum it is a very
    capable lens and has served me very well.

    BG lightdreamer

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Richmond VA.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,934
    My brother has one and has like it very much, if that means anything.

    Jeff

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    The Nikon 300mm f/4.5 AI is a good performer. What shutter speeds are you shooting it at?
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    2F/2F: I would never shoot hand-held with a large, heavy lens. In fact, about 90 percent of all of my shots are taken on a carbon fiber tripod. I shoot the 300/4.5 on this tripod, and usually use a remote cord, too. Since I shoot moving subjects (both slower and faster), I shoot at 1/125th and above (1/500th or higher for faster subjects). The Nikon 300 has yet to produce a sharp, accurate, pleasing photo. In fact, I do not know how to describe the photos taken with this lens. They do not look like out-of-focus snapshots taken by a novice. The just look odd.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    8,021
    Images
    4
    Do you have any examples?

    The advantage of the 4.5 over the 2.8 is that it is actually pretty small and light, and can easily be shot hand held.
    2F/2F

    "Truth and love are my law and worship. Form and conscience are my manifestation and guide. Nature and peace are my shelter and companions. Order is my attitude. Beauty and perfection are my attack."

    - Rob Tyner (1944 - 1991)

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minden Hills, Ontario, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    215
    Oops, my mistake, Mine is also the MC not the MD version.

    /Clay

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southeastern U.S.
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    550
    I am sorry, but I cannot supply any examples (no scanner, etc.).

    I think I have figured out how to describe what I see in my photos shot with the 300/4.5. These shots have a certain "shiny" appearance, whereas my other lenses (including the 200/4), give a more "matte" look. I guess one could call this "shiny" appearance contrast. However, it does not look at all realistic or lifelike. For example, tree branches in photos shot with the 300/4.5 look "shiny." In reality, these branches have a more "matte"--if not dull--look. The same trees shot with my AI'd 200/4 (and with a few other lenses, too) look "matte," as in reality.

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