Originally Posted by CGW
" A loving and caring heart is the beginning of all knowledge " ~ Thomas Carlyle ~
All the Rokkors are good, all the 50's. I shoot the 50/2 and it is as sharp at f/2 as the 1.4. The 1.2 is super as well (aren't they all?).
Originally Posted by darinwc
Exactly, a decent 50mm isn't exactly rocket science.
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
Not trying to sound snide but stating the obvious.
The MD 24/2.8 is awesome. Maybe the best across brands. The 28 is.....meh. The 35/2.8 is very good. The 45...another meh. 58's good. 85 awesome. 100's all excellent. 135/2.8 is fantastic. 35-70/4 and 70-210/4 terrific. In fact, those zooms challenge the primes save for DOF.
I prefer the MD's as they have better flare control.
I shot my X-500 w/Ektar today!
Rokkorfiles is a reliable source for the manual focus items, but sadly incomplete.
My absolute favorite was the MC 58/1.2, which I actually got as a kit lens with an SRT-101 at an estate auction. New in the box with (corroded) batteries still in their packaging! Next would be the MC 35/1.8, which I lusted after for a long time before it fell into my lap, cheap, at a camera show. It was broken, but they're hard to find and I had it fixed. After that, it's tough. The MC 24/2.8 is great but I didn't use it all that much; the 85mm f/1.7 MC was the best 35mm portrait lens I've ever had, bar none. Love that Minolta glass!
Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming– “Wow! What a Ride!”
— Hunter S. Thompson
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Originally Posted by Aristophanes
The 24mm was rebranded and used by Leica (albeit built with stricter tolerances and more quality control).
That version of the lens is generally considered good, but not great by today's standards... More or less on the par with the Nikkor 24mm f/2.8.
The original Minolta version probably has more sample variation.
M6, SL, SL2, R5, P6x7, SL3003, SL35-E, F, F2, FM, FE-2, Varex IIa
I've had a ton of Minolta manual focus glass pass though my hands over the years. All of the primes were, and still are fantastic! I think the 45/2.0 was my favorite normal focal length lens. These things are tiny, light weight, super inexpensive and sharp, sharp, SHARP!
Even the later 50mm f/1.7 MD lens is awfully damned good for the money - they could be had for next to nothing last time I looked.
My 50 1.2 MD is a stellar lens. Trying to score a 58 1.2 right now ...
I also love my 24 2.8 and surprisingly the beercan as well (20-200) that came free with the 24 I bought. I have a really hazy copy of the 135 as well, that other than lack of contrast, performs quite well.
I need to get an 85 now!
A True "Normal" Lens?
Good morning, Darin;
All of the Minolta "normal" lenses will do well for you. As far as the maximum lens aperture goes, yes, it is true that the f/1.7, f/1.8, and f/2.0 lenses generally will be sharper near their maximum aperture, but the f/1.4 and f/1.2 will be back in the running by the time you get to f/4.0 and f/5.6, then all of them are very nice out to f/16. The real advantage to the f/1.4 and f/1.2 versions is the brighter viewfinder screen in low light and the narrower depth of field, both of which really help in getting the focus correct. If you look at the performance of the f/1.2 lenses, they are not as sharp wide open, but that often is offset by the ability to get that focus correct, especially with eyes that have developed an excessive accumulation of years.
Then we come to the focal length. Most often, people will tell you that the 50mm lens focal length is "normal." Then there is the "method" of calculating the diagonal dimension of the film negative to "determine" the "normal" focal length. I do not agree. That method is flawed from the beginning, because there are various film formats where the height to width proportion is different. It will be close, but it is not accurate. For me, the 50mm focal length is slightly wide angle. If I put a 50mm lens on a Minolta, Nikon, or other camera, and look through the viewfinder, I note where things are at the edge of the viewfinder. If I move my head up a little and view the same scene with my own eye, the things that were at the edge in the viewfinder seem to move out a little wider. With the 55mm lens, this effect is much less noticeable. With a 58mm lens on the camera, when I raise my head slightly, everything stays in place; nothing moves. To me, that is true "normal perspective," and what a "normal" lens should do. It shows me the same perspective as I see with my own eyes. To me, the 58mm lens is the true normal lens, beginning with the AUTO ROKKOR-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm and going through to the MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.2 f=58mm.
I still believe that when Nikon, Minolta, Topcon, and others, came out with their first large aperture "professional level" normal lens for their SLR cameras, there was a reason why the focal length of 58mm was chosen, and I still say that it is for the reason that it provides true perspective for a normal lens.
The main advantage in getting a later lens, the ROKKOR MC and MD variants, is in the lens coatings. The later lens coatings are better, but, as with any lens, even one from the 1930s, you really can make it more flare resistant and improve the contrast just by putting a good lens hood or lens shade on it.
Last edited by Ralph Javins; 07-19-2011 at 11:09 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Ralph Javins, Latte Land, Washington
When they ask you; "How many Mega Pixels you got in your camera?"
just tell them; "I use activated silver bromide crystals tor my image storage media."
I just stumbled upon this post... via "new posts". AAAHHH! That's decent. You get the ATTABOY!
Originally Posted by Barry S