Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,871   Posts: 1,583,327   Online: 1104
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17
  1. #11
    Aristophanes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    505
    Images
    15
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    What's the difference between Rokkor and Rokkor X?
    IIRC it was Japan and not Japan for intended market respectively.

  2. #12
    benjiboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    7,185
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    Well, like I say, I don't know much about the Minolta's but with Canon's FD 50mm lenses, the f/1.4 has 6 elements vs. 5 in the f/1.8 and it has an 8-blade aperture vs. 5 blades in the f/1.8. The f/1.4 lens is substantially better in terms of its optical qualities.
    Sorry Tony but this is incorrect, the Canon FD 50mm f1.8 lens has six elements in five groups the FD 50 mm f1.4 lens has seven elements in six groups.
    Ben

  3. #13
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    730
    Images
    14
    Yes, that's right. My quick glance at MIR wasn't long enough!

  4. #14
    Katie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Texas, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    739
    Images
    89
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony-S View Post
    What's the difference between Rokkor and Rokkor X?
    Rokkor = Japan
    Rokkor X = USA

    I have the 50 1.2 and must say it is quite a stellar little lens. I use it on my Minoltas as well as on my Canon 1V with an adapter. I HIGHLY recommend the Rokkor line of lenses - I have the 24 2.8, the 50 1.2, the 85 1.7, the 135 2.8, and some zooms that aren't that great, but work fine in the event I have to use them. I have heard that the 1.4 is as good as the 1.2 other than the DOF is not as dramatic. 1.2 is RAZOR thin and I only use it on non-living or TOTALLY still things.

  5. #15
    Tony-S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    730
    Images
    14
    Ok, a couple more. What are PF and Celtic?

  6. #16

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Ventura, California
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    421
    Images
    1
    PF was the older lenses; they are going to be heavy, all metal, not quite as good coatings as the modern MD lenses, but there are some good "cult classic" ones like the 58mm and such that of course some people swear by. Celtic was the "cheaper lineup" - I'd avoid those unless a real steal, because the used market what it is these days, you can get a regular "non Celtic" version for pennies on the dollar.

  7. #17
    thicktheo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Athens, Greece
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    110
    Images
    83
    ...you can get the Minolta MD 50mm/f1.4 quite cheap if you are a bit patient - I bought mine here on APUG for 30$ (plus postage). For such a price, it's a steal.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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