Minolta Rokkor Survival Guide

[Uli Plank]

If you encounter a 55mm f1.7 in good shape, grab it too! It's a great addition to the 50mm PG. While the PG is clinically sharp it has a rather rough bokeh. The 55 f1.7 is very nice with faces, while still having good resolution, very smooth focus and great bokeh.
Regarding the 85mm f1.7 vs 2.0, it's a tough choice. But IMHO the 1.7's bokeh is a bit overestimated and the 2.0's is not bad at all. But it's much cheaper and lighter. The colors are not that hard to match.

Nothing to say about the 35mm f1.8 than: it's another jewel, but hard to come by these days.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

If you encounter a 55mm f1.7 in good shape, grab it too! It's a great addition to the 50mm PG. While the PG is clinically sharp it has a rather rough bokeh. The 55 f1.7 is very nice with faces, while still having good resolution, very smooth focus and great bokeh.
Regarding the 85mm f1.7 vs 2.0, it's a tough choice. But IMHO the 1.7's bokeh is a bit overestimated and the 2.0's is not bad at all. But it's much cheaper and lighter. The colors are not that hard to match.

Nothing to say about the 35mm f1.8 than: it's another jewel, but hard to come by these days.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind then! There seem to be quite a lot of 55mm's in good shape on eBay right now. But in the meantime, I'll probably continue to focus on saving my pennies for the 21mm first to round out my (ultra) wide angle side of the set.

I'll keep that in mind then! Thanks for the input on the 85mm.

Yeah, I've heard nothing but stellar things about the 35mm f1.8. I'm eager to get my hands on one. Thankfully there seem to be a fair number of them up for sale on eBay, so I'm more worried about picking up the 21mm in the near future if possible.

Actually on that note, if I find myself unable to pick up a 21mm for an extended period of time, will the 24mm f2.8 be a valid enough substitute to fill the void until I have another opportunity to nab the 21mm? Or is the 24mm too close to the 28mm for it to make much of a difference either way?

 

[Uli Plank]

Hmm, tough call. If you are really such a wide-angle guy, rather have a look at the Olympus 21mm f3.5. You know what, I'll prepare a shot with either one for you and a comparison of a 24 and 28 (non-Minolta). It's already night over here, but I'll try in the morning when usually the sun is shining here.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Hmm, tough call. If you are really such a wide-angle guy, rather have a look at the Olympus 21mm f3.5. You know what, I'll prepare a shot with either one for you and a comparison of a 24 and 28 (non-Minolta). It's already night over here, but I'll try in the morning when usually the sun is shining here.

That's not a bad idea, though I'd need to buy another speedbooster for the Olympus in order to make proper use of the 21mm focal length. Unless there's a straight OM-to-MD adapter that I could use to attach it to my Pixico speedbooster?

Yeah, it's close to midnight here too. I'm quite appreciative of your help, by the way! This feedback, along with the Survival Guide itself, have helped tremendously.

 

[Uli Plank]

Unfortunately, the difference in flange is only 2.5mm, so I doubt there is an adapter. I'll send you some stuff tomorrow.
So, you are even east of me? Hmm, New Zealand?

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Unfortunately, the difference in flange is only 2.5mm, so I doubt there is an adapter. I'll send you some stuff tomorrow.
So, you are even east of me? Hmm, New Zealand?

Okay, looking forward to it!

Yeah, I live in Japan! From the States though and plan on eventually making it back stateside at some point.

 

[Uli Plank]

Here is my MC W Rokkor-NL 21mm f2.8 (the one with a silver aperture ring):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uo5vbc754nmu13n/Minolta_21_Flare.jpg?dl=0
Nothing flares like a Rokkor!
Here is a comparison with the Tokina 17mm f3.5, both shot at S-35 crop, first the Minolta:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/42rqoxoe02pourt/21mm_Minolta.jpg?dl=0
Now the Tokina:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4ejc3gvjrq88g/17mm_Tokina.jpg?dl=0

Don't underestimate the Tokina if you want very wide. It has low contrast, but resolution isn't bad. Unfortunately, it is much cooler in colors than the Rokkors.

And you are right, forget the Olympus 21mm, you'd need another focal reducer. BTW, there are a few 21mm Minoltas on Ebay right now both in Japan and in Germany, but all pricey.

Can't send you a comparison of Minoltas in 24mm vs. 28mm, they are both 10,000 km from here and there are no flights…

But I'll send a few shots from my Sigma zoom later today when the camera is back.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Here is my MC W Rokkor-NL 21mm f2.8 (the one with a silver aperture ring):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uo5vbc754nmu13n/Minolta_21_Flare.jpg?dl=0
Nothing flares like a Rokkor!
Here is a comparison with the Tokina 17mm f3.5, both shot at S-35 crop, first the Minolta:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/42rqoxoe02pourt/21mm_Minolta.jpg?dl=0
Now the Tokina:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jv4ejc3gvjrq88g/17mm_Tokina.jpg?dl=0

Don't underestimate the Tokina if you want very wide. It has low contrast, but resolution isn't bad. Unfortunately, it is much cooler in colors than the Rokkors.

And you are right, forget the Olympus 21mm, you'd need another focal reducer. BTW, there are a few 21mm Minoltas on Ebay right now both in Japan and in Germany, but all pricey.

Can't send you a comparison of Minoltas in 24mm vs. 28mm, they are both 10,000 km from here and there are no flights…

But I'll send a few shots from my Sigma zoom later today when the camera is back.

Thank you again for these image samples! Digging the flare on that Minolta! The Tokina seems like a fair enough alternative if I absolute needed to it, but I'll keep my eyes on the Minolta 21mm for now. It's just a matter of being able to afford a good one in time before the ones available on eBay are gone, I suppose.

 

[Antoine S]

Went through some old photography magazines and it appears there are 2 versions of the rokkor 17 mm f4, one without floating element and one with a floating element which, according to the magazine delivered much improvement. So, beyond the coating, it is important to buy the 2nd version.

Seems better than the Vivitar 17mm f3.5 which, I think is a rebranded Tokina

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Does anyone end up having issues with back/front focus on their Minoltas? I've noticed that depending on the lens (24, 28, 35) the infinity focus can be slightly to really off.

 

[Uli Plank]

Well, it depends a lot on the precision of your adapter. Do you observe more of a difference with the shorter focal lengths? That would point to a problem with the adapter.
And then, photographic lenses were never very precise regarding distance marks (aka witness marks).
That’s one of the many differences which make Cine lenses that much more expensive.
Cine mounts like PL can be shimmed for correct focal length.
Finally, a lens of that age may need some servicing.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Well, it depends a lot on the precision of your adapter. Do you observe more of a difference with the shorter focal lengths? That would point to a problem with the adapter.
And then, photographic lenses were never very precise regarding distance marks (aka witness marks).
That’s one of the many differences which make Cine lenses that much more expensive.
Cine mounts like PL can be shimmed for correct focal length.
Finally, a lens of that age may need some servicing.

I just heard back from Jim Buchanan (who has retired from modifying lenses :'[ ) that he thinks the infinity focus he had adjusted at the front of the lenses might have gotten a little loose/off. He had converted my Minoltas to EF mount and did a great job, and they were sharp at infinity before.

I guess I'm wondering if it's better to try and get them fully rehoused to be cine lenses, or keep using them and try to fix the infinity focus myself?

 

[Uli Plank]

Im sorry not to be able to advise on this. I never fixed lenses on my own, I was lucky enough to have an old engineer from Voigtlander around the corner doing such jobs for me. I’m afraid he might retire soon too…

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Hello fellow Minolta loyalists!

So I just found out that one of this year's international features, Fernanda Valadez's Identifying Features, at Sundance was shot mainly on a set of Minolta Rokkor MC's (along with a few Lensbaby Sweet's)! Here's what they said about using the lenses on the film over at IndieWire!


https://www.indiewire.com/2020/01/sundance-2020-cinematography-camera-lens-1202204356/

Here's the trailer too! The film looks great.

Bumping the thread to bring up Identifying Features again, since it's currently out on a 'digital theatrical run' of some sort and now has two more trailers showcasing its stunning cinematography from the film!

I can't wait to see the full film for myself.

 

[BrendanLeahy]

Does anyone have someone they can recommend here in the US that can adjust my lenses? The infinity on some is off now

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Does anyone have someone they can recommend here in the US that can adjust my lenses? The infinity on some is off now

Unfortunately I don't personally know of anyone. Maybe Duclos Lenses? I know they have some experience with handling Minoltas, based on some of their recent livestreams on their official YouTube channel.

On another note, I'm happy to report that I just ordered a very lovely MC W.Rokkor HH 35mm f1.8 in near mint condition! I also just picked up a cheap MD 70-210mm f4 zoom to cover the telephoto end for awhile. I'm in the process of upgrading from my Panasonic G85 to the Panasonic S5, so I wanted to have something resembling a basic lens set from wide to telephoto when the new camera comes in.

So with the 28mm f2, 35mm f1.8, the PG 50mm f1.4 and the 70-210mm f4, I'd say that I'm generally pretty well covered for now. I'll try to nab either a good 21mm or 24mm later in the summer and then a 85mm f1.7 and maybe the 55mm f1.7 to better pair with the 35mm down the line.

Needless to say I'm quite excited to see how well my Minoltas will pair with the S5!

 

[Uli Plank]

@Brendan:
I wouldn't be too concerned if the lens goes a tad over infinity, that's normal for stills lenses. Manufacturers tried to make sure that you can still reach infinity under extreme temperatures. If you can't reach infinity, I'd rather blame the adapter.

@Jimothy:
Congrats on that 35mm f1.8, such a beautiful lens! Yes, the 55mm f1.7 should match it nicely and it's normally still cheap, while everybody is hunting the biting sharp PG 1.4. I got me the 55mm only recently and already love it.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

@Jimothy:
Congrats on that 35mm f1.8, such a beautiful lens! Yes, the 55mm f1.7 should match it nicely and it's normally still cheap, while everybody is hunting the biting sharp PG 1.4. I got me the 55mm only recently and already love it.

Thanks! I'm looking forward to testing the 35mm out finally. Love the samples I've seen from it online.

As for the 55mm, I was wondering- do you know if Minolta happened to use thorium in that particular lens? I know that a number of their older late 60's/very early 70's lenses were radioactive and was curious if the 55mm happened to be one of those lenses.

Additionally I'm not entirely sure if I'll go with the 55mm or if I'll wait a bit longer and save up for the legendary 58mm f1.2 instead. Would the 58mm pair well with my 28mm and 35mm?

 

[Uli Plank]

No, this one is not among them. The older 58mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.7 had Lanthanium glass which may have traces of Thorium.

BTW, you don't really need to be afraid of such lenses, apart from one very rare lens for arial photography, the Kodak Aero-Ektar.
To affect you, you would have to grind one of the other lenses, like an early Takumar, with Thorium very fine and inhale or eat it, since the reach of it's radiation is very short.

I have a 58mm f1.2 which is not radioactive (I even checked it with a Geiger counter). While it's a wonderful lens, it's hard to find these days in good condition and it's heavy. For me, it was more like a collector's item and I found it by accident. It sit's in my cabinet most of the time, while the 55mm is going with me. With modern cameras and their sensitivity you don't really need to hunt for that bit of speed and the bokeh of the 55mm f1.7 is quite nice too.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

No, this one is not among them. The older 58mm f1.2 and the 85mm f1.7 had Lanthanium glass which may have traces of Thorium.

BTW, you don't really need to be afraid of such lenses, apart from one very rare lens for arial photography, the Kodak Aero-Ektar.
To affect you, you would have to grind one of the other lenses, like an early Takumar, with Thorium very fine and inhale or eat it, since the reach of it's radiation is very short.

I have a 58mm f1.2 which is not radioactive (I even checked it with a Geiger counter). While it's a wonderful lens, it's hard to find these days in good condition and it's heavy. For me, it was more like a collector's item and I found it by accident. It sit's in my cabinet most of the time, while the 55mm is going with me. With modern cameras and their sensitivity you don't really need to hunt for that bit of speed and the bokeh of the 55mm f1.7 is quite nice too.

Good to know! I was actually asking more out of general curiosity, rather than out of concern. I'm actually considering building a set of Takumars down the line after I've got a proper, fleshed out set of Minolta MCs! Either Takumars or a Soviet set.

Ah, I see! In that case, yeah, I will most likely just opt to go for the 55mm for now. Thanks for the input, Uli!