Minolta Rokkor Survival Guide

[Nick Morrison]

BTW Uli, I'm loving this guide! Starting to build my own Rokkor collection. It's giving my father and a lot to talk about (he has an impressive collection of Rokkors himself, that he just shot a small feature on).

 

[Uli Plank]

Thanks for the kind words!

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

I took a plunge and pick up a few MD lenses to tinker with.

I will be using this guide as my primary method for re-fitting the lenses for EOS mount. Any thoughts or advice?

http://www.cogitech.ca/Rokkor/index.html

I have the following coming:

45mm f/2.0 MD Rokkor-X
50mm F/1.7 MD Rokkor-X
58mm f/1.4 MC Rokkor PF
35-105mm F3.5-4.5 Macro MD
75-200 F4.5 MD

Just some tinkering fodder at the moment....

 

[Nick Morrison]

I took a plunge and pick up a few MD lenses to tinker with.

I will be using this guide as my primary method for re-fitting the lenses for EOS mount. Any thoughts or advice?

http://www.cogitech.ca/Rokkor/index.html

I have the following coming:

45mm f/2.0 MD Rokkor-X
50mm F/1.7 MD Rokkor-X
58mm f/1.4 MC Rokkor PF
35-105mm F3.5-4.5 Macro MD
75-200 F4.5 MD

Just some tinkering fodder at the moment....

Jim Buchanon is a great solution for converting to EOS.

 

[Jeffrey T. Morgan]

Thanks, Nick! I think I am going to take a shot at it myself first, a chance to learn more about lens internals, but if I fail, I will contact Jim!

FWIW, I am impressed with the build quality of the Minoltas. However I feel they are a B versus the Contax Zeiss A+ build.

 

[Brandon Kelly]

I have a 100mm f4 macro with adapter which I removed the glass from, works great for macro stuff. But i currently have 2 minolta 35mm film camera on the way, they come with a 35 2.8 and 55. It would be great if I could use them on my RED with ef mount to infinity. From what I have read there is the Buchanan method, or mc - lecia m - to canon ef? I cant seem to find and leca m to canon ef? would this double mount option work? What is the easiest most affordable way to get infiniity with these rokkor lenses?

 

[Uli Plank]

If you don't want to have the mount changed on the lens (it's not always possible anyway), the only option is using a Leica-M mount directly on the RED and an adapter from Minolta MC/MD to Leica-M.

It's the only version that gets you the right flange distance and consequently infinity focus, an additional EF mount is far too long.

 

[Brandon Kelly]

That's what I was coming to realize. Thanks for the response.

If you don't want to have the mount changed on the lens (it's not always possible anyway), the only option is using a Leica-M mount directly on the RED and an adapter from Minolta MC/MD to Leica-M.

It's the only version that gets you the right flange distance and consequently infinity focus, an additional EF mount is far too long.

 

[dean vian]

I have been converting Minolta Rokkors. This is a test that I did on 35mm (low res from included cd of 35mm machine prints). Will convert soon. This is the 58mm t1.2 MC. I think MC's are better build and have 60s/70s look. Some of MD's maybe sharper but more plastic (in some cases) and a bit more bland looking. Minolta MC are from the look of Cooke SP or Super Baltar but a touch sharper but still very smooth.

 

[dean vian]

in my opinion Minolta MC Rokkor 58mm 1.2, 85mm 1.7, 35mm 1.8 , 28mm 2.0, 100m 2.0 and 24mm 2.8 are incredible. I have tested Konica Hexanon, Olympus Zuiko and Canon and nikons from early 70s. Minolta has more classic cinema look but a bit sharper. Konica much sharper and quite dramatic. Olympus I like a lot. As sharp as Minolta (not as sharp as Konica) but a real interesting almost early 80s look to me. Nikon too sharp and genric for me but still great and Canon nice but not my 1st choice.

Minolta Rokkors MC's not the sharpest but beautiful.

 

[dean vian]

its very hard for me to find pictures online taken with Rokkors that do them justice. Too much bokeh shots of flowers. I have no interest in lens bokeh and I am not sure how many great dp's ever did either. This lens is not just a bokeh thing. Its an amazing classic very flattering lens.
If I had to use still lenses on movie cameras it would be Rokkor MC's for classic Hollywood look and Olympus Zuikos from the 70s OM1 for am more edgy look or sci fi. But both would do the job well on any film.

 

[Uli Plank]

If you want to do classic Hollywood romantic comedy, the Rokkors, in particular the 58mm 1.2 or the 85mm Varisoft, are great. Female talent will love you for using them. They have the resolution, but are not bitingly sharp. When used WO, their contrast goes down, but not the sharpness itself. The older 85mm for example had a very specific fine tuning for portrait: It was softer and created some very flattering glow until about 2.8 and got very sharp and contrasty beyond, like two lenses in one. Personally, I like to have the small and sharp 85mm 2.0 when I need sharpness WO and the Varisoft for greater flexibility at all apertures up to 8.

BTW, I doubt great DPs don't care about bokeh – they just don't discuss it all the time (and don't care about cats and flowers). But of course it's just part of the overall rendering characteristics. The older MCs can have some stunning flares too, for example. A good DP will look at all these things.

 

[Nick Morrison]

its very hard for me to find pictures online taken with Rokkors that do them justice. Too much bokeh shots of flowers. I have no interest in lens bokeh and I am not sure how many great dp's ever did either. This lens is not just a bokeh thing. Its an amazing classic very flattering lens.
If I had to use still lenses on movie cameras it would be Rokkor MC's for classic Hollywood look and Olympus Zuikos from the 70s OM1 for am more edgy look or sci fi. But both would do the job well on any film.

If you want to do classic Hollywood romantic comedy, the Rokkors, in particular the 58mm 1.2 or the 85mm Varisoft, are great. Female talent will love you for using them. They have the resolution, but are not bitingly sharp. When used WO, their contrast goes down, but not the sharpness itself. The older 85mm for example had a very specific fine tuning for portrait: It was softer and created some very flattering glow until about 2.8 and got very sharp and contrasty beyond, like two lenses in one. Personally, I like to have the small and sharp 85mm 2.0 when I need sharpness WO and the Varisoft for greater flexibility at all apertures up to 8.

BTW, I doubt great DPs don't care about bokeh – they just don't discuss it all the time (and don't care about cats and flowers). But of course it's just part of the overall rendering characteristics. The older MCs can have some stunning flares too, for example. A good DP will look at all these things.

Big reason why I'm having a small set of Rokkor MC's converted to EOS mount and cinemodded.

 

[dean vian]

Yes I have no problem with people who talk bokeh but in general people only seem to give rokkors credit for bokeh but I dont shoot shallow depth and love them. I have varisoft which is great. Again virtually no good sample images online like other lenses.

 

[dean vian]

Its also very good for that 70s look like the conversation, paralax view, klute and french connection. Its like a super baltar but a touch sharper.. maybe more like late 60s panavision lens look.

 

[Nick Morrison]

Its also very good for that 70s look like the conversation, paralax view, klute and french connection. Its like a super baltar but a touch sharper.. maybe more like late 60s panavision lens look.

When you say MC's do you mean the all metal original MC's? OR the second generation MC's with more black on the barrels (that look like old MDs)? Or is the glass pertty much similar, and only the construction changed? Just curious.

 

[dean vian]

I have tested mc's and md's a lot. I find nearly all focal lengthd of mc's match up perfect. I have been amazed that I can switch from mc 2/85mm to 1.2/58mm to 1.8/35mm to 2/20mm in same scene and have the same color and look. I find it works with older and newer mc the same. The MD however seems a totally different lens. I tend not to mix within scene but I tend not to use MD as I find them to be more like anyother very good lens.
In general i would go with all mc newer or older. The construction in my opinion is better than its rivals on all mc and some md. The varisoft md is amazing construction however. Again MD is a different lens to MC.

 

[dean vian]

If its about sharpness then most MDs win. The f2/135mm is crazy good.
Its just what you like. Rokkors were very sharp in 70s but obviously not as sharp as modern.

 

[Nick Morrison]

I have tested mc's and md's a lot. I find nearly all focal lengthd of mc's match up perfect. I have been amazed that I can switch from mc 2/85mm to 1.2/58mm to 1.8/35mm to 2/20mm in same scene and have the same color and look. I find it works with older and newer mc the same. The MD however seems a totally different lens. I tend not to mix within scene but I tend not to use MD as I find them to be more like anyother very good lens.
In general i would go with all mc newer or older. The construction in my opinion is better than its rivals on all mc and some md. The varisoft md is amazing construction however. Again MD is a different lens to MC.

Great, I asssumed all MC's pretty much matched, but good to know. There was an article somewhere on the net about how Minolta Rokkor would adjust the coating for EACH LENS DESIGN so that all LENSES in the lineup would color match! How about that!!???

At at time when it was customary to simple apply the same "coating" to all lenses, Rokkor instead adjusted THE COATING to each lens!!!

Rokkor was such an interesting company. A small japanese firm that designed and fabricated all their own lenses, and had a clear fascination with bokeh and color. Its no wonder Leica thought it fit to partner with them.

Originally, the way I understand it, Leica intended to partner with Rokkor only to "re-badge" some of their Zooms. But when they saw some of the primes Rokkor was making (esp in focal lengths Leica hadn't covered yet), Leica re-badged those as well: starting with the 24 2.8, then the 16 2.8 fisheye and 500 Mirror.

And yes. The construction of MC lenses is superb. Almost as good as my Contax Zeiss's. The few MD's I have start to get a but plasticky however, and I'm not so big a fan of.

 

[Nick Morrison]

If its about sharpness then most MDs win. The f2/135mm is crazy good.
Its just what you like. Rokkors were very sharp in 70s but obviously not as sharp as modern.

Don't know about the 135/2, but I picked up a 100/2 at Adorama for dirt cheap. About 1/3 of the going price. My father (who used to own a photo store, and has a massive collection of Rokkors and pretty much "ordered" me to get it! Haha)