Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Minolta Rokkor Survival Guide

hey Rokkor junkies, I finally received my Minolta mount for Red from Cinemods, super good work, fits perfectly on the camera, no back focus adjustement needed.
I shot a little music video, just the day after, with my rokkor kit and all I have to say is that I'm really impressed with the lenses, they are beautiful, from skin tones to colors, contrast, flares and bokeh.
Here are a few screenshots, very slighly graded on Red Cine X, shot on 28mm f2, 45mm f2 (this one we didn't talk much about but it's a little gem, super slim and very nice), 58mm f1.2 and 135mm f3.5 :

CxjHdCu.jpg


Y32M9Mt.jpg


cl7RaSK.jpg


XtpEEa1.jpg


wojf8xS.jpg


iflebBz.jpg


pU4Y00x.jpg


KldNdH0.jpg
 
You really let those old Rokkors shine, bringing out the best in them!
 
Hi Uli, Thanks for putting all these informations together! Good read!
I am going after the Minolta 21mm. I saw a newer serial number without “NL” what are the differences between NL and non NL?
Best,
Oscar
 
The NL version is the older one, they used to indicate the number of groups and lenses with the first letter of the numbers in Greek, in this case 9 and 12.
Apart from that I don't think there is a huge difference, as long as we are referring to the 21mm f2.8 (about 500 grams) and not the later 20mm f2.8 (about half the weight). That one comes close, but is a bit weaker than the 21mm.

If you are looking for something lighter and smaller, I'd go for an Olympus 21mm instead, but the 21mm f2.8 Rokkor is admirable, one of the best superwides of it's era, IMHO second only to the Zeiss Contax/Yashica 21mm (which is very hard to find).
 
Thanks for the great explanation Uli! Many suggested the tiny olympus 21mm, seems like a great lens! I have seen review, can the circle flare be annoying sometimes? Which of these 2 will match the Contax Zeiss in color closer?
Best,
Oscar
 
They are both different from the Zeiss Contax line, you'll need quite some grading to match them.
And, yes, the circle flare sometimes is calling attention, but only at very specific angles.

If you want a wide to match the Zeiss Contax lenses, I'd rather get the Sigma Art 18-35mm. With some mild diffusion it'll come close.

If you wait a few days, I can post a test shot from all three, once my Sigma is back from shooting.
 
OK, the Sigma is back, but the Olympus is still with my wife.

My suggestion: if you can't get the Minolta for a very good price or you are not really going for a whole collection of Rokkors, go for the Sigma instead.
I saw in Nick Morrisons thread you are buying some Zeiss Contax lenses anyway. BTW, if you are concerned about the Sigma 18-35mm not covering the Dragon sensor at 6K (after all it's an APS-C lens) I tested that too. It only vignettes at 18mm, but at 20mm it's already covering 6K.

While it's impressive how good the Minolta 21mm was in it's time, the Sigma beats it at a narrow margin in nearly all aspects, plus it's faster and at least three lenses in one.

It has some distortion, similar to the Minolta at 21mm, but pretty low breathing. A notch over the 20mm mark matches the Rokkor 21mm, so either the Sigma is not as wide as it says or the Rokkor is very wide. I have no 18mm prime around to compare. At 35mm, the Sigma is wider than all my 35mm primes, so they may be cheating a bit regarding the range, but other than that it's a very impressive piece of glass.

I have adjusted the white balance in RC-X to a grey card with the Sigma 18-35 on the camera. The other lenses were shot without any change, but for the JPEGs brightness was adjusted equally for all three. All lenses were shot at f2.8, since some lenses are changing colors when stopped down (Illumas are notorious).

Sorry, for some reason the image links into my dropbox don't work. There is the Sigma 18-35mm at about 20mm, the Minolta MC W.Rokkor NL 21mm and finally the Zeiss C/Y 25mm, since I don't own the 21.

You can find them all here with the original R3D files, I'm sure you can match the Sigma and the Zeiss pretty well:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bbqf4rzvggzxol8/Lens%20Test%20Wide.zip?dl=0

If you are interested, I can post shots with the Zeiss C/Y 28mm 2.0 (nicknamed Hollywood) and a Pentax Takumar 28mm too.
 
Thanks for the comparison pics and suggestion Uli!
Just got my hand the sigma 18-35mm two weeks ago and shot 3 projects along with the Contax lenses. Love the versatility of the Sigma. Had a 1/8 BPM on it, still contrastier but not a big deal. The only thing I can complain is the distortion at wide end.
The Minolta is looking great too! Despite the color is different compare to Contax. Glad I went with the Sigma!

Best,
Oscar
 
Thanks for reporting back and confirming what I saw!

Yes, the Sigma plays quite nice with a line of Zeiss Contax to round up the low end. For me, the Contax line ends with the 28mm f2.0 (a dream lens) somehow:
I own the 25mm, but it needs to be stopped down for good corner sharpness.
I never bought the 21mm because of it's price, plus it's quite heavy and bulky and the 18mm is really slow.

For speed and sharpness, no wide from that era can beat the Sigma. Yes, there is some distortion, but the Zeiss 21mm has it's complex 'mustache' distortion too. I reach for my 18mm Contax if distortion is critical, it is not bad in that aspect. Somehow it looks good in motion, where other superwides do storage things between center and edges.

But when I need to travel light and it's not too dark, one Sigma plus two 2,8 primes like the 50mm f1.7 and the 85mm f2.8 get me covered well.
Either that, or add the 28-85mm Zeiss to the Sigma.
 
thanks ! it looks really nice and easier to operate than the cinemods one..
hopefully someday there will be a proper rehouse option somewhere for these BEAUTIFUL lenses :-)
 
hey guys,
we shot this little music video on Rokkor and Scarlet-W, really documentary style, mostly with the 21mm, it was really fun :

enjoy !
 
Hello all. So, I'm hoping to round out my lens options with some Minolta's for a more classic cinematic look that is not so modern / sharp / "perfect".

I just picked up online a Minolta MD W.Rokkor-X 28mm f/2.0 which as I understand is a bit rarer to find.

----> How does this lens compare to the MC version? As I understand from reading through this thread, the MC versions are generally preferable, but there seemed to be some debate with this lens in particular that the MD version may be superior?

Additionally, I have:

- Minolta MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm f/f1.4 3867143 that I picked up a few years back. How does this lens compare to the f/1.7 version, and how does it compare to the "legendary" 58mm f/1.2 version? Is it worth upgrading from this 50mm 1.4, or is it pretty close?

- Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135mm f/2.8 1550001 with built in lens hood. Looks in perfect condition. Reading Uli Plank's post on page 1/2, and using the Minolta index, appears to be cell 177, but hard to tell.

- Minolta MC Macro Focusing Zoom 70-210 4.5, Vivitar, 52mm thread, 77305739 (assuming low value?)

- 28mm f/2.8 lens that says Auto Makinon 830599, 55mm thread, green text on inside says MULTI COATED, (guessing this one is junk? I don't see words minolta on it anywhere)


So, beyond how good these lenses are / where they rank...

I want to adapt them to Canon EF, and as I understand from reading my 3 options are:

1. A bad adapter from BH (Fotodiox with 1.4x glass element for infinity focus). Not ideal because you get a new cheap glass element in the pipeline.
2. John Titterington jtcamera@aol.com in kansas (??)
3. Jim Buchanon (retired, but might respond) via https://www.classic-fototechnik.de/beruflicher-werdegang/
4. Attempt a self conversion to EF

What are my options to get these working on EF mount? How much may I need to spend? If they are physically converted, does this hurt the value of the lens and/or is it reversible?

Thank you for the help - excited to do some test shoots with these older lenses.
 
Sorry for being this late, but it may serve others (I finally answered to Daniel by PM a while ago):

1. I have the 28m f2 and it's one of the best fast wides of it's time, second only to the Zeiss C/Y 28mm f2 'Hollywood', while the 24mm is not only slower, but I found the standard version not that impressive. The 24mm VFC is great, though, but heavy.

MC is a bit nicer because of the aluminum/brass pairing for threads for smooth focusing and coatings which flare more (if you are into that). But there is no general advantage of MC over MD.

2. The 50mm f1.4 PG and the famed 58mm f1.2 are very different lenses, like two ends of the spectrum. The PG-Rokkor is 'analytical', one of the sharpest 50mm of it's time (better than Nikkor!), but can show some busy bokeh. The 58mm f1.2 is a bit softer, but in a beautiful way and has some of the best bokeh you can find. Plus, it's relatively easy to modify for EF mount – one of the reasons for it's high price. The 50mm f1.7 is sharp, but no very special. For character, rather go for the 55mm f 1.7.

3. I don't know if you can tell by the number, but weight is clear indicator if you got the famed 4/4 version. BTW, the cheap 135mm f 3.5 MD is not bad either, and so small!

4. If that's a Vivitar, it's not a Minolta, only Minolta mount. You'll loose the advantage of carefully matched color, and probably lower quality than Minolta's own (not sure, I didn't test that Vivitar).

5. A Makinon is probably just trash.

6. Well, I never tried such mods, since I own the Australian Minolta mount for Red.

But looking at Krzysztof's mount, I'd recommend it without even trying it as the better option. We bought other adapters from him and that guy is really into precision!

The only Minolta mod I've seen myself was a modified 58mm f1.2, which worked well.
But many Minolta SR lenses can't be adapted to EF at all (other than complex rehousing).

So, maybe, Zeiss C/Y is the better option for those with just an EF mount. Not as expensive as Leica, but easily adapted to EF, only a small ring or the Leitax conversion. See Nick Morrison's excellent guide!

As I told Daniel by PM, bokeh can vary a lot. The 58mm and the older 85mm are great, the 50mm PG or the newer 85mm are more busy. Well, and Leica is Leica… and you pay the price for the name too. None of the retro focus wides of those times were as good as modern glass, they all have some vignetting and distortion. Both are relatively easy to cure in post if you are not shooting in the dark. And flare? That's why you go for vintage glass, don't you? If you think there is too much, take the more recent ones.


Hope this can still help,
 
@Bernard
Great job and good choice of the lens. It shows those Minolta colors so well and, oh, those flares! Gotta love them, right?
Plus, doesn't it handle architecture quite well for such an old superwide?

Only (small) points of criticism: you should have brought NDs to avoid the short exposure times, the shutter is distracting in some shots. And the grading is not always consistent within one 'mood' of the piece.

And finally: those kids are serious athletes, congrats!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top