Minolta Rokkor Survival Guide

[Zack Birlew]

I got the Minolta bug while finding a great set plus camera at Goodwill about a year ago! I find them to be really comparable to my Nikons and even Rokinon Cine DS lenses so I wouldn’t mind using them for photography or film use. I have encountered the varied makes and types of Minoltas as I now have a few 50mm and 55mm lenses both MC, MD, and Rokkor X, which usually came bundled with other lenses. Oh well, they’re all great! I have to say, I really do love the zooms in the line, the 35-70, 35-135, and 70-210 floored me with how good they looked compared to primes and that’s only happened with my rare Angenieux-type Tokina 28-70 2.6 ATX! Like some other brands and legacy lens lines, it is a little annoying to collect because of certain lenses being singled out by collectors despite their practical nature on modern digital cameras but it is fun to come across a good deal or unexpected find every now and then. From what I’ve experienced, it’s hard to compete with modern lenses on the wide end so a set of 28/35, 50/58, and 135 of your choosing and preference should do for the most part and focus everything else on those killer zooms!

 

[Uli Plank]

Welcome to the show!
The only zooms I kept are the 35-70 and the 35-135. But primes? I got nearly all of them, since I started early enough. It's true that some lenses are overpriced now because of collectors, the worst one is the 250mm reflex (which is my wife's favorite).
But regarding wide, actually the 24mm can compete with many modern lenses and the 21mm is second only to the Zeiss C/Y Distagon in its time. OK, it can't compete with a Sigma 18-35mm, but after all, that's not full frame.
If you use the 21mm on S-35, it's perfect and even on photographic full-frame it's not bad stopped down one or two steps, so no problem for landsacpe on my Sony A7R II.

 

[Bernard Jallet]

I'm also in the hunt for the 135mm f2. Uli do you know rokkor lenses for Minolta CLE? I bought a Leitz CL with the 40 and tried on an A7s, it's beautiful, there is also a 28mm f2.8 and a 90mm f4

ho and just to add to the party, my last one on Rokkor and FS7, soooo pleased with the results :

 

[Uli Plank]

I'm not sure the 135mm f2 is worth a hunt. It is very rare and collectors pay exorbitant prices. I sold mine and even made some extra money.

That lens is not really great WO, it is pretty low in contrast and vignettes. The focusing is far less smooth than with the older lenses, since it's running aluminum on aluminum instead of brass on aluminum for the helicoid. So, if you have to stop down, you can as well use the much smaller, cheaper, lighter, excellent 135mm f2.8 (the 4/4 version). Which is using brass. The only advantage of the f2 lens is slightly closer focusing (1.3 vs. 1.5m).

Regarding Minolta CLE lenses I can't tell you much, only that the 28mm is prone to a specific problem, just google "m-rokkor 28mm white spot" and you'll know about it.

Finally: great job with that spot!

FYI: The cheapest offer for the 135mm f2.0 in Europe is currently at 760,-, with a seller claiming it's free of scratches, but I think I can see one on the front lens in the photographs. Another one, looking like old new stock, is offered for 880,-.
I don't think they are worth it other than for collection.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Hi folks!

A few months ago, I decided to invest in building my first personal set of vintage lenses with the Minolta Rokkor MCs, starting with the PG 50mm f1.4. In the months since, it's become my go-to prime for all my private work and I love using it.

More recently however I picked up an MC 28mm f2.8 in order to start working on the wider end of my set, but I realized too late that I'd made a mistake and ordered a lemon of a lens whose rear elements were noticeably damaged and scratched that result in an overly hazy image. So needless to say, I'll have to do a do-over with that, but I was wondering if anyone here could provide some suggestions as to which of the following routes I should go in next:

1. I order another MC 28mm f2.8 that's in better condition
2. I opt to save up extra money to buy a MC 28mm f2
3. I opt to save up extra money to buy a MC 24mm f2.8
4. I opt to save up extra money to buy a MC 21mm f2.8

I recognize that the faster and wider lenses will cost a bit more money and patience, so I'm just wondering if I'm better off sticking with my original plan or if I take this as an opportunity to invest in what will likely be one of the more expensive members of my planned Minolta Rokkor MC lens set?

 

[Uli Plank]

Well, regarding the 28mm f2.8, I'd rather save up for the f2.0. It is not only faster, but stopped down to f2.8 it's visibly better than the cheaper f2.8.
Only downside is the weight and the size, so if you want to fly it on a gimbal, that might influence your decision.

Regarding shorter focal lengths, you can't directly compare them. The 24mm is not the best in it's class in the standard (non VFC) version, and the VFC is too expensive.

The 21mm f2.8 MC W.Rokkor - NL is a great lens, IMHO among vintage lenses only surpassed by the Zeiss C/Y 21mm. It's build quality and focusing is outstanding, but it's hard to find these days for a reasonable price.

In general, the wides of that period are not as great as some longer lenses, from 35mm to around 135. The Tokina 18-35mm zoom of today will leave all aforementioned wides in the dust optically (but not mechanically). Apart from the Zeiss, that is.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Well, regarding the 28mm f2.8, I'd rather save up for the f2.0. It is not only faster, but stopped down to f2.8 it's visibly better than the cheaper f2.8.
Only downside is the weight and the size, so if you want to fly it on a gimbal, that might influence your decision.

Regarding shorter focal lengths, you can't directly compare them. The 24mm is not the best in it's class in the standard (non VFC) version, and the VFC is too expensive.

The 21mm f2.8 MC W.Rokkor - NL is a great lens, IMHO among vintage lenses only surpassed by the Zeiss C/Y 21mm. It's build quality and focusing is outstanding, but it's hard to find these days for a reasonable price.

In general, the wides of that period are not as great as some longer lenses, from 35mm to around 135. The Tokina 18-35mm zoom of today will leave all aforementioned wides in the dust optically (but not mechanically). Apart from the Zeiss, that is.

Hmm... in that case, I'll probably either save up for the 28mm f2 or the 21mm f2.8 then.

 

[Uli Plank]

Which camera do you use? If it's photographic full frame, a 21mm is already pretty extreme and not so easy to handle aesthetically when the camera is in motion.
OTOH, for S-35 a 28mm is not very wide.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Which camera do you use? If it's photographic full frame, a 21mm is already pretty extreme and not so easy to handle aesthetically when the camera is in motion.
OTOH, for S-35 a 28mm is not very wide.

I mainly use a Micro Four-Thirds camera with a Pixico speedbooster for the MC/MD mount, so any lens with that mount I put on my camera essentially acts as a S-35. So yeah, I'm leaning quite a bit towards the 21mm just so that I have a lens that gives me a wider view than the other lenses I own thus far (a Canon FD 28mm f2.8 and Helios 44-2 58mm f2 that are both currently adapted with dummy adapters).

 

[Chris Buchal]

Minolta Footage

Minolta Footage

I own a 58 1.2, a 50 1.4, a 35 1.7, a 85 1.7, and had a 135 2.8 4/4 that got stolen. There's a lot of minolta footage on here at 21s-47s; 50s; 1:09

Thanks to this forum I build the set, and had them custom modded to fit the ef mount. I'm curious if anyone knows if the "Sony Cine Alta" lenses that are discontinued, are rehoused Minolta glass? Did a commercial with them Recently on the Dragon Sensor, and it was great!

Most of the wides are sigma 18-35

 

[Antoine S]

I found a Minolta MD APO 100-500 mm f/8 at very good price.
Main points taken:
- Heavy stuff (2.08 kg)
- Corrects really well CA much much better than other teles (I don't have 400 and 600 APO...)
- Super bokey, good subject isolation, excellent colours and contrast
- Aperture is only f 8 but less of a problem with recent cameras (Sony A7Rii) with IBIS and high ISO and anyway DoF is already limited at 500 mm... I took pictures at 1/125s and even at 1/60s with support
- Really good minimal focus distance (2.5 meters at 500 mm...) allowing beautiful pictures

Weight means I will not use it extensively but it is a superb piece of kit that can make great pictures (without the busy donut bokey of RF lenses), Seems better than 70-210 mm f4... but 2 stops slower...

 

[Uli Plank]

I'm curious if anyone knows if the "Sony Cine Alta" lenses that are discontinued, are rehoused Minolta glass?

I don't think so, they are very similar to the Japanese Uniq lenses. See: thecinelens.com/tag/uniq-optics/

The Minolta SR 35mm is an f1.8, BTW.

 

[Bob Gundu]

I don't think so, they are very similar to the Japanese Uniq lenses. See: thecinelens.com/tag/uniq-optics/

The Minolta SR 35mm is an f1.8, BTW.

There was quite the discussion about the Altas before. Many were leaning on them being Minolta glass.

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?87913-New-quot-inexpensive-quot-PL-primes-from-Sony-!

 

[Marian Munteanu]

Hello people!
Anyone would be interest in modding iris aperture on their lenses?
In the last pic you can see zeiss 50mm f1.4 with new iris next to takumar 50mm f1.4.
Let me know what you think!
Thank you!

 

[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!

... For this project we decided to work with a set of old Minolta lenses (the Rokkor MC, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 200mm). We very much wanted to try uncommon lenses, that would be besides that, fast, light and affordable (except for the 200mm, the maximum aperture ranges between 1.2 and 2). We experimented with different kind of photography lenses and brands and chose the Minolta for its mixture of delicate softness in the backgrounds and definition in controlled sections of the frame, its beautiful reaction to flairs (and its bokeh), and the fact that we could find the whole series in the market. We chased them for several months during development and pre-production until we completed the set we ended up working with.

Besides the Minolta, we used a set of Lensbaby lenses (the sweet optics: 35mm, 50mm and 80mm). We used this lenses for some scenes where we needed a very expressive image, almost like a painting. And the sweet optics gave us that: a distortion that can be very plastic and expressive, allowing you to adjust that distortion in specific sections of the frame.

In general, we were looking for an atmosphere that could be naturalistic in the beginning, but aiming to become more expressive as the story progressed, without betraying the natural behavior of light (we mainly used natural and practical sources of light that made sense in the universe of the story). I believe this use of light and the lenses we chose allowed us the photograph the landscapes almost like a character, and the actors in the landscapes as if the images were and expression of their emotions.

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

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

On a personal note, I'm finally back on my own way of building a set of Minolta MC's. Just ordered a near mint 28mm f2 at a pretty great price, should be here in a couple of weeks. Very excited to try it for myself!

 

[Jimothy Brady]

My 21mm doesn't rotate either, only the 24-50mm zoom rotates.

My apologies for replying to a four-and-a-half year old post, but my lovely new 28mm f2 MC W.Rokkor just came in the mail today and it seems to rotate. Any advice on what to do with it regarding ND filters or matte boxes?

Aside from that one issue, the lens is just about perfect for what I need at the moment. I'm smitten with this jewel. The focus throw is a bit short, but hardly an issue for me so far. Might try to upload and share some photos from it in the future.

In the meantime though, I found a few officially released stills from that Sundance film I mentioned last week that was shot on Minoltas (Identifying Features). Obviously not my own work, but I'm quite smitten with the work that Fernanda Valadez and her DP Claudia Becerril were able to pull off here with these Minoltas. Makes me appreciate my own lenses that much more!

 

[Uli Plank]

You found a jewel there, nevertheless. Yes, the older MC 28 f2 has a rotating front lens, but optically it's the better version.
The later MD version rotates the glass element too, but like the 21mm it has a fixed thread for filters.
I'd stick to the better lens, though, and use a matte box on rails.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

You found a jewel there, nevertheless. Yes, the older MC 28 f2 has a rotating front lens, but optically it's the better version.
The later MD version rotates the glass element too, but like the 21mm it has a fixed thread for filters.
I'd stick to the better lens, though, and use a matte box on rails.

Yeah, that'll definitely be my plan. They'll have to pry this lens from my cold, dead hands I'm afraid! It seems that I am smitten with this jewel of a lens! The bokeh on this baby is terrific, especially WO.

I'll most likely start saving up for the 21mm as my next addition to my set. After I have that taken care of, I'm not sure which lens I'll pursue next; the 35mm or a telephoto lens like the 85mm f1.7 or one of the 135mm's?

 

[Uli Plank]

Apart from the fact that it depends very much on your style, what's your camera?
You know that there were famous directors who used one or two focal lengths for a whole film, do you?

Anyway, if you are a bokeh lover, try to find the 35mm f1.8. If that is out of reach: the 55mm f1.7 is a beautiful portrait lens for S-35 or similar sensor sizes and dirt cheap.
The 85mm f1.7 is expensive, heavy and a bit long for S-35 and for 135mm you'll need a massive tripod.

 

[Jimothy Brady]

Apart from the fact that it depends very much on your style, what's your camera?
You know that there were famous directors who used one or two focal lengths for a whole film, do you?

Anyway, if you are a bokeh lover, try to find the 35mm f1.8. If that is out of reach: the 55mm f1.7 is a beautiful portrait lens for S-35 or similar sensor sizes and dirt cheap.
The 85mm f1.7 is expensive, heavy and a bit long for S-35 and for 135mm you'll need a massive tripod.

I'm still using my Panasonic G85 with a Pixico speedbooster for now, but am hoping to upgrade to either an S1H or a Fuji XT3 or XT4 in the future. So I'd say with the speedbooster, I work with roughly a S35 field of view whenever I'm using my Minoltas on the G85?

And yeah, honestly I'm not sure how often I'd shoot with longer lenses past 50mm myself, save for interview shots in the current videography work I'm doing here on island. While I've gotten a lot of great work done with my Minolta PG 50mm f1.4 over the past year and a half of owning it, I noticed right away this afternoon that the 28mm feels more intuitive and complimentary to my personal shooting style. I could absolutely see myself getting away with shooting an entire project on that one lens, but long term I definitely want to build a proper set of Minolta MC's.

Yeah, that's the 35mm I'm eyeing! I'll keep the 55mm in mind for future reference though! As for the 85mm, would it be wiser to go with the f2 version instead then? I was eyeing the f1.7 version since it seems like it'd be easier to match with my other Minoltas due to being an MC era model and not the more recent MD's. And yeah, I've got a pretty hefty tripod! Not sure how often I'd use the 135mm, so I'll probably save that one for last.