FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Samples: Minolta MC/MD/Rokkor 35mm F2.8

Page  <1234>
Author
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 02:07
Originally posted by rovhazman rovhazman wrote:

When time allow, I will join this Minolta 35/2.8 festival. I have the Minolta MC W.ROKKOR 35mm F2.8, the Minolta MC W.ROKKOR-HG 35mm F2.8 and the Minolta SHIFT CA ROKKOR 35MM F2.8
That would be great, the more the merrier! There must be a whole bunch of Rokkor 35s out there.

I imagine we will keep all the 35/2.8s in one thread but then that screws up the specs at the top of the thread.
Obviously the ShiftCA will get it's own thread but how many different optical constructions were there?



High speed (33.5knots) Catamaran ferry Southampton/Cowes (Isle of White) going for a "doughnut"

RED JET 3 Bound for West Cowes.

A7R * 35/2.8 * iso100 * 1/250th
 



Back to Top
AudioDoc View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 January 2006
Country: United States
Location: SLC Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 2790
Post Options Post Options   Quote AudioDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 15:02
More great samples! Very nice! Thank you, Peter!

You can see all versions of the 35mm here.

Regards,

Kelly
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 10857
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 15:45
Originally posted by AudioDoc AudioDoc wrote:

More great samples! Very nice! Thank you, Peter!

You can see all versions of the 35mm here.

Regards,

Kelly

And if you look at that website, you'll notice that there are two MC W.ROKKOR optical versions of the 35/2.8: 7 elements in 6 groups and 5 elements in 5 groups. It seems this thread is for the second version...
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
AudioDoc View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 January 2006
Country: United States
Location: SLC Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 2790
Post Options Post Options   Quote AudioDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 16:05
It is. You are correct, Addy!
Back to Top
darosa View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group

Joined: 23 March 2007
Country: Netherlands
Location: Westland
Status: Offline
Posts: 13196
Post Options Post Options   Quote darosa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 16:50
Originally posted by Peekayoh Peekayoh wrote:


I imagine we will keep all the 35/2.8s in one thread but then that screws up the specs at the top of the thread.
Obviously the ShiftCA will get it's own thread but how many different optical constructions were there?


Yes, we'll keep all 35/2.8s in this thread, and yes the specs in the first post are going to be a ehrm ....a challenge.
This is my Rokkor bible and if we disregard the Celtic lenses I think there are 10 versions of the 35/2.8, some of which are just cosmetic.

And yes, the SHIFT/CA 35/2.8 should get its own thread imo.

BTW: if your MC version has a MFD of 300, it must be the MC-X styled 1975 version with 5 el. in 5 gr.; if my bible is correct.
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 17:15
Kelly and Darosa, thanks for that link which clears up any doubts I had.
My lens must be item 75 on the list so 5in5 and the style is MC-X (haven't come across that before).
I've updated the Spec at the top to reflect the new (to me) information.
Which just goes to show, one is never too old to learn.
 



Back to Top
AudioDoc View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 26 January 2006
Country: United States
Location: SLC Utah
Status: Offline
Posts: 2790
Post Options Post Options   Quote AudioDoc Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 18:15
You are welcome, Peter. Dennis's site (German) is as Leo says, "The Bible" for the SR mount system. Mine is also the #75 version, the (X) in parenthesis is the US version -- they are the same lens, but as you know, Minolta liked to make things complected by using different nomenclature for the various markets. Since mine was made for the European market it has no X.

Of course there is also, the excellent www.rokkorfiles.com , other sites include: Dutch Magazine Lens Tests,   Digital Rokkor and another German site Rokkor Lenses

Like I say, many of these old Rokkor lenses are real gems and the A7 and A7r provide a "digital back" to give them new life without messing them up by modifying them for other lens mounts.
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 22:05
Even More links Kelly, you gotta love Dyxum!

Your last is very true, I was on the verge of converting some MC lenses to A-mount but now, I dunno. It would be nice to be able to use them on the a99 with IBIS but it is mutilation of classics and there again, who knows what's in the mind of Sony.
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 23:01
I'm sort of hogging this thread with posts, I hope folks don't mind.
I think I'm so pleased to be using lenses I bought and used so many years ago I can't contain myself.

Anyway I wanted to do a comparison between the in camera JPEG (because everyone on the net says they are so good) and a RAW file. I think I've made something of a poor choice of image in that the DOF may be insufficient to really cover the borders. Still, that doesn't take away from the RAW/JPEG comparison, so I'm fairly cool with it.

This is the image I used, I was at f/8 or f/11 can't be certain.

SOUTHAMPTON PORT Saga Sapphire is at the Cruise Terminal in the background.

A7R * MC W.ROKKOR 35/2.8 * iso100 * 1/60 (Tripod)

Crops around the Image

A7R * MC W.ROKKOR 35/2.8 * iso100 * 1/60 (Tripod)

I use DxO as my RAW processor of choice but as a faily recent convert to Digital, I don't claim any great expertese at this so I will be interested in your comments and to see also what other Dyxumers do with RAW processing. I don't use Lightroom so can't myself do anything in that direction to compare with DxO.

I didn't change anything in camera for the JPEG, just defaults.

RAW/OOC JPEG Comparison

A7R * MC W.ROKKOR 35/2.8 * iso100 * 1/60 (Tripod)

Edited by Peekayoh - 15 December 2013 at 02:04
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 December 2013 at 23:05
Hmmm! That's odd, the comparison crops have come out smaller, on my screen anyway. Is it a Dyxum limitation?
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15 December 2013 at 02:04
No worries, I went back and split it into two files.
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 10857
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2013 at 13:10
Originally posted by darosa darosa wrote:

Originally posted by Peekayoh Peekayoh wrote:


I imagine we will keep all the 35/2.8s in one thread but then that screws up the specs at the top of the thread.
Obviously the ShiftCA will get it's own thread but how many different optical constructions were there?


Yes, we'll keep all 35/2.8s in this thread, and yes the specs in the first post are going to be a ehrm ....a challenge.
This is my Rokkor bible and if we disregard the Celtic lenses I think there are 10 versions of the 35/2.8, some of which are just cosmetic.

And yes, the SHIFT/CA 35/2.8 should get its own thread imo.

BTW: if your MC version has a MFD of 300, it must be the MC-X styled 1975 version with 5 el. in 5 gr.; if my bible is correct.


Well, shouldn't it be both MC and MD lenses? As the later MC's were continued in the MD version..... the thread title should change in "Minolta MC and MD 35/2.8". IMHO.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
darosa View Drop Down
Emeritus group
Emeritus group

Joined: 23 March 2007
Country: Netherlands
Location: Westland
Status: Offline
Posts: 13196
Post Options Post Options   Quote darosa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2013 at 13:31
Yes, MC and MD, so all the Rokkor thread titles must be harmonized.
Back to Top
Peekayoh View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 19 January 2009
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3166
Post Options Post Options   Quote Peekayoh Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 December 2013 at 13:39
So did the later redesigned MD 35/2.8 with 49mm front thread retain the same optical formula?

Edited by Peekayoh - 18 December 2013 at 00:24
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > Other mount lenses Page  <1234>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.