On a whim I purchased a nice looking MC W Rokkor-X 21mm/2.8 lens today.
This is the later "waffle" focus grip style. Body and glass seem really nice, especially for the price. From what I have read this is supposed to be a really sharp lens. The build quality seems excellent.
I am now waiting for Ed to convert his copy of this lens (shamelessly like a golfer watching another player's putt...)
I have converted the Rokkor 58/1.2 successfully so I hoping this will be no real problem?
Check on whether this is a floating element design or not. I don't know. I believe the 21mm pre-dates the 20/2.8, which is floating element design. If the 21mm is too, you will be forced to use the subtractive method to adjust for infinity, which requires not going overboard in reducing the optical path.
And the quote on this lens: The Minolta MC W. Rokkor 21mm f2.8 was one of the best ultra wide angle lens made by Minolta and was the first to use a complex "floating elements design" (12 lens in 9 groups). It was annunced on the market on 1973 (first version on 1966) it looks as an impressive piece of glass and metal (it has a great solid construction !). It was one of the best wide angle, on 20-21mm range, with very hight optical performance second only to the "Zeiss Distagon 21mm f2.8.
A lens that is very difficul to find on the used market as its optical quality that is simply marvelous.
I've EOS adapted the 24/2.8 and the 28/2.0, both having the "FED". I didn't have to remove alot of optical path for infinity focus. There is a reference on the web that suggests the register difference is more like .275mm than .5mm that is widely quoted.
I looked at mine briefly but haven't spent time with it yet. I think it should be doable, from eyeballing how much distance is between the rear element and where the stock bayonet ends. I think it might require a retaining ring shave but other than that should be doable.
It does predate the 20/2.8. I had forgotten that it has a floating element design (presuming the above is correct).
the hood is fairly rare too, hard to find, I don't have one.
I want to compare it to an Oly 21/3.5 (which I have) and an Oly 21/2 (which I don't have yet), plus 17-40L.
Glad you spotted this thread Ed. I was on the fence about getting this lens. Not sure if this is because not a lot of folks use it or if the IQ is so-so. What I have read indicates that the Rokkor 21 is a quality lens. I do know that they are not that easy to find. I think KEH lists two between the $250 and the $450 range.
Not sure how it stacks up against the Olympus offerings, the EF 16-35/2.8 or the famous 21mm Distagon. But I am in no hurry to convert it. Once I have done so it will be interesting to test it against some of these other wide lenses though.
I must say I am very impressed with the build quality though. This coming from a guy who never gave Minolta gear a second thought until stumbling onto this forum and learning about "rock star" Rokkors etc.
What a great Minolta lens link. A hit list of some of the top performers. I've had about 5 of them, but now down to 3.
Interesting concept, changing the mount base of the Canon camera to use native, unmodified Minolta lenses...
I guess one could make a case for a small travel system: possibly for less than a $thousand:
Canon EOS crop camera with the plain Minolta 28/2.0 as a faster normal lens. The MC50/1.4 for a short tele portrait. And the plain Minolta 85/2.0 for longer shots.
Max I'll try to work on that one next. I am in the middle of an FD-from-hell Vivitar 28 1.9 series 1 (which is supposed to be a kick-ass lens), that I should have done soon. The hard parts of that are done now. (I have another one in Minolta mount that should be easier, hopefully... ). Once I get the vivitar out of the way I'll work on the rokkor 21. I am sure the IQ of it is quite good, I have tried it on a minolta body and it's pretty nice. I haven't done any serious comparisons with it yet though. I had forgotten that it was a floating element design, I will have to look more closely into that.
Re: changing the mount on the EOS rather than the lens... not a bad idea, indeed too bad it's not engineered to work with more bodies.
One thing I was thinking would be cool (since I am all-film) would be get an Eos 1N-RS (pellicle, non-moving mirror) and put the Minolta mount on that. No mirror clearance issues! ;-) The world needs a pellicle mirror digital body I think.
Aren't they about to come out with DSLRs that do not have a mirror at all? I would imagine some kinda LiveView LCD viewfinder. Not only would that prevent any clearance issues, but less camera shake and less delay.
Ed, I will keep watching for updates on your progress. I have only done one real lens conversion before, the Rokkor 58, but I bet the 21 will not be that bad. There are some noticeable differences at the back end of both lenses, but I think the same procedure (like Paul's 58 page) would apply.
It would be interesting to do a test with the Canon 20/2.8, Canon 16-35/2.8, Oly 21/2, Oly 21/3.5, Distagon 21/2.8 and the Rokkor 21/2.8. I would be OK sending my converted Rokkor to someone who has the other lenses to do such a test.
Once I get the conversion done I will be at least able to test the Canon 16-35/2.8 against the Rokkor though...
I have always enjoyed and used (needed) ultra wides. I really don't understand the all or nothing reasoning of "I don't use ultra wides therefore they are unnecessary" thread that is going on...
I have both MC W Rokkor-X 21mm/2.8 and MC W Rokkor-NL 21mm/2.8 for Europian market and the last one has different bluish coating and last week received MC rokkor 20mm 2.8. So will convert them in near future and will show results.
How do you keep the rear element from falling out on that 35 1.8 conversion? I never took my rear rings down that far.. looks like nothing left!?
agreed 21 will be simliar to this.
This is about how I converted my 35 1.8s also.
There have been extensive shootouts on 21s here on FM a few years ago. Look for posts from Mike Hatam and others. I think the end result was the Ziess 21 was pretty much the best, the Oly 21/3.5 (and maybe 21/2) a close 2nd (better in a few ways), everything else after that. They didn't test a Rokkor 21 though.
