Thanks Bif. I see that 35/2.8 MD Rokkor is as good on M4/3 as is on the NEX5N.I'am about to buy one but before doing that I want to find out what is the IQ of the oldest 35/2.8 MC version compared to newer MD.
So far I noticed that MC Rokkors with older coatings are generally sharper but more prone to flare,whereas MD are less sharper,less prone to flare and have nicer (to me), warmer colour rendition.
Niice to hear that you like 100/2.5 - the lens I'am awaiting next week.
Peire wrote:
I am not an expert in MD lenses at all but last week decided to get into this realm. Bought 24/2.8,28/2.8,100/2.5 and 50/2 MD Rokkors on e-bay.They 're coming.Thought it's enough but 5 hours ago in a local photo exchange I met a guy with a huge collection of Rokkors, who sold me 28/2,50/1.4,50/1.7,135/2.8,200/4 and Tokina 17/3.5 in MD mount.
I refused to buy from him 20/2.8 (too soft for my taste),28/2.5 (great sharpness but too big for a WA), 300/5.6 and 400/5.6 (too long and not well balanced with the NEX).
Was strongly tempted by the 24/2.8 MC that seemed to be sharper than 24/2.8 MD,but having 24/2.8 MD on the way I gave up.
Will hunt some 35/2.8 tonite.Let the adapters come from HK and my adventure with MD will hopefuly start.
It's hard to say which is better and such. Mainly because there are like 7 different versions between the MC and the latest MD. Perhaps you're referring to one of the early MC versions with the metal knuckled focus barrel?
I think mine is the newest of the MC versions: MC W.ROKKOR-HG 35/2.8 Serial: 4642758 - just before the MD was released.
From what I know this is the older and sharper 7 element 35/2.8 lens.It may have problems with oil on the aperture blades and older coating but is supposed to be superior compared to 5 elements 35/2.8 MD.
I bought 35/2.8 on Sunday and wait for it to come.If if turns out soft I may want to change it for yours.
Your 24/2.8 MD looks pretty sharp and contrasty.I wish mine will have the same IQ.
Testing 24/2.8 MC versus 24/2.8 MD from this guy's collection I found MC sharper and crisper overall but with more flare/CA and poorer colours.
When I finally get mine I will do some comparison again and decide which one to keep.Sharpness is tempting,but nicer colours and compactness as well,esp. with NEX.
sebboh wrote:
ah, i didn't know there was a pre APO 400mm. my copy of the 24/2.8 is the last of the 49mm filter thread versions.
I highly doubt that there is a Minolta non-APO 400/5.6.
Dennis Lohmann's Minolta Manual Lenses Index doesn't list it and from what i have read from him, that makes me strongly believe that it doesn't exist.
Well, im easily convinced of it's existence by a simple picture .
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I highly doubt that there is a Minolta non-APO 400/5.6.
Dennis Lohmann's Minolta Manual Lenses Index doesn't list it and from what i have read from him, that makes me strongly believe that it doesn't exist.
Well, im easily convinced of it's existence by a simple picture .
Peire wrote:
You obviously need some deeper search elswere
Why should i do that?
The author of that list is a hardcore collector and he has been working on that list for several years.
He was quite active on a german forum and i alwas found him to be really knowledgable, so i find his list much more reliable than your claim.
As i said above, i'm easily convinced that this lens exists, simply take a picture of it.
I just won a Rokkor 21/2.8 on ebay almost by mistake. At least I paid a third of a newly acquired Contax G 21 :o)
Does anyone know anything about this lens? According to old film test it's supposedly quite a good performer. I bought it for the NEX, but is there any chance to convert it to Canon?
I just won a Rokkor 21/2.8 on ebay almost by mistake. At least I paid a third of a newly acquired Contax G 21 :o)
Does anyone know anything about this lens? According to old film test it's supposedly quite a good performer. I bought it for the NEX, but is there any chance to convert it to Canon?
it was quite good in it's day, not up to the performance of modern lenses though from what i've seen. it seems to have the classic minolta color and nice looking bokeh though. i believe there are a few closeup shots with it on this thread.
the conversion is certainly doable, but i suspect more difficult than the 58/1.2 conversion (which is one of the easiest).
Peire wrote:
From what I know this is the older and sharper 7 element 35/2.8 lens.It may have problems with oil on the aperture blades and older coating but is supposed to be superior compared to 5 elements 35/2.8 MD.
I bought 35/2.8 on Sunday and wait for it to come.If if turns out soft I may want to change it for yours.
I find this interesting because my 35/2.8 W.Rokkor is quite inferior to a lot of my other lenses... specifically my kit zoom on the NEX. And no, it doesn't catch up at 5.6/8 either.
I have the last MC version (5 lenses in 5 groups, most probably the same optical design as the MD version) and it performs really well on my NEX, at least at short distances.
The 21/2.8 is a nice lens. Jim Buchanan can convert it. I had one and wanted to convert it but sold it before doing so. It's nearly on par with the OM 21/2 from results I have seen. Definitely a keeper if you want a nice 21 for a reasonable price.
I just won a Rokkor 21/2.8 on ebay almost by mistake. At least I paid a third of a newly acquired Contax G 21 :o)
Does anyone know anything about this lens? According to old film test it's supposedly quite a good performer. I bought it for the NEX, but is there any chance to convert it to Canon?
wfrank,
Yes, like others have mentioned, it can be converted to Canon but won't clear a full frame mirror. It's a good lens, in my opinion comparable to the Zuiko 21/3.5 but the Rokkor is PRONE to flare and it's a lot bigger than the Zuiko.
Enjoy the new lens!
P
