About ten months or so ago I started converting a nice looking Rokkor 21/2.8. Sanding enough material from the lens plate was really a challenge as you need to remove so much material that the mounting screws start to show through.

I then made a "big goof" (details later if you must know) and I stopped the project. I am thinking about having another attempt now and an wondering if any of you had attempted this conversion to the EF mount? I think Ed Sawyer was going to do it...

Anyone? This lens was supposed to be a good performer but you don't see many posts etc...

Here is the conversion thread before I lost interest: http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/707546

All the goodies from this project are in a file cabinet and every time I open it I think "I gotta finish that..."

Done it already.



In short - very good geometry (a lot better than 20mm f2.8), sharp and very solid performance.

Nice!

Any project photos?

I was just thinking about getting back to rokkor conversions. This one was on the top of my list, along with 45/2 and 100/3.5 macro (which modern photography basically raved about in their review I recently scanned and will post soon).

I figured I'd do this one like a 35/1.8, indeed it does require a fair bit of sanding probably, but should be doable.

specs-wise it should be close to on par with Oly 21/2 in some ways.

-Ed

I think I am going to have a tough time putting this back together.

what's FUBAR'ed about it?

I have done a couple of 35/1.8s. I really like the lens but no one seems to know about it, therefore it is still "cheap."

hmm the 35mm 1.8 is not that "cheap". A year ago I could easily get them for under $100. Now it's hard to find one for that range. I was fortunate to grab a few when they were "cheaper". Maybe people pay less interest in because the conversion is more difficult and it hits the mirror on 5Ds (MK1/2)?

Ed Sawyer wrote:
I was just thinking about getting back to rokkor conversions. This one was on the top of my list, along with 45/2 and 100/3.5 macro (which modern photography basically raved about in their review I recently scanned and will post soon).


Ed,
The 100/3.5 macro should be excellent. I have the 100/4 and the 50/3.5. The 50/3.5 is nice but the 100 is exceptional. They both are 1:2 (require adapter to get to 1:1).

debuggerus, those are the bellows lenses, right? or normal mount? I wasnt' familiar with those from Minolta.

100/3.5 had an extension tube/converter(?) that came with it but I don't have one (yet).

-Ed

Ed,
The ones I have are normal mount lenses, MD 100mm f4 and MD 50mm f3.5. I think the 100mm f4 is the updated version of the 100 f3.5. Yes, they come with extension tubes. I am not sure about the 100 3.5 but the 100 f4, 50 f3.5 (also MD zoom 35-70/macro) all have aperture control inside the lens so they are the easiest to convert. I just removed the old mount and put over the new mount.