I didn't do anything special, actually. I used Silver Efex for the conversion: boosted contrast a little bit, applied orange filter to enhance the sky and finally used selenium split toning in Silver Efex to give it a bit bluish color.
Here's the color version (with CornerFix applied).
I didn't like what colorfix did to this image, so opted for B/W. I need to find a large planar white surface to make a proper profile since mine comes from one I made under a tungsten light with a used сrumpled peace of paper. I'm surprised it works for some images at all.
I'm really REALLY liking this Minolta Rokkor-X 45mm f/2 semi-pancake lens on the A7. I've done some tests, and when stopped down around f/4 and f/5.6, the sharpness and detail compares very well to the FE 55mm f/1.8, and I'm a huge fan of 45mm field of view on full frame.
FlyPenFly wrote:
Hmmm intrigued. I just ordered a minolta 55mm f1.7. I have to imagine it's better than my Om50 f1.4. Those look pretty sharp!
I think sebboh mentioned that in his tests it was the sharpest Minolta lens for closeups but others were better at longer distances. I haven't tested the lens, but my images look sharp enough for f/1.7 with a lens from 1970.
That's encouraging. This was my first lens ever. I'll have to try it out against the 40mm m-rokkor.
spada wrote:
I'm really REALLY liking this Minolta Rokkor-X 45mm f/2 semi-pancake lens on the A7. I've done some tests, and when stopped down around f/4 and f/5.6, the sharpness and detail compares very well to the FE 55mm f/1.8, and I'm a huge fan of 45mm field of view on full frame.
Phillip Reeve wrote: FlyPenFly wroteHmmm intrigued. I just ordered a minolta 55mm f1.7. I have to imagine it's better than my Om50 f1.4. Those look pretty sharp!I think sebboh mentioned that in his tests it was the sharpest Minolta lens for closeups but others were better at longer distances. I haven't tested the lens, but my images look sharp enough for f/1.7 with a lens from 1970.
fyi.
Auto Rokkor, Rokkor, Minolta MC/MD 1,8/55mm (1958) - 2/55mm (1959) - 1,7/55mm (1966) - 1,9/55mm (1971) and the latter 1,7/50mm MC/MD (1977, the final evolution) adopt same scheme (double gauss 6 elements and 5 groups, first triplet not cemented), in the years wearing different and always better coatings and minimum focus (from 0,5mt to 0,45mt).
roxsan wrote: Phillip Reeve wroteFlyPenFly wroteHmmm intrigued. I just ordered a minolta 55mm f1.7. I have to imagine it's better than my Om50 f1.4. Those look pretty sharp!I think sebboh mentioned that in his tests it was the sharpest Minolta lens for closeups but others were better at longer distances. I haven't tested the lens, but my images look sharp enough for f/1.7 with a lens from 1970.fyi.
Auto Rokkor, Rokkor, Minolta MC/MD 1,8/55mm (1958) - 2/55mm (1959) - 1,7/55mm (1966) - 1,9/55mm (1971) and the latter 1,7/50mm MC/MD (1977, the final evolution) adopt same scheme (double gauss 6 elements and 5 groups, first triplet not cemented), in the years wearing different and always better coatings and minimum focus (from 0,5mt to 0,45mt).
Don't almost all medium fast 50's adopt that scheme?
There are two mechanically different versions of the 1.7/55, the younger one from 1970 has an elevated focusing ring (in German we call them mountain and valley, I don't know the correct English term), the older one from 1966 has a flat one. Oh and the close focusing distance ot the 1.7/55 is 55cm, I think Dennis Lohmann's list isn't correct there but I reported that already.
It might not be as good as the 40mm until you are stopped down to f/4. It seems to get a big jump in resolution around f/4 and f/5.6. Either way, it's still very good at f/2.8. OOF areas are pretty jittery, but that's "character" right?
ken.vs.ryu wrote:
That's encouraging. This was my first lens ever. I'll have to try it out against the 40mm m-rokkor.
