Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
p.1 #1Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
I switched from Nikon to a Minolta X-570 a while back and have been having a great time exploring the SR mount lenses. I realized today that I think I've got the last SR lens (Minolta branded, anyway) coming that I'll acquire. It's a big kit, but I find the lenses so pleasing, it also sees use on the digital cameras I had modified for film lenses.
What I own...
MC Rokkor-X 58/1.2 (this one I switch back and forth between SR and A mounts)
MD W. Rokkor-X 24/2.8
MD Tele-Rokkor-X 85/1.7, 100/2.5
Plain MD 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/2, 100/4 Mac, 200/4, 70-210/4, 300/4.5
On its way…
MD 24-50/4 (Rolf was birthday shopping and forgot to log out of my account and into his- very excited about this one- I’ve had two different recs from Minolta buddies)
Owned but moved on…
MD Tele-Rokkor APO 400/5.6 (great lens, never found a need for it on film, had other digital options that were lighter or the same weight)
MD 35-70/3.5 Macro (solid performer that wasn’t enough of a 35)
MD 24-35/3.5 (all-around meh)
MD 28-70/3.5-4.8 (confused this with a friend’s rec of the 28-85, had to work to be generous about it)
MD 28-85/3.5-4.5 (liked it so much, I ended up with the AF version for digital to get EXIF, but found I wasn’t using it for film)
MD 24/2.8 (liked it, but preferred the more even across the frame performance of the W. Rokkor over the central punch of the plain MD)
MC W. Rokkor 28/2 (liked the close-focus draw more than the plain MD, liked the overall performance of the plain more)
MD 100-300/5.6 (very long, very weak on the long end)
Still mildly curious, though it’s unnecessary…
Sigma APO 50-200/3.5-4.5 manual in SR mount (Sigma’s first attempt at correcting transverse CA in their teles with special glass)
Dismissed without ownership…
100-500/8 and APO 600/6.3 (their weight now exceeds my curiosity)
Am I missing any special stops in the SR journey? Any special lenses worth consideration?
Thanks in advance.
Brad
What I own...
MC Rokkor-X 58/1.2 (this one I switch back and forth between SR and A mounts)
MD W. Rokkor-X 24/2.8
MD Tele-Rokkor-X 85/1.7, 100/2.5
Plain MD 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/2, 100/4 Mac, 200/4, 70-210/4, 300/4.5
On its way…
MD 24-50/4 (Rolf was birthday shopping and forgot to log out of my account and into his- very excited about this one- I’ve had two different recs from Minolta buddies)
Owned but moved on…
MD Tele-Rokkor APO 400/5.6 (great lens, never found a need for it on film, had other digital options that were lighter or the same weight)
MD 35-70/3.5 Macro (solid performer that wasn’t enough of a 35)
MD 24-35/3.5 (all-around meh)
MD 28-70/3.5-4.8 (confused this with a friend’s rec of the 28-85, had to work to be generous about it)
MD 28-85/3.5-4.5 (liked it so much, I ended up with the AF version for digital to get EXIF, but found I wasn’t using it for film)
MD 24/2.8 (liked it, but preferred the more even across the frame performance of the W. Rokkor over the central punch of the plain MD)
MC W. Rokkor 28/2 (liked the close-focus draw more than the plain MD, liked the overall performance of the plain more)
MD 100-300/5.6 (very long, very weak on the long end)
Still mildly curious, though it’s unnecessary…
Sigma APO 50-200/3.5-4.5 manual in SR mount (Sigma’s first attempt at correcting transverse CA in their teles with special glass)
Dismissed without ownership…
100-500/8 and APO 600/6.3 (their weight now exceeds my curiosity)
Am I missing any special stops in the SR journey? Any special lenses worth consideration?
Thanks in advance.
Brad
Sep 18, 2026 at 06:50 PM
p.1 #2Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
You rejected a bunch of lenses, but what about a 100 macro?
EBH
EBH
Sep 18, 2026 at 10:01 PM
p.1 #3Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
EB-1 wrote:
You rejected a bunch of lenses, but what about a 100 macro?
EBH
I've got the plain MD 100/4. It's on the list, but I actually use it more with digital than I do film. I shoot too many shots with macro to make it a cost-effective pursuit with film.
You rejected a bunch of lenses, but what about a 100 macro?
EBH
I've got the plain MD 100/4. It's on the list, but I actually use it more with digital than I do film. I shoot too many shots with macro to make it a cost-effective pursuit with film.
Sep 18, 2026 at 10:40 PM
p.1 #4Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
You've got a bunch of great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the MC 55/1.7 -- small and very cheap but beautiful rendering. It uses a different filter size from other Rokkor lenses (52mm, interchangeable with many Nikon lenses). I have an album of photos shot with that lens; the earlier ones in the album were on APS-C; the later were shot on full frame digital and some on film: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNYPPSb
The 85/2.8 Varisoft always intrigued me but never enough to buy one; same story for the 24/2.8 VFC (variable field curvature) and the 35/2.8 Shift CA. Those three are unique, fairly rare, and expensive.
I have a soft spot for the MC 55/1.7 -- small and very cheap but beautiful rendering. It uses a different filter size from other Rokkor lenses (52mm, interchangeable with many Nikon lenses). I have an album of photos shot with that lens; the earlier ones in the album were on APS-C; the later were shot on full frame digital and some on film: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNYPPSb
The 85/2.8 Varisoft always intrigued me but never enough to buy one; same story for the 24/2.8 VFC (variable field curvature) and the 35/2.8 Shift CA. Those three are unique, fairly rare, and expensive.
Sep 19, 2026 at 04:26 AM
p.1 #5Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
You should try the 135 2 (not the 2.8) now that prices have fallen to a much more reasonable - and justified - level ... personally my favourite 135 ...... even against the CV 125 (though it is not macro of course).
The 100 2 is also rather special, methinks, as a multi-purpose walk-arounder..
I read here - and elsewhere - lots of posts about the 'need' for new lenses but - perhaps because I have more limited ambitions ;-)) - I find that best of the Minolta lenses hold their own very easily with my much newer lenses .... and sometimes (oftentimes ?) are more pleasing in their rather more balanced way.
Even - as Fred said a few months ago - the 500 f8 (with careful use and some reservations) has its moments with its light weight/reach and belies some, though certainly not all, of the standard weaknesses of 'mirror' lenses.
The 100 2 is also rather special, methinks, as a multi-purpose walk-arounder..
I read here - and elsewhere - lots of posts about the 'need' for new lenses but - perhaps because I have more limited ambitions ;-)) - I find that best of the Minolta lenses hold their own very easily with my much newer lenses .... and sometimes (oftentimes ?) are more pleasing in their rather more balanced way.
Even - as Fred said a few months ago - the 500 f8 (with careful use and some reservations) has its moments with its light weight/reach and belies some, though certainly not all, of the standard weaknesses of 'mirror' lenses.
Sep 19, 2026 at 07:22 AM
p.1 #6Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
I have the Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and the Minolta Auto W. Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 lenses. I purchased both lenses 2014 in used EX+ condition in a brick and mortar photo store which closed down later (I paid $70 and $30 for each). This was at a time when Sony had just released the first gen of FF MLC cameras, and I used these lenses for a while adapted on my Sony A7R. Especially the 50/1.4 lens has a unique and very beautiful background blur while still being track sharp in the center when used wide open.
Sep 19, 2026 at 03:32 PM
p.1 #7Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
bjhurley wrote:
You've got a bunch of great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the MC 55/1.7 -- small and very cheap but beautiful rendering. It uses a different filter size from other Rokkor lenses (52mm, interchangeable with many Nikon lenses). I have an album of photos shot with that lens; the earlier ones in the album were on APS-C; the later were shot on full frame digital and some on film: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNYPPSb
The 85/2.8 Varisoft always intrigued me but never enough to buy one; same story for the 24/2.8 VFC (variable field curvature) and the 35/2.8 Shift CA. Those three are unique,...Show more →
I agree. If I were smart, I'd drop my AF lenses and just spend the rest of my life concentrating on what can be shot with that kit, both film and digital. I'm not that smart. Not yet, anyway, but when I think that entire kit, including the 58 I've had for years, was less than $1.5k, my AF kit looks grossly overpriced and large.
Between your beautiful photos (thanks for that) and the review on PR, I put the word out I'm looking for the 55/1.7 and a member of our film group is dropping off his copy tomorrow night. I'm anxious to try it, but I'm glad it's a loan. I'm not enough of a 50 shooter to justify the 50/2, 58/1.2, and the 55.
The varisoft looks decent, but I'm more likely to pick up the 55mm Portrayer P set and see what they can do with the 85/1.7 and 100/2.5. Have you used them?
The VFC is an interesting concept, but I don't use my 24/2.8 focused closely enough at wide apertures for it matter to me. If I run into an FC problem, I'm used to fixing it with f/4 or 5.6. The shift does interest me, but I can't tell if it's because it would be useful (the Canon FD 35/2.8 and Contax 35/2.8 were not) or if it's just the idea of using a PC lens on film that I find attractive. My gut says I'd spend a lot of money on something that would get used a couple times to see how it does, and then it becomes a dry cabinet fixture.
Thanks as always.
You've got a bunch of great lenses.
I have a soft spot for the MC 55/1.7 -- small and very cheap but beautiful rendering. It uses a different filter size from other Rokkor lenses (52mm, interchangeable with many Nikon lenses). I have an album of photos shot with that lens; the earlier ones in the album were on APS-C; the later were shot on full frame digital and some on film: https://flic.kr/s/aHsmNYPPSb
The 85/2.8 Varisoft always intrigued me but never enough to buy one; same story for the 24/2.8 VFC (variable field curvature) and the 35/2.8 Shift CA. Those three are unique,...Show more →
I agree. If I were smart, I'd drop my AF lenses and just spend the rest of my life concentrating on what can be shot with that kit, both film and digital. I'm not that smart. Not yet, anyway, but when I think that entire kit, including the 58 I've had for years, was less than $1.5k, my AF kit looks grossly overpriced and large.
Between your beautiful photos (thanks for that) and the review on PR, I put the word out I'm looking for the 55/1.7 and a member of our film group is dropping off his copy tomorrow night. I'm anxious to try it, but I'm glad it's a loan. I'm not enough of a 50 shooter to justify the 50/2, 58/1.2, and the 55.
The varisoft looks decent, but I'm more likely to pick up the 55mm Portrayer P set and see what they can do with the 85/1.7 and 100/2.5. Have you used them?
The VFC is an interesting concept, but I don't use my 24/2.8 focused closely enough at wide apertures for it matter to me. If I run into an FC problem, I'm used to fixing it with f/4 or 5.6. The shift does interest me, but I can't tell if it's because it would be useful (the Canon FD 35/2.8 and Contax 35/2.8 were not) or if it's just the idea of using a PC lens on film that I find attractive. My gut says I'd spend a lot of money on something that would get used a couple times to see how it does, and then it becomes a dry cabinet fixture.
Thanks as always.
Sep 20, 2026 at 11:48 PM
p.1 #8Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
krug wrote:
You should try the 135 2 (not the 2.8) now that prices have fallen to a much more reasonable - and justified - level ... personally my favourite 135 ...... even against the CV 125 (though it is not macro of course).
The 100 2 is also rather special, methinks, as a multi-purpose walk-arounder..
I read here - and elsewhere - lots of posts about the 'need' for new lenses but - perhaps because I have more limited ambitions ;-)) - I find that best of the Minolta lenses hold their own very easily with my much newer lenses .... and sometimes...Show more →
The 135/2 is on the list to try when I get the chance, but even the least expensive I can find right now is still a hundred more than I spent on the rest of the kit. There is one at a camera shop in Boulder, and I've thought about going to check it out, but they want $5500 for it, so I'm wondering if there's a fee just to see it person.
.
I've used a friend's MC 100/2 and liked it. There I'm sticking with MD 100/2.5.
You should try the 135 2 (not the 2.8) now that prices have fallen to a much more reasonable - and justified - level ... personally my favourite 135 ...... even against the CV 125 (though it is not macro of course).
The 100 2 is also rather special, methinks, as a multi-purpose walk-arounder..
I read here - and elsewhere - lots of posts about the 'need' for new lenses but - perhaps because I have more limited ambitions ;-)) - I find that best of the Minolta lenses hold their own very easily with my much newer lenses .... and sometimes...Show more →
The 135/2 is on the list to try when I get the chance, but even the least expensive I can find right now is still a hundred more than I spent on the rest of the kit. There is one at a camera shop in Boulder, and I've thought about going to check it out, but they want $5500 for it, so I'm wondering if there's a fee just to see it person.
. I've used a friend's MC 100/2 and liked it. There I'm sticking with MD 100/2.5.
Sep 21, 2026 at 12:18 AM
p.1 #9Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
retrofocus wrote:
I have the Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and the Minolta Auto W. Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 lenses. I purchased both lenses 2014 in used EX+ condition in a brick and mortar photo store which closed down later (I paid $70 and $30 for each). This was at a time when Sony had just released the first gen of FF MLC cameras, and I used these lenses for a while adapted on my Sony A7R. Especially the 50/1.4 lens has a unique and very beautiful background blur while still being track sharp in the center when used wide open.
My first SR lens at that time was the MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4, which I think was the same optical design of the MD Rokkor, and I agree. It's lovely.
I have the Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4 and the Minolta Auto W. Rokkor-HG 35/2.8 lenses. I purchased both lenses 2014 in used EX+ condition in a brick and mortar photo store which closed down later (I paid $70 and $30 for each). This was at a time when Sony had just released the first gen of FF MLC cameras, and I used these lenses for a while adapted on my Sony A7R. Especially the 50/1.4 lens has a unique and very beautiful background blur while still being track sharp in the center when used wide open.
My first SR lens at that time was the MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4, which I think was the same optical design of the MD Rokkor, and I agree. It's lovely.
Sep 21, 2026 at 12:26 AM
p.1 #10Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
freaklikeme wrote:
My first SR lens at that time was the MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4, which I think was the same optical design of the MD Rokkor, and I agree. It's lovely.
As I remember, it's different, MC and both MD versions of the 50mm/1.4
I had MD version and it was great, what I saw from MC's produced somewhat overcorrected spherical abberrations for far defocus areas but looked sharper.
My first SR lens at that time was the MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4, which I think was the same optical design of the MD Rokkor, and I agree. It's lovely.
As I remember, it's different, MC and both MD versions of the 50mm/1.4
I had MD version and it was great, what I saw from MC's produced somewhat overcorrected spherical abberrations for far defocus areas but looked sharper.
Sep 21, 2026 at 01:20 AM
|
p.1 #11Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
Still have 2/45mm, 3.5/50mm macro and use 35mm Shift-Rokkor on digital.
Maybe only lens I was seriusly dissapointed with were 28/2.8 - tried it as MD Rokkor, as Minolta AF and as Sony AF too. The latter produced at least gorgeus colours both on slides and digital but earlier versions were unspiring.
Maybe only lens I was seriusly dissapointed with were 28/2.8 - tried it as MD Rokkor, as Minolta AF and as Sony AF too. The latter produced at least gorgeus colours both on slides and digital but earlier versions were unspiring.
Sep 21, 2026 at 01:22 AM
p.1 #12Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
freaklikeme wrote:
The varisoft looks decent, but I'm more likely to pick up the 55mm Portrayer P set and see what they can do with the 85/1.7 and 100/2.5. Have you used them?
I not only haven't used the Portrayer P set but I've never even heard of them.
I hear you on the 55/1.7; once I got the 58/1.2 my 55/1.7 got used a lot less, but it was still nice to have something almost as lovely as the 58/1.2 in a much smaller size and weight.
I ended up getting rid of all my Minolta gear (two cameras and seven lenses) earlier this year as I'm mainly shooting film now and don't really like the SLR experience (too similar to shooting my mirrorless digital camera, and since I mainly shoot B&W with filters on the lens I prefer not looking through the lens). But I really miss a few of those lenses, especially the MC 58/1.2 and the MC 35/1.8.
The varisoft looks decent, but I'm more likely to pick up the 55mm Portrayer P set and see what they can do with the 85/1.7 and 100/2.5. Have you used them?
I not only haven't used the Portrayer P set but I've never even heard of them.
I hear you on the 55/1.7; once I got the 58/1.2 my 55/1.7 got used a lot less, but it was still nice to have something almost as lovely as the 58/1.2 in a much smaller size and weight.
I ended up getting rid of all my Minolta gear (two cameras and seven lenses) earlier this year as I'm mainly shooting film now and don't really like the SLR experience (too similar to shooting my mirrorless digital camera, and since I mainly shoot B&W with filters on the lens I prefer not looking through the lens). But I really miss a few of those lenses, especially the MC 58/1.2 and the MC 35/1.8.
Sep 21, 2026 at 02:15 AM
p.1 #13Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
One of my favorites (that's finally come down from the absurd prices of the last 10-15 years) is the 250mm 5.6 reflex lens. It's a bit of a niche lens, but fun to use. I have an MC 100 2.5, MC 35 1.8, and an MC 55 1.7, all of which I mainly used on GFX.
Long ago, I bought a mixed lot of gear on eBay (one of my best buys ever) that had in it the 24mm VFC, the gear focus 40-80mm 2.8, and the MD 100-500. That was a fun bunch of gear.
Long ago, I bought a mixed lot of gear on eBay (one of my best buys ever) that had in it the 24mm VFC, the gear focus 40-80mm 2.8, and the MD 100-500. That was a fun bunch of gear.
Sep 21, 2026 at 06:26 AM
p.1 #14Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
q-w-z wrote:
As I remember, it's different, MC and both MD versions of the 50mm/1.4
I had MD version and it was great, what I saw from MC's produced somewhat overcorrected spherical abberrations for far defocus areas but looked sharper.
My mistake. The differences are pointed out here... https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s2.htm
Maybe I'm thinking of the 50/1.7?
freaklikeme wrote
My first SR lens at that time was the MC Rokkor-PG 50/1.4, which I think was the same optical design of the MD Rokkor, and I agree. It's lovely.I had MD version and it was great, what I saw from MC's produced somewhat overcorrected spherical abberrations for far defocus areas but looked sharper.
My mistake. The differences are pointed out here... https://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s2.htm
Maybe I'm thinking of the 50/1.7?
Sep 21, 2026 at 01:22 PM
p.1 #15Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
bjhurley wrote:
I not only haven't used the Portrayer P set but I've never even heard of them.
I hear you on the 55/1.7; once I got the 58/1.2 my 55/1.7 got used a lot less, but it was still nice to have something almost as lovely as the 58/1.2 in a much smaller size and weight.
I ended up getting rid of all my Minolta gear (two cameras and seven lenses) earlier this year as I'm mainly shooting film now and don't really like the SLR experience (too similar to shooting my mirrorless digital camera, and since I mainly shoot B&W...Show more →
I got an offer accepted by an eBay seller, so I'll post a comparison when the set arrives. That I will probably start off digitally so I get an idea of what works where (if at all) before paying the per-shot charge of film.
I'd feel worse for you about the change, but there are some awfully sweet lenses in your chosen mount (pricey suckers). If you ever come across a Konica LTM Hexanon 60/1.2 for an acceptable price, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how much of the magic it has. It's not the same (it doesn't flare as pretty, in my opinion, and you have to deal with more vignetting) but it will fit. I don't think there is a replacement for the HH 35/1.8 in any mount, much less M. The Nikon RF/LTM 35/1.8 comes close in some ways, but I never got it to bokeh swirl wide open. I don't think you can stop the HH from swirling.
freaklikeme wrote
The varisoft looks decent, but I'm more likely to pick up the 55mm Portrayer P set and see what they can do with the 85/1.7 and 100/2.5. Have you used them?I hear you on the 55/1.7; once I got the 58/1.2 my 55/1.7 got used a lot less, but it was still nice to have something almost as lovely as the 58/1.2 in a much smaller size and weight.
I ended up getting rid of all my Minolta gear (two cameras and seven lenses) earlier this year as I'm mainly shooting film now and don't really like the SLR experience (too similar to shooting my mirrorless digital camera, and since I mainly shoot B&W...Show more →
I got an offer accepted by an eBay seller, so I'll post a comparison when the set arrives. That I will probably start off digitally so I get an idea of what works where (if at all) before paying the per-shot charge of film.
I'd feel worse for you about the change, but there are some awfully sweet lenses in your chosen mount (pricey suckers). If you ever come across a Konica LTM Hexanon 60/1.2 for an acceptable price, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how much of the magic it has. It's not the same (it doesn't flare as pretty, in my opinion, and you have to deal with more vignetting) but it will fit. I don't think there is a replacement for the HH 35/1.8 in any mount, much less M. The Nikon RF/LTM 35/1.8 comes close in some ways, but I never got it to bokeh swirl wide open. I don't think you can stop the HH from swirling.
Sep 21, 2026 at 03:20 PM
p.1 #16Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
freaklikeme wrote:
If you ever come across a Konica LTM Hexanon 60/1.2 for an acceptable price, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how much of the magic it has.
Ooh, thanks for that tip! I'll keep an eye out.
The MC 35/1.8 really is a special lens and I think I miss it even more than the 58/1.2. A lot of people dislike it because it's not very sharp but I loved that about it. But the Canon 35/1.8 LTM also has loads of character and some swirl so that's my consolation prize.
If you ever come across a Konica LTM Hexanon 60/1.2 for an acceptable price, I think you'd be pleasantly surprised how much of the magic it has.
Ooh, thanks for that tip! I'll keep an eye out.
The MC 35/1.8 really is a special lens and I think I miss it even more than the 58/1.2. A lot of people dislike it because it's not very sharp but I loved that about it. But the Canon 35/1.8 LTM also has loads of character and some swirl so that's my consolation prize.
Sep 21, 2026 at 03:28 PM
p.1 #17Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
Betacamman wrote:
One of my favorites (that's finally come down from the absurd prices of the last 10-15 years) is the 250mm 5.6 reflex lens. It's a bit of a niche lens, but fun to use. I have an MC 100 2.5, MC 35 1.8, and an MC 55 1.7, all of which I mainly used on GFX.
Long ago, I bought a mixed lot of gear on eBay (one of my best buys ever) that had in it the 24mm VFC, the gear focus 40-80mm 2.8, and the MD 100-500. That was a fun bunch of gear.
Hmm, the 250/5.6. I'd forgotten all about that one. It's tiny, too, for the focal length. And no one I know has one. And so the hunt begins.
Thanks for posting the shots of the 100-500/8 and 2x. Now please tell me a slow push-pull super-tele over 2kg isn't worth the effort.
One of my favorites (that's finally come down from the absurd prices of the last 10-15 years) is the 250mm 5.6 reflex lens. It's a bit of a niche lens, but fun to use. I have an MC 100 2.5, MC 35 1.8, and an MC 55 1.7, all of which I mainly used on GFX.
Long ago, I bought a mixed lot of gear on eBay (one of my best buys ever) that had in it the 24mm VFC, the gear focus 40-80mm 2.8, and the MD 100-500. That was a fun bunch of gear.
Hmm, the 250/5.6. I'd forgotten all about that one. It's tiny, too, for the focal length. And no one I know has one. And so the hunt begins.
Thanks for posting the shots of the 100-500/8 and 2x. Now please tell me a slow push-pull super-tele over 2kg isn't worth the effort.
Sep 21, 2026 at 03:29 PM
p.1 #18Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
freaklikeme wrote:
Thanks for posting the shots of the 100-500/8 and 2x. Now please tell me a slow push-pull super-tele over 2kg isn't worth the effort.
I can absolutely tell you it's not worth the effort
The 40-80mm 2.8 was pretty cool, but I'd have never paid the current prices to get one.
Thanks for posting the shots of the 100-500/8 and 2x. Now please tell me a slow push-pull super-tele over 2kg isn't worth the effort.
I can absolutely tell you it's not worth the effort
The 40-80mm 2.8 was pretty cool, but I'd have never paid the current prices to get one.
Sep 21, 2026 at 03:32 PM
p.1 #19Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
I had a fun night. I went over to the house of the friend who loaned me the MC 55 to help him set up polarized lights so he can do reproduction shots of his oil paintings. Once we got him set up, he gave me a tour of his SR gear. I got to play with the MD scope adapter (popular with most of the major manufacturers, it turns camera lenses into spotting scopes) and found that the MD 300/4.5 would make a great spy lens. He's also got the 800/8 cat lens and we decided, with the harvest moon rising this Saturday, we'd hope for clear skies and head up to the foothills to catch the rise.
I'd also like to briefly sing a love song to the MD 50/1.2, which doesn't get nearly enough conversation in comparison to the 58/1.2. The 58's an excellent choice if you plan to lean into its collection of flaws at wide apertures. The 50's a better choice if you want the kind of imperfect but still solid performance Canon was getting out of the FD 50/1.2L (a much different lens than the EF version). It's impressive, it's not hard to find a good copy, and it's no where near as expensive as it should be. It's designed in the same so good they're boring mold as the MD 28/2, 35/1.8, and 100/2.5. If you see the value in those lenses, you won't be unhappy.
I also got to try out the MD 20/2.8 and MD W. Rokkor 17/4 and I think I've figured out what I'm missing. I just need to decide between the two. My feeling right now is that the 17 is too wide for film. I rarely use the full shot when I'm using my 14 or 18 on digital. I mostly use them to overshoot and crop or keystone correct and crop in lieu of a PC lens. I'm not looking to replicate that in flim, but the challenge of using something that wide specifically for the full frame could be fun, even if it's a fun disaster. The 20 makes more sense. It'll kit well in 20/28/50/100 and comes with its own challenge: I've never been big on 20 or 21. It typically feels too wide or not wide enough, but I can say the same about 28 and 50, and I've grown to rely on them both. Maybe it's time to give 20 another chance. Plus, I love the size.
I'd also like to briefly sing a love song to the MD 50/1.2, which doesn't get nearly enough conversation in comparison to the 58/1.2. The 58's an excellent choice if you plan to lean into its collection of flaws at wide apertures. The 50's a better choice if you want the kind of imperfect but still solid performance Canon was getting out of the FD 50/1.2L (a much different lens than the EF version). It's impressive, it's not hard to find a good copy, and it's no where near as expensive as it should be. It's designed in the same so good they're boring mold as the MD 28/2, 35/1.8, and 100/2.5. If you see the value in those lenses, you won't be unhappy.
I also got to try out the MD 20/2.8 and MD W. Rokkor 17/4 and I think I've figured out what I'm missing. I just need to decide between the two. My feeling right now is that the 17 is too wide for film. I rarely use the full shot when I'm using my 14 or 18 on digital. I mostly use them to overshoot and crop or keystone correct and crop in lieu of a PC lens. I'm not looking to replicate that in flim, but the challenge of using something that wide specifically for the full frame could be fun, even if it's a fun disaster. The 20 makes more sense. It'll kit well in 20/28/50/100 and comes with its own challenge: I've never been big on 20 or 21. It typically feels too wide or not wide enough, but I can say the same about 28 and 50, and I've grown to rely on them both. Maybe it's time to give 20 another chance. Plus, I love the size.
Sep 24, 2026 at 12:50 AM
p.1 #20Minolta- Am I Missing Anything?
The 24-50/4 came a few days ago. I thought I was going to have to return it. I put it first on the full-spectrum mono digital (most film-like performance) and was getting weird soft spots around the frame (always the same places, but not a specific side or corner like it wasn't balanced, but small spots within the central frame). Fortunately, I removed the Haida UV/IR cut I picked up for it and tried a B+W 486 and the problem went away. I tried the Haida on the MD 300/4.5 and found the same weird spots, so it looks like the filter is letting IR pollution through. So happy the lens is fine.
As to the lens, it lacks the all-around goodness of the 28-85, but it's a good 24, nicely strong 28-40, and then loses quite a bit of resolution going to 50, so it's strong enough where I need it to be to pair up nicely with the 70-210/4 with either the 50/2 for speed and compactness, or the 58/1.2 for speed and spice, riding between them (and a 20 or 17 making up the wide end). That kit should cover whatever our film club throws at me for expeditions.
As for the UWA, I think that's going to wait for my business trip to Tokyo at the end of October. I can't find either locally or from my trusted dealers. As usual, the best conditions and lowest prices are there.
As to the lens, it lacks the all-around goodness of the 28-85, but it's a good 24, nicely strong 28-40, and then loses quite a bit of resolution going to 50, so it's strong enough where I need it to be to pair up nicely with the 70-210/4 with either the 50/2 for speed and compactness, or the 58/1.2 for speed and spice, riding between them (and a 20 or 17 making up the wide end). That kit should cover whatever our film club throws at me for expeditions.
As for the UWA, I think that's going to wait for my business trip to Tokyo at the end of October. I can't find either locally or from my trusted dealers. As usual, the best conditions and lowest prices are there.
Sep 26, 2026 at 03:45 PM