Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda

New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site

New Feature: SMS Notification alert

New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

2 end

Archive 2008 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

tootalew
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

I got the lense even after I heard it may not be worth converting, and did the conversion. It is done in the same fashion as 85mm 1.7 (I think, I traded a 58mm 1.2 for a converted 85mm 1.7) I still need to shim it so I do not over shoot Infinity. Here are some of the first pictures of it. All on a 5D at f/2.5

Edited on Aug 30, 2008 at 05:54 PM

Aug 30, 2008 at 05:53 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Feels like a Rokkor to me!

Especially the 2nd, 3rd and 4th shots.

Edited on Aug 30, 2008 at 06:06 PM

Aug 30, 2008 at 06:05 PM

tootalew
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Just looked at your series from 58mm and your trip...why all b&w. I love b&w, but I think some of those would have looked great in color. I love the colors produced from the Rokkors...ever compare reds and greens and blues between canon, contax and rokkors?

Aug 30, 2008 at 06:11 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

tootalew wrote:
Just looked at your series from 58mm and your trip...why all b&w. I love b&w, but I think some of those would have looked great in color. I love the colors produced from the Rokkors...ever compare reds and greens and blues between canon, contax and rokkors?

I'll work on a colour version of the series. WB was an issue, and when I tried the B&W, I liked it, so...

Aug 30, 2008 at 06:24 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

What a nice lens!

Congrats!

I especially like the third shot

Sep 22, 2008 at 08:49 PM

Dim.ka_
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Agree, very nice lense and very creamy - more or less it is like 85 1.7 rokkor stopped to f2.5
But there is 100mm f2 rokkor, last time i saw it on ebay it was about 600$

Sep 23, 2008 at 03:19 AM

tootalew
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Yes I do know about the 100 f/2 and one went last week one ebay with a camera as a rear lens cap for 335.00. I was not watching, and it slipped away. At the moment im sorta eyeing up a converted FD 85L which I think is in driving distance, and at awful sweet price.

Sep 23, 2008 at 04:05 AM

JimU
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Can you post some more photos from this lens?

I just found a 100/2.5 in my parent's old stuff and was wondering if its worth a conversion attempt.

it seems like the colours are mildly cool, the sharpness great, but i was wondering how good the bokeh is for portraits?

Jan 28, 2009 at 11:46 PM

TWoK
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Why even mess with this lens when there is the arguably superior Nikkor 105/2.5 that needs no conversion, just cheap simple adapter and sells for close to $60 most places? From what I've seen the 58/1.2 on the 5D is very interesting conversion and worthy, but it seems a bit overboard to go hacking all of these old Minolta lenses up, just because they are Minolta lenses. I'd rather hack my arm off with a rusty spork than pay $600 for a Rokkor 100/2 or for that matter an OM 100/2. I've used both the Nikkor 105/1.8, which was nice, but a bit big and my personal favorite in the ~100 focal length the 100/2 EF USM lens.

I think converting is warranted when there aren't superior or even competitive lens in the native mount or price range, but converting just to convert seems rather pointless.

Jan 29, 2009 at 02:22 AM

ovredal73
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

TWoK wrote:
Why even mess with this lens when there is the arguably superior Nikkor 105/2.5 that needs no conversion, just cheap simple adapter and sells for close to $60 most places? From what I've seen the 58/1.2 on the 5D is very interesting conversion and worthy, but it seems a bit overboard to go hacking all of these old Minolta lenses up, just because they are Minolta lenses. I'd rather hack my arm off with a rusty spork than pay $600 for a Rokkor 100/2 or for that matter an OM 100/2. I've used both the Nikkor 105/1.8, which was nice,...Show more →

Some people are having a lot of fun rebuilding these old lenses, it is not just an issue of what is easier to get onto your camera. It is an issue of enjoying the craft of the conversion and overcoming the hurdles involved in it. A sport, in a sense.
Also in my opinion one of the most important aspects of having the specific lens you want, is the handling of it. Some lenses just handle better than others, and Rokkors certainly feel good in the hands. Better than Nikkors in my opinion.

I think it is great that all these old lenses with obsolete mounts get a new lease on life and I am constantly surprised at how many of these "weird" old lenses hold up against new high tech lenses when it comes to IQ.

Wonder when "we" start converting Sears and Vivitar and all kinds of cheapo multibrand lenses as well? Suddenly gems start showing up at a dollar a piece.

Jan 29, 2009 at 05:05 AM

TWoK
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

You can't honestly tell me that a butchered Rokkor handles better than a Nikkor that needs only an adapter and a real element protector clipping at most on an EOS camera. Maybe on their native mounts, but neither handle ideally adapted on a Canon. If so we must have very different views of what a good handling lens is.

Jan 29, 2009 at 05:21 AM

ovredal73
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

TWoK wrote:
we must have very different views of what a good handling lens is.

Most certainly

Jan 29, 2009 at 08:02 AM

mawz
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

TWoK wrote:
You can't honestly tell me that a butchered Rokkor handles better than a Nikkor that needs only an adapter and a real element protector clipping at most on an EOS camera. Maybe on their native mounts, but neither handle ideally adapted on a Canon. If so we must have very different views of what a good handling lens is.

Actually, a converted lens can easily handle better than an adapted lens. Once the conversion is done there's no fiddling with adaptors (Many of which can cause minor handling issues, usually due to loose lens locks) and the lens otherwise handles exactly like an adapted lens (Stop down metering, manual focus) so handling traits of the particular lens come to the fore. The Rokkor's are VERY nice handling lenses, easily a match for the Nikkors in that regard (and superior IMHO to non-L Canon EF glass, including the 100/2 USM when it comes to focusing).

Note to mention the fact that these Rokkor's give a distinct look to the images which can be very pleasing.

Jan 29, 2009 at 08:10 AM

TWoK
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

My cheap old MF Sigma Filtermatic feel better than any of the $1500 Canon L lenses I ever had, so that is not a difficult task to best them when it comes to manual focus, but even the worst Canon EF lenses have auto focus, which is not even an option with all of these old lenses. The EF 100/2 USM is the best practical choice when it comes to this focal length.

I had no problem adapting lenses to my 5D. My Fotodiox Pro F->EOS adapters never had a single issue and my $15 Fotodiox OM->EOS adapter also functioned flawlessly. I did have issues with a consumer level fotodiox f-mount adapter, but with decent adapters they handle and work spectacularly.

Jan 29, 2009 at 08:29 AM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

TWoK wrote:
...but even the worst Canon EF lenses have auto focus, which is not even an option with all of these old lenses. The EF 100/2 USM is the best practical choice when it comes to this focal length.

Yes, it is. If you like the images produced by that lens and you prefer AF.

I much prefer the images posted above, and I think the conversion of the 100/2.5 Rokkor is well worth the effort.

I will not question your choice of the Canon 100/2, so why question other people's choice? I had the Nikkor 105/2.5 and I didn't like the images or the handling. It was sharp, and that's the only positive thing I could say about it.

Also, I choose manual focus over AF every single time I shoot. A lens having AF is completely irrelevant to me (and many others here) and is often a hindrance due to the joke they call a "focus ring" on most of the AF lenses.

To each, his/her own.

Jan 29, 2009 at 10:38 AM

Ed Sawyer
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

I have one of these rokkor 100/2.5s, haven't converted it yet. good to hear it holds promise. I didn't specifically seek it out, came as a package deal with some other stuff.

I had the EF 100/2 for several years. It was a great lens for indoor sport shooting, like basketball and such. A good portrait lens too. Really overall not a bad lens. I sold it though, when I got an 85/1.2 since I wasn't doing photojournalism much any more. The AF on the 100/2 was nice and fast, no doubt.

I saw a Rokkor 100/2 go on ebay for mid $300s a couple months ago. They are not common, indeed, but are under the radar for most people.

The oly 100/2 would be nice to have, I suspect that is a cut above everything mentioned above in terms of image quality, etc. (uses ED glass, which the others don't AFAIK).

a fast-AF Canon 100/1.8L would be a really nice thing. But I don't see that happening anytime soon.

-Ed

Jan 29, 2009 at 10:58 AM

ovredal73
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

cogitech wrote:
Yes, it is. If you like the images produced by that lens and you prefer AF.
I much prefer the images posted above, and I think the conversion of the 100/2.5 Rokkor is well worth the effort.
I will not question your choice of the Canon 100/2, so why question other people's choice? I had the Nikkor 105/2.5 and I didn't like the images or the handling. It was sharp, and that's the only positive thing I could say about it.
Also, I choose manual focus over AF every single time I shoot. A lens having AF is completely irrelevant to me (and...Show more →

+1 (even though I have a 105/2.5 on it´s way to me in the mail as we speak

)

Jan 29, 2009 at 01:07 PM

Marcel VanEerd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Congrats on a successful conversion. Looks like you have a nice lens. I relate to some of the sentiments noted in the posts. I really like to MF and at the same time, am swayed often to sell them all and go AF. As for the Nikkor 105 that's mentioned - I can agree. I have that lens and I haven't seen a better performer yet, aside from the 135L.

Jan 29, 2009 at 01:13 PM

Marcel VanEerd
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

Jan 29, 2009 at 01:14 PM

cogitech
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Minolta MC Rokkor 100mm f/2.5

ovredal73 wrote:
+1 (even though I have a 105/2.5 on it´s way to me in the mail as we speak

)

Give it a shot, Andre, but I suspect that it will not be nearly "organic" enough for you.

Jan 29, 2009 at 03:57 PM

1 2 end
FM Forums \| Leica & Alternative Gear \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 end

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.