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

end

Archive 2010 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

rsrsrs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

hi
the zeiss of course!
it tried the sell the minolta, but i was offered so little money,
that i keep it.

r

Jan 13, 2011 at 01:31 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

rsrsrs wrote:
hi
the zeiss of course!
it tried the sell the minolta, but i was offered so little money,
that i keep it.

r

yeah, with one notable exception the cost of conversion usually exceeds the cost of the lens with minolta MC/MD lenses. i'm quite happy with that (except for that notable exception).

Jan 13, 2011 at 01:35 PM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Actually there are several other lenses besides the notable one (I assume you mean the 58 f/1.2). The 135mm f/2 is supposedly a beauty and usually costs just a bit more than the 58mm f/1.2. Also, just this week I picked a 400mm f/5.6 APO, that isn't cheap either---but I still think I got a good deal and I think it will be a very nice lens. It has a fluorite element and is reputed to be excellent. I am not sure yet whether i will convert it or just use it with the GH2 that I plan to get. The 28mm f/2, the 85mm f/1.7, and the 100mm f/2 are all noticeably more expensive than the conversion, and from what I have seen from shooters on this forum are well worth converting. The 17mm f/4 also can be pretty pricey, but I am less sure this offers enough of an advantage over other options to bother converting. Still I agree mostly with your point. I have a 45 f/2 I got for $15, a 50 f/1.4 I got for $30, a 200 f/4 I got for $50, and even a 24mm f/2.8 that I got for $100, that would all cost more to convert than they cost to buy. I don't think I will bother converting any of them to EOS. Partly because I have a SRT 102, that I may still want to use them on and partly because I might just use them on the GH2.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:02 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

yeah, i was exaggerating a bit with the one notable exception. the rare lenses and the 85s are also a little more. the 28/2 seems to sell for only a little bit more than $200, it just doesn't sell very often. incidentally, i would recommend converting that 24mm if you don't already have a 24 you really like for eos, i'm quite fond of mine.

Jan 13, 2011 at 11:49 PM

dickb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Steve Spencer wrote:
Also, just this week I picked a 400mm f/5.6 APO, that isn't cheap either---but I still think I got a good deal and I think it will be a very nice lens. It has a fluorite element and is reputed to be excellent. I am not sure yet whether i will convert it or just use it with the GH2 that I plan to get.

If your 400mm is the MC version, just use a Rollei to Eos adapter. On mine I get infinity focus, or close enough to make no difference. On the MD version, the MD lug may jam the adapter. Machining the adapter a little should remedy that.

Jan 14, 2011 at 06:21 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

dickb wrote:
If your 400mm is the MC version, just use a Rollei to Eos adapter. On mine I get infinity focus, or close enough to make no difference. On the MD version, the MD lug may jam the adapter. Machining the adapter a little should remedy that.

Thanks for the tip. Mine is the MC version. So to covert it you simply use a Rollei to EOS adapter, drill new holes, and attach the adapter with the old screws? Anything else I should know? Any issues with aperture levers, etc.? I did convert my 58 f/1.2 myself, so I can do this sort of work, but that is the only lens I have converted.

Jan 14, 2011 at 07:14 AM

Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

sebboh wrote:
yeah, i was exaggerating a bit with the one notable exception. the rare lenses and the 85s are also a little more. the 28/2 seems to sell for only a little bit more than $200, it just doesn't sell very often. incidentally, i would recommend converting that 24mm if you don't already have a 24 you really like for eos, i'm quite fond of mine.

I do really like the Minolta 24mm, but use it on my SRT 102, and I have an Olympus OM 24mm f/2.8, so I haven't converted it yet. I am thinking of selling the Zuiko, however. Do you know how difficult it is to convert the Rokkor 24mm?

Jan 14, 2011 at 08:58 AM

rsrsrs
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

i think u already know:
a converted minolta 24mm is realy great.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/951852/0#8999673

i didn't do it on my own, but i can send a photo of the backside if it helps ...

r

Jan 14, 2011 at 09:38 AM

dickb
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Steve Spencer wrote:
I think it will be a very nice lens. It has a fluorite element and is reputed to be excellent. I am not sure yet whether i will convert it or just use it with the GH2 that I plan to get.
dickb wrote:
If your 400mm is the MC version, just use a Rollei to Eos adapter. On mine I get infinity focus, or close enough to make no difference. On the MD version, the MD lug may jam the adapter. Machining the adapter a little should remedy that.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Thanks for the tip. Mine is the MC version. So to covert it you simply use a Rollei to EOS adapter, drill new holes, and attach the adapter with the old screws? Anything else I should know? Any issues with aperture levers, etc.? I did convert my 58 f/1.2 myself, so I can do this sort of work, but that is the only lens I have converted.

No, it's much easier. The Rollei-EF adapter acts like a Minolta SR (MC) mount adapter. No conversion, no holes to drill, nothing like that. The only major problem is the thickness of the adapter - for a perfect Minolta SR to EF adapter its thickness should be -0.5 mm, this one is 1.9mm. So, it acts like a 2.4mm extension tube. The effect of that depends on the focal length of the lens, the wider the angle, the more pronounced will be the effect. It will turn your 24mm into a very close-up lens only. But the 400mm is designed to focus slightly beyond infinity and 2.4mm extension is close to negligible on a 400mm anyway, so I get to focus to about 100 meters, so unless you're into astrophotography it is not likely to be a great problem.

Minor problems of this adapter may be the fractionally wider diameter of the Rollei mount compared to the SR mount. Depending on the adapter itself, you may get a fraction of a mm perpendicular play between lens and adapter. Also, the locking mechanism of the Rollei adapter does lock the Minolta lens, but maybe not as securely as it would with a Rollei lens. Bending the springy catch slightly locks the lens a lot better. Using a tiny bit of Teflon tape will get you a rock solid connection between lens and adapter

Jan 14, 2011 at 09:56 AM

pasblues
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

The comparison between the Zeiss and Rokkor here are two different apertures so it'd be more accurate of a test if the apertures were the same in both shots.

The other consideration is that there are different copies of Rokkor - and I'm going to postulate that some copies are sharper/better than others.

I have an 85mm f1.7 that you can pry out of my cold, dead hands, for instance.

Sep 06, 2017 at 10:31 AM

mortyb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

This thread is 6,5 years old

Sep 06, 2017 at 11:03 AM

Sam_W
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Which Zeiss?

C/Y Distagon 1.4/35?
Zx Distagon 1.4/35?
Distagon 1.4/35 ZM?
Milvus 1.4/35?

Etc.

Sep 06, 2017 at 01:14 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Sam_W wrote:
Which Zeiss?

C/Y Distagon 1.4/35?
Zx Distagon 1.4/35?
Distagon 1.4/35 ZM?
Milvus 1.4/35?

Etc.

ha, at the time there was only one.

Sep 06, 2017 at 02:09 PM

mcbroomf
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

sebboh wrote:
ha, at the time there was only one.

... and it could not have been the ZM as the test was done on a 5D

PS come to think of it there were 2. The C/Y and the 3 bladed Rollei which got a lot of love

Sep 06, 2017 at 02:18 PM

sebboh
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

mcbroomf wrote:

... and it could not have been the ZM as the test was done on a 5D

PS come to think of it there were 2. The C/Y and the 3 bladed Rollei which got a lot of love

i consider those the same lens just different apertures...

Sep 06, 2017 at 02:30 PM

mcbroomf
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · 35mm zeiss 1,4 >< rokkor 1,8

Yes, HFT vs T* coating I guess but same formula. Did anyone find out why Rollei went with a 3 bladed aperture? I could never figure that out.

Sep 06, 2017 at 02:48 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.