wayne seltzer wrote:
Derek, have you ever tested your 28/2's at closer distances? I think they might also perform better at near distances rather than at infinity.
yes, they do. in fact all the rokkor wide angles i've used share this characteristic (21/2.8 and 17/4 are the others i've tried). i believe it's part of the minolta design strategy, they seem to believe that their wide angles should be more useful for near focus compositions than infinity (i tend to agree). kinda the opposite of zeiss. on the other hand, most normal and telephoto rokkors seem to be optimized for infinity.
Basso wrote:
For me it is hard to understand its bad performance in the infinity shot and at the same time the quite remarkable performance in the near focus shot that I posted above (taken within hours of each other). If something is misaligned would then the near focus shot turn out as good as this one? Well anyway, I have the 55mm version and a Novoflex adapter that works flawlessly for all my Rokkors (except for certain angles towards a lightsource when it can produce flare).
Maybe I should put the lens through a more systematic test than the one showed here (at the middle of a Summer day with the sun coming from the left), as the sunlight may have influenced the performance by producing flare or related things, which can be an issue with these lenses as you and Phillip observe above. Anyway, thanks for commenting ...Show more →
your close up shot really only has the center in focus. if the FLE is improperly placed or one of the elements is out of alignment it won't really effect the central performance only the off axis performance.
also, the 24/2.8 has a floating element (FLE) while most of the longer rokkors do not (though your 35/1.8 does). if the adapter allows focus past infinity it means that the FLE will not be miscalibrated. finally, the wider a lens is the more sensitive it is to small variations in alignment. this is because it takes smaller movements to change focus a given distance on wider lenses.
to check for field curvature (a problem with FLE calibration on this lens) shoot at infinity with the frame tilted diagonally so there is detail in the corners. take three shots, one where you focus in the center of the frame, one where you focus in the mid zone, and one where you focus in the corner. if the FLE is properly calibrated all of these shots will be identical.
sebboh wrote:
your close up shot really only has the center in focus. if the FLE is improperly placed or one of the elements is out of alignment it won't really effect the central performance only the off axis performance.
also, the 24/2.8 has a floating element (FLE) while most of the longer rokkors do not (though your 35/1.8 does). if the adapter allows focus past infinity it means that the FLE will not be miscalibrated. finally, the wider a lens is the more sensitive it is to small variations in alignment. this is because it takes smaller movements to change focus a given distance on wider lenses.
to check for field curvature (a problem with FLE calibration on this lens) shoot at infinity with the frame tilted diagonally so there is detail in the corners. take three shots, one where you focus in the center of the frame, one where you focus in the mid zone, and one where you focus in the corner. if the FLE is properly calibrated all of these shots will be identical.
Time for a small Rokkor bump. Had a hard time to nail focus on this robin that hopped around for about an hour but never sat longer than a few seconds. Cropped. Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135/2.8.
My Minolta collection currently includes the MD 28/2.8, MD 35-70/3.5 Macro, MD 50/1.7, MC 58/1.2, and the MD 135/2.8. Sometimes I feel like I need a fast 35mm, but I also sometimes feel that I have too many lenses.
Here are a couple recent shots with the 58mm 1:1.2.
Sirfishalot wrote:
Basso,
You're making it more difficult for me to part with my 85/1.7, which I'm planing to sell. Here's a recent shot from it on the A7:
That is really a great shot. Smooth focus transitions supported by reflections and yet great clarity and atmosphere.
I think that I understand your feelings about the 85/1.7. Also sometimes contemplating to sell it. I do not use it very often nor is it the first lens I would pick when I go out. It's limited versatality is a bit of a concern. Yet, when used in the right conditions it really can give great images (save for the fringing that I overlooked in the shot below...) that few other lenses (that I have, i.e. ContaxG90, Rokkor 100/2.5) can. Also from a mechanical perspective this lens is a joy to use, probably the nicest engineered and most durable lens that I have.
Here to make it easier for you two more from 2 weeks ago when Spring was hesitating...
Great shots with the MD 35-70, Phillip! Do you by chance know how it compares to the MC Soligor 28-80/3.5-4.5 C/D (in Canon FD mount)? I have the Soligor lens but would be interested how it compares to this Minolta lens.
retrofocus wrote:
Great shots with the MD 35-70, Phillip! Do you by chance know how it compares to the MC Soligor 28-80/3.5-4.5 C/D (in Canon FD mount)? I have the Soligor lens but would be interested how it compares to this Minolta lens.
sorry never heard of that Soligor.
two more from 2 weeks ago when Spring was hesitating... 
