Beautiful pictures and as usual an excellent review. I would like to offer a correction, however. I am pretty sure this lens does not have floating elements. I did my best to investigate this issue at one time and although I found one source that claimed that it had floating elements. I found several that suggested it did not. In the end I was persuaded by the argument that the Minolta MC lenses with floating elements (e.g., the 24 f/2.,8, the 28 f/2) had both floating elements and a rotating front filter threads, whereas those that did not (e.g., 35 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8) did not have rotating front filter threads.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Beautiful pictures and as usual an excellent review. I would like to offer a correction, however. I am pretty sure this lens does not have floating elements. I did my best to investigate this issue at one time and although I found one source that claimed that it had floating elements. I found several that suggested it did not. In the end I was persuaded by the argument that the Minolta MC lenses with floating elements (e.g., the 24 f/2.,8, the 28 f/2) had both floating elements and a rotating front filter threads, whereas those that did not (e.g., 35 f/2.8, 28 f/2.8) did not have rotating front filter threads....Show more →
Thanks for the correction
Two shots with my favorite Rokkor, the lower 75/3.5 in my Minolta Autocord CdS TLR ;-)
Mecklenburg, Heimat by Georg, auf Flickr
Autocord CdS, exposure unrecorded, Trix-X in Diafine, printed (not so well) on Foma-RC-paper
ouch! messed up the tones by Georg, auf Flickr
Autocord CdS, red-filter, Fuji Acros in Diafine, got unfortunately matching tones between boom/outrigger and the surrounding sky
Btw, I have a MD 24-35/3.5 without a camera. Is this one an "okay" performer on a matching film-body?
Which version of the MC 1.4/58 do you have? the older one or the newer one? The newer one is supposed to be quite a bit sharper but while I have both versions I never found the time to really use them, still have far too many lenses (OM 2/28, 1.8/50 and 4/75-150 along with Zeiss MP 2/100 beeing the newest)
Personally I think it's better to post in the various lens threads than in the FE pool, but that's just me. IMO what's interesting is how a lens / lens family draws, not how the FE cameras draw, so to say.
Anyways, took the A7s an the Rokkor 58/1.2 to the forests. All shot at around 2-2.8.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
sure but that's not really a new trend, is it?
Which version of the MC 1.4/58 do you have? the older one or the newer one? The newer one is supposed to be quite a bit sharper but while I have both versions I never found the time to really use them, still have far too many lenses (OM 2/28, 1.8/50 and 4/75-150 along with Zeiss MP 2/100 beeing the newest)
not a new trend, but this thread has been deadish for a long time. I also like the lens type specific threads better, they seem to be on the decline though since the a7 came out.
I have both versions of the 58/1.4, I tested them a while ago and haven't noticed any difference except in coatings and aperture blades (the older version has 8). I think the talk of the new one being sharper is wishful thinking, the MC PG 50/1.4 is a much better performer across the board.
sebboh wrote:
I have both versions of the 58/1.4, I tested them a while ago and haven't noticed any difference except in coatings and aperture blades (the older version has 8). I think the talk of the new one being sharper is wishful thinking, the MC PG 50/1.4 is a much better performer across the board.
I wasn't precise enough. Stephan from Artaphot.ch writes that the MC-II version is improved a lot and not quite close in performance to the 1.4/50's while the older MC-I is quite a bit softer. I think you talk about Auto vs MC.
I just ran a quick comparison at a distance of about 1.5m and was surprised how good resolution and little astigmatism my MC-I has in the corners. Contrast is very low but only my MD 2/50 comes close to the resolution at f/2 and even f/1.4. MC 1.4/50, 1.2/58, 1.7/55, C/Y 1.4/50, nFD 1.4/50, OM 1.8/50 all have less resolution in the corners (and they are all sharper in the center )
But I can confirm that the MC-II has noticeably improved contrast over the MC-I but the MC 1.4/50 has still more contrast at f/1.4
Phillip Reeve wrote:
I wasn't precise enough. Stephan from Artaphot.ch writes that the MC-II version is improved a lot and not quite close in performance to the 1.4/50's while the older MC-I is quite a bit softer. I think you talk about Auto vs MC.
I just ran a quick comparison at a distance of about 1.5m and was surprised how good resolution and little astigmatism my MC-I has in the corners. Contrast is very low but only my MD 2/50 comes close to the resolution at f/2 and even f/1.4. MC 1.4/50, 1.2/58, 1.7/55, C/Y 1.4/50, nFD 1.4/50, OM 1.8/50 all have less resolution in the corners (and they are all sharper in the center )
But I can confirm that the MC-II has noticeably improved contrast over the MC-I but the MC 1.4/50 has still more contrast at f/1.4...Show more →
ah, you are right. i was thinking the auto vs MC. how do i tell what version of the MC i have? the serial number is 588****.
)