Nice to finally be able to post some pictures in this really nice Minolta Rokkor thread. I have seen a lot of really nice pictures taken with different Minolta lenses here, so I recently acquired my first Minolta lens.
The lens I bought was the Minolta RF Rokkor 250mm f5.6. Took it for a test round and I am very pleased with the results and handling of the lens. The lens is crazy light for a 250mm lens and it is also very small. This lens will be my go to tele-lens when travelling light. And I really think this lens will fill that need. Just have to beware of the donut bokeh.
Nothing special, picture was taken handheld, ISO 8000 (to high), shutter speed 1/250. Taken with Sony A7r2.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
This month I decided to use just one lens: The Minolta MC Rokkor 1.7/55.
I picked up this lens, based on your article. Haven't had much opportunity to shoot with it yet, but looks like a very worthwhile purchase, especially considering the price.
Awesome shots Phillip! Your site got me into manual lenses.
I know you've done a side-by-side test of this lens with Zeiss. Have you done the same thing with the much more expensive Minolta 58mm f/1.2? I'm curious how much differences they have.
Thanks to Phillip's review, which I've read about 10 times over the last months, I finally bought the 58 1.2, which arrived yesterday. I felt like I already knew the lens, in a way I've never experienced before. That was a little weird.
Today it rained a bit, and I managed to get out as the sun was going down and fog rising from the snow. This frame seemed to work the best at f5.6, showing more of the golden light through the fog than the wider aperture images: http://www.lehet.com/bitbucket/a7r22017_0179.jpg
Yeah got love the 58mm F1.2, wide open it's very glowy. At least on the A7 I do find it impossible to use wide open at night if there are any lights in the background though it does very very strange things to them.
A side from that lovely, here are a couple wide open:
raytracer wrote:
Awesome shots Phillip! Your site got me into manual lenses.
I know you've done a side-by-side test of this lens with Zeiss. Have you done the same thing with the much more expensive Minolta 58mm f/1.2? I'm curious how much differences they have.
Not such an extensive comparison but the 1.2/58 has higher resolution even at f/1.2 but also much more SA and therefore lower contrast at f/1.2. At the same apertures the 58 is always a bit sharper but the difference becomes less and less noticeable as you stop down.
I don't remember if I have ever done a bokeh comparison, @sebboh can certainly tell you more about that.
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Not such an extensive comparison but the 1.2/58 has higher resolution even at f/1.2 but also much more SA and therefore lower contrast at f/1.2. At the same apertures the 58 is always a bit sharper but the difference becomes less and less noticeable as you stop down.
I don't remember if I have ever done a bokeh comparison, @sebboh@ can certainly tell you more about that.
i have done a side by side for landscape and bokeh in limited situations. i agree with phillip completely – the 58/1.2 has higher resolution at all apertures (particularly towards the edges) but has less contrast wide open and the difference gets smaller and smaller as you stop down. as far as bokeh goes the f/1.7 is smoother than the f/1.2 at both f/1.7 and f/1.2. at f/2 the 58/1.2 is smoother and continues to be so in most situations stopping down due to hexagons vs octogons and slightly longer focal length. the 58/1.2 produces a greater amount of blur at all shared apertures.
here is a quick comparison (also included are the zm 50/1.5 and jupiter-3). i was trying to combine bokeh, sharpness, and flare tests at standard portrait distance.
Interesting to see that the bokeh on the tree on 58mm f/1.2 @ f2 is even smoother than 55mm f/1.7 @ 1.7. Looks like f2 is the aperture to go for 58mm f/1.2.
raytracer wrote:
Interesting to see that the bokeh on the tree on 58mm f/1.2 @ f2 is even smoother than 55mm f/1.7 @ 1.7. Looks like f2 is the aperture to go for 58mm f/1.2.
Shouldn't be too much of a surprise - most lenses get smoother bokeh when stopped down some, provided the aperture shape doesn't make things too much worse.
If one had the 58 1.2, is the 55 1.7 different enough in character that it would be worth having? Seems like the main desirable trait would be the 200 or so grams difference. Yesterday I went on a hike and didn't even bring along the 58 1.2, even though it's my newest lens. I brought the lightweight Olympus 50 1.4 to use as what I've come to think of as the "anti-Zeiss," a less aggressive lens with smoother bokeh. I suppose the 55 1.7 would also make a nice lightweight anti-Zeiss.
