my version is diameter 49mm. it looks like, that the ones with 55mm are better, cause i like my one only for close distance (as in that picture) but for long distance it is not convincing me.
other people with 55mm filter diameter are very positively speaking about their rokkors 28mm. looks like, that i picked up a worse version. note, that the 49mm version has strong mirror issues !! i removed a lot of material, but still not infinite without mirror issues.
my version is diameter 49mm. it looks like, that the ones with 55mm are better, cause i like my one only for close distance (as in that picture) but for long distance it is not convincing me.
other people with 55mm filter diameter are very positively speaking about their rokkors 28mm. looks like, that i picked up a worse version. note, that the 49mm version has strong mirror issues !! i removed a lot of material, but still not infinite without mirror issues.
however, for pictures like this one it is cool
-L.
your rear element looks a lot better than mine (55mm filter thread version), cleaning marks all over. :/ i kinda got a similar impression, that my 24/2.8 with 49mm filter thread performs better close up than at infinity. not sure though, because i pretty much never focus on infinity with wide angles, just focus on something closer and try to stop down enough to be hyperfocal.
another thought - the 28/2 (both versions) has a floating element. are you sure that your infinity stop is at infinity? if not it could messing up the focus distance correction of the floating element.
LeadyGonzales wrote:
my version is diameter 49mm. it looks like, that the ones with 55mm are better, cause i like my one only for close distance (as in that picture) but for long distance it is not convincing me.
other people with 55mm filter diameter are very positively speaking about their rokkors 28mm. looks like, that i picked up a worse version. note, that the 49mm version has strong mirror issues !! i removed a lot of material, but still not infinite without mirror issues.
In my experience, the Minolta 28/2.0 is the most 5D mirror friendly lens of the Minolta wides, especially the last 49mm filter version. I just worked on one, if the owner wants to speak up.
i had a discussion in a german forum, where somebody said, that the newer MD 28mm 2.0 with 49mm has no floating elements.
but when i look on mine, i see, that the front glass (glass not lens) is rotating, but the filter thread is fixed. looks complicated and very different with respect to my other lenses where the glases are just a block moving forward/backward.
would be great, if somebody knows something about this lens.
Is the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR set up the same as the 35/1.8 MC W.ROKKOR-HH? The 35/1.8 has a sort of rear cam at the back which contains most of the aperture mechanism, I'm wondering if the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR is the same (with regard to conversion, a-mount). Thanks for any info!
ricardovaste wrote:
Is the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR set up the same as the 35/1.8 MC W.ROKKOR-HH? The 35/1.8 has a sort of rear cam at the back which contains most of the aperture mechanism, I'm wondering if the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR is the same (with regard to conversion, a-mount). Thanks for any info!
yup, all attached to the rear mount. wish they would have done all the lenses like they did the 50/1.2 or 58/1.2.
Yeah, don't get me started on it! They're all so different internally... rah... but anyway, have you handled both of these, you can comfirm they're very similar with all the levers etc attached to the rear cam type part?
ricardovaste wrote:
Yeah, don't get me started on it! They're all so different internally... rah... but anyway, have you handled both of these, you can comfirm they're very similar with all the levers etc attached to the rear cam type part?
i've only handled (and disassembled) the 28/2, i've just heard about the 35/1.8 without ever seeing one in person. the 28/2 appears identical to the MC PG 50/1.4 in terms of mount and aperture lever design if that helps. i can take the mount off my 28/2 and take a picture of it for you later today if you'd like.
The 50/1.4 MC PG is one that I haven't handled . I appreciate your help. If you have the time and could photograph the rear and inside rear of the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR that would be greatly appreciated, but no problem if not
Aug 10, 2011 at 10:40 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I had the MD Rokkor 35 f/1.8 and now the MC Rokkor 28 f/2. They are not the same at all. Jim Buchanan did the conversion of both my lenses and I know he had done the MC Rokkor-HH 35mm f/1.8 as well. Perhaps he will chime in with the details.
@Steve: I wasn't talking about the 35/1.8 MD, I've handled a couple of those and know they're different. Was specifically looking for a comparison between the 28/2 MC W. ROKKOR and the 35/1.8 MC W.ROKKOR-HH as they both "seem" similar externally. But thank you anyway
ricardovaste wrote:
The 50/1.4 MC PG is one that I haven't handled . I appreciate your help. If you have the time and could photograph the rear and inside rear of the 28/2 MC W.ROKKOR that would be greatly appreciated, but no problem if not
Hi All, I want to ask about the VFC version of 24/2.8.
1. Is the VFC element degrade the IQ compared to the normal 24/2.8?
2. Any differences in IQ (bokeh, color, contrast, sharpness) between Rokkor MC (1975) and Rokkor MD (1977) of this VFC lens?
