Is there any reason to get the MC version over the MD version of the 85 1.7? Both are the 55mm version and have the dampled focus. Isn't the MD version newer?
if you like metal focus rings, they're only available in early MC versions.
KatieInTexas wrote:
Don't care about the focus ring as long as it works. Which should I get
I plan to use it on not only my NEX5, but my Canon EOS 1v film body as well.
don't look at me, i've never got one because i can never find one for under $400 (and i'm so happy with my rokinon). the MD probably has better coatings and the older MCs probably have some yellowing (radioactive), but otherwise i suspect the differences aren't that big.
Katie,
Just get whatever one you can find cheaper. The MD Rokkor 85/1.7 is harder to find and usually fetches higher price.
Just like Sebboh suspected, in my experience, the difference is so small. I don't have a preference.
There also is the excellent MD 85/2 which is much smaller than the 85/1.7s and should match well with the NEX.
Jul 20, 2011 at 09:18 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Like the Rokkor files review suggests if you want an all purpose lens I would get the 85 f/2 (it is smaller and cheaper and bit sharper than the MD 85 f/1.7), but if you want it primarily for portraits I would get the MC 85 f/1.7 for its look and bokeh. You really can't go wrong with any of them, however.
I went ahead and got the MD version ... figured if I don't like it, I can sell it and go with the technically easier to find MC version. By the way, KEH has them (several) for under $400.
Previously I was after the Rokkor 135/2 too, but abandoned it due to it's rareness and that I decided not to explore MF lenses more than FL 100-105mm, and just concentrate on 50-105mm. Besides, I already got Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 (cheap, small lens but has great performance specially for travelling light) and Zeiss 135/2.8 C/Y (sharp, good microcontrast though sometimes it's PF is annoying ) and 135L for sports and portrait.
But, I still can not get ride of my curiosity about this legendary Minolta lens.
Looking at the very good result of the Rokkor 100/2 which is an old lens, I assume that, as newer lens, MD 135/2 will be a very very good lens.
@sebboh: By the way I like the gorgeous rendering and bokeh of your 135/2.8 in the first page. Just curios to know what is the character differences with Zeiss 135/2.8 C/Y ?
nixland wrote:
@sebboh: By the way I like the gorgeous rendering and bokeh of your 135/2.8 in the first page. Just curios to know what is the character differences with Zeiss 135/2.8 C/Y ?
couldn't say for sure, i've never shot with the zeiss. i would guess the zeiss has more microcontrast, global contrast, and CA just from my experience with rokkors and zeiss lenses in general. the 135/2.8 has a similar drawing style to the other MC and early MD lenses i've shot with (28/2, 50/1.4, and 58/1.2). i really should use the lens more, it's just not a comfortable angle of view for me.
sebboh wrote:
couldn't say for sure, i've never shot with the zeiss. i would guess the zeiss has more microcontrast, global contrast, and CA just from my experience with rokkors and zeiss lenses in general. the 135/2.8 has a similar drawing style to the other MC and early MD lenses i've shot with (28/2, 50/1.4, and 58/1.2). i really should use the lens more, it's just not a comfortable angle of view for me.
Thanks for sharing the info.
I like the Rokkor character more and more since I had the MC 85/1.7 and the recent MC 100/2. Color, contrast and specially bokeh are amazing. Like finding diamonds from the past
