Minolta XD-5

[craigh]

Not from e-bay, but in a local store called Cash & Carry, I found a Minolta XD-5 with a Minolta MD 50mm f2 for $29.99.

Craig

[Just Plain Curt]

Anytime you find an SLR with lens for $30 or less it's a great deal, let alone a Minolta. Good score.

[Peter S.]

Hi Craig,

that's a true bargain! You get the silky operation of the XD-7 just sacrificing some finder information at an incredibly low price.
I've heard mixed comments on the MD 2/50. Do You know Dennis Lohmann's Minolta lens
list? minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html
That MD 2/50 would be no. 100. The older MC Rokkor 2/50 (no 98) is said to offer excellent
sharpness, yet has some light fall off when operated at f/2 to f/2.8. Another excellent bargin
lens is the MC/MD Rokkor(-PF) 1.7/50 with the 55mm filter thread. Here in Germany it often can
be found for less than 5.- €. According to my friend Hans Weber it outperforms at least the older
Summicrons...

Best regards
Peter

[craigh]

I always thought Minolta lowered their quality when they dropped the Rokkor name. The other 50's that I have are a MD 45mm f2, MC 50mm f1.7 & 1.4, 2 58mm f1.4 & a Celtic 50mm f3.5 macro.

Craig

[Peter S.]

Hi Craig,

as a general rule of thumb, You are right. Most of those lenses that are regarded as lemons in the Minolta lineup are from the late period, when the "Rokkor" had been dropped out of the lens designation. But as this rule is quite general it is not without exceptions.

I more evolved rules says, that the cheaper plain MD lenses did suffer from the decrease in optical quality while the more expensive ones didn't. Even some of the more expensive ones might have suffered a bit of mechanical quality - but not the image quality.

But even this has an exception: there is a consensus that the 1.2/50 is not a good lens. One needs to stop it down to F/4 and below so that it keeps up to the top lenses - and this is a desastrous verdict for that expensive lens.

But the most important rule is: avoid the late, variable aperture zooms, that were made by Cosina. These are crappy, e.g. the 3.5-4.8/35-70. This expessively does not hold for the earlier Tokina made variable aperture zooms, as for the very good 3.5-4.5/28-85.

MD lenses, that kept their quality (without the guarantee that I forgot one - didn't check the records) are:
- 7.5mm fisheye - no design change ever
- 4/17 - no design changes known. If You find one for a good price - get it.
- 1.8/35 - less resolution, but better flare handling than the MC, in summary on par
- 1.7/50 - I think the MD's are underrated, a bit worse than the earlier ones, but still very good
- 2/85 - sharper, but less charismatic than the 1.7/85 (which is a beast one needs to tame)
- 2.5/100 - excellent, the early MC may have a better bokeh, but no change from late MC to MD
- 2.8/135 - only very slightly worse than the earlier ones, still very good
- 4/200 - excellent, no matter which version You get
- 5.6/400 Apo - no design change, but limited usefulness
- 3.5 or 4/100 macro - excellent, no matter which version You get
the latest version is a bit more resistant against backlight.
- 3.5/50 macro - excellent, no matter which version You get

The MC 1.4/50 is amongst the very best normal lenses Minolta ever did. So is the MC 1.7/50,
The 1.4/58 is said to be a bit soft wide open (in contrast to the 1.2/58, which is a different deisgn, more similar to the MC 1.4/50). But it offers excellent image quality and excellent bokeh when operated at F/2.8 - use it there, otherwise use the MC 1.4/50. I use the 1.4/58 from time to time - and I am very pleased with its results, And it is not, that I had no alternatives...

The Celtic macro is said to use a simplified mechanics - but the same glass than the MC Macro. It is also said, that it was not assembled by Minolta itself (Cosina??). But I would presume, that these were top quality lenses, too. Besides the 50mm Macro is said to have the best sharpness of all normal lenses, when the object is nearer than 5m. It also got no distortions (barrel or pincushion) and the focal plane is perfectly even.

On the 2/45 there is a lot of dispute... some love it, others hate it. I don't like its plasticy appearance - but I can assure, that it is not a bad lens. But You need a very large print, to tell the difference to the above mentioned top performers. Maybe that is what fires that dispute.

Anyway You got a perfect lineup. The MC 1.7/50 for the backlight photos, the MC 1.4/50 for general purpose ultra sharp or narrow DoF with good out-of-focus rendition, the Macro for everything near or small, and last but not least, the MC 1.4/58 with its creamy bokeh almost on par with the MC 1.2/58. It is just that one needs a big bag - and strong shoulders :-(

Best regards
Peter

[craigh]

Peter,

Thanks for the info. I also have a Rokkor MD 28mm f2.8. Most of my other Rokkor's are MC Rokkor-X with the exception of my trusty mid 60's 200mm f3.5.

Craig

[Peter S.]

Hi Craig,

so You have an Auto Tele Rokkor-QF 3.5/200?
As far as I know, all these 3.5/200 Rokkors share the same design - and I like
this lens pretty much. I find it perfect for portraits used at large apertures.
The images don't have much contrast, but a very good resolution. Perfect when
used accordingly.

These old lenses are charismatic - no comparison to modern gear.

Best regards
Peter

[craigh]

That's the lens. With the silver apeture ring in the middle. I picked up that lens in 1980. My favorite Rokkor.



Craig