What say you to the Rokkor lenses?

[Michael Fraley]

I just got a Minolta SRT-201 to play around with. The lens it came with is a Rokkor-X 1.7/50mm. Although I haven't shot a roll of film yet, I'm impressed with the build and look of the lens. Does anyone have experience with Rokkor lenses? Any favorites? I am tempted to scoop up a better-condition SRT-101 just for the lenses. Do any other camera makes support the same mount?

Thanks,
Michael

[rover]

Rokkor lenses are great, second candle to none, but I would say that about Pentax, Nikon, Canon..... they all made excellent lenses. The 50/1.7 is the sharpest of Minolta's standards. I prefer the 50/1.4 which is a little warmer, but very well balanced wide open. For my SRT cameras, my 101 is my favorite. I had it serviced by John Titterington and can't be happier with it. I am not much for the split image focus screens, my 101 has a matte screen, very clear and best for me. I have it mated with an MC 58/1.2. Not as sharp as the MD 50/1.7 or 1.4 but not far behind and just a boat load of character. Minolta was known for their wide angle lenses I guess, I have a Rokkor X MD 24/2.8 (said to have been designed with Leitz), MD Rokkor X 35/1.8, the 50/58 lenses, MC 85/1.7, MC 100/2.5, MD 135/2.8, 200.....300, I don't use those too often so I forget which ones. The 24 and 35 are more expensive than the 50mm lenses, but I don't think I paid $150 for either. The 58/1.2 and 85/1.7 are more rare and I shopped a long time for both until I found good deals. 58mm on an SRT shows about a 1:1 image in the viewfinder. Both generally will sell for over $200, everything else sells for between $25 and $100, very reasonable.

I don't know that any other manufacturer used the MC/MD mount.

[Just Plain Curt]

While I don't have anywhere near the Rokkor lenses that Rover does, I do have 7- 50 f1.7, 4- 45 f2, a 58 f1.4, and 2- 55mm although not sure if they're f1.7 or f1.8 (if I can ever find them). All great glass as Rover said, at least on par with my Super Takumars. I like the 58 f1.4 best for viewing but the 50 f1.7 is actually a sharper lens.

[Michael Fraley]

Thanks! I'll have to try mine out soon, and maybe look for a wide angle..

[Peter S.]

Hi Michael,

I am a totally Minolta lunatic - so maybe I am either the right one to ask, or the completely
wrong - depending on your standpoint. But back to Your question... well, You say Rokkor-X,
this can be either MC Rokkor-X (i.e. late MC) or MD Rokkor-X (i.e. late MD). In the numbering
system of Dennis Lohmann (one of the leading manual-focus Minolta experts, at least here
in Germany), we are talking on lenses no. 93 to 96 - the exact variant is not important in this
case, as those are all supposed to be about equal in performance (situation is different for
other lenses). Btw, Dennis list is here:

minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/body_li.html

On the performance side, I highly regard these 1.7/50 lenses. A lot of Minoltians think, the
MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 and the MC-Rokkor-PG 1.2/58 were even a tiny bit better. The 1.7's
are however a bit less prone to flare. Therefore (and due to the very little money such a
lens does cost) I recomment any Minoltian should have one. I bought my first MD Rokkor
1.7/50 for 5(!) € incl. a bag plus shipment. And it is a highly performing, essential lens.

The other typical bargains are:
- the 35mm: (any Minolta 35mm is good): a 2.8/35 would cost You between 30 and 50€
depending on the variant, The later ones are more expensive, but all are
equally good). The f/1.8 versions are much more expensive, and don't
offer a substantial edge w.r.t. performance (would be difficult, as the 2.8/35
are such great lenses)
- the 28mm: all the 2.8/28 with 55mm filter thread. Dennis' no.50 is a lemon, however.
I like the MC Rokkor-SI 2.5/28 the best - but this has an internal element
containing Thorium, which might need a UV-therapy to get rid of a yellow tint.
The problem of all the 28mm lenses is that one usually got a 35mm lens,
because this is a decent step from the ubiquitious 50mm type. And then the
24mm lenses are much more desirable. The typical remark You might hear on
a 28mm lens is: not fish not fowl. I'm not shure about that, since I often use
a 28/50/135mm setup. But anyway, You should know the general believe.
- 135mm: all Minolta 135mm lenses are good - and very cheap - pretty underrated.
Again a lot of people don't like it, since there is virtually no room from the 100mm,
which are much more common. Even a MC 2.8/135 can be found for less than
20 €!. The 3.5/135 are not substantially cheaper - therefore only their smaller
size and weight are arguments for them. On the performance side there is no
noticable difference.
- 200mm: the 4/200 is great. It works very well with the 300-S 2x teleconverter. There are
other variants, which tend to be more expensive, and not as good. If f/4 is
enough, stick with it. Great lenses. Price is again between 20 and 40 € here
in Germany. A bargain compared to the performance.
- and of course all the 1.4 to 2 normals (i.e. 45 to 58mm). The 1.7 copies sell for less than
10 € typically. The 2/50 version has a very good reputation, too - but I can't
imagine what to do with it, when I got the 1.2 and 1.4 and 1.7 versions...

Expensive but essential for the enthusiast are:
- 50mm: one b_o_k_e_h monster (sorry have to overcome censorship). The best one, i.e. sharp
when stopped down and creamy when open is the MC Rokkor(-PG) 1.2/58. The
last ones lack the -PG suffix - and cost a surplus. They got a slightly improved
coating. But I doubt, whether those are more usable in reality.
A similar bokeh performance is assigned to the MC Rokkor-PF 1.4/58. But this is
not as sharp as the 1.2/58. The 1.2/58 is the monster normal lens from Minolta.
Its only drawback is its price. A good copy can be as expensive as 150 € or even
a bit more! But all the dedicated Minoltians I know (we had a extensive discussion
on the corresponding Yahoo group a short time ago) agree: the 1.2/58 is expensive
but worth the price. For me the two must haves are: one of the 1.7/50 (preferably
with a 55mm filter thread) and the MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50.
- 24mm: Minolta did design for Leica. Minolta got an extremely satisfying 2.8/24. Just avoid the
version with the 49mm filter thread.
The 24mm's seldom go below 100 €. But they also hardly ever go over 200 €.
It is a very good lens. And all the shorter ones are way more expensive (250+ €),
and are said to be inferior to the 24mm ones.
- a short tele - this is the most complicated section. There are two sharpness monsters,
which are the 2.5/100 (any version) and the 2/85. The mentioned 1.7/85 is a kind
of a portrait lens. The former two lenses are much more general purpose.
The 2/85 is about 130 €, the 2.5/100 from 70 to 120 €).

Best regards
Peter


I wrote a summary of that resoning here:

cameracollector.proboards30.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=lens&thread=1152608120&page=2

[Michael Fraley]

Peter,

Thanks for the generous amount of information! I will refer back to it, as I keep my eye out for more lenses. My one-and-only is an MC 1.7/50mm with the 55mm filter thread. I'd like to find a 35mm next. By the way, what Minolta body do you prefer?

[Peter S.]

Dear Michael,

I like the XD-7/11 the best. It is a pure metal and leather feeling. Everthing on it is smooth and
silky. The also has the quietes shutter of all the manual Minolta's, because it is a metal blade
shutter, I think made by Copal. I am shure You had already a look here:

www.rokkorfiles.com/XD11.html

I equipped one with a skin from cameraleather - flickr.com/photos/99318500@N00/284626352/
- I have this camera always loaded, most of the time with a
Velvia 100F.

On the other hand, I shot my best film so far with an SR-T 101. The slow process of
photographing (I double checked the exposure with my external spot meter) much
increased the quality of my pictures. So the SR-T 101 is number two. (there is not
much difference between the 101 and the 201 IIRC)

If You're on a budget, then You'll make the best buy with the MC W.Rokkor 2.8/35 (but
I haven't checked the older MC W.Rokkor-HG 2.8/35). The former is identical to the
first MD generation. I would try to stick with the 55mm filter thread first. Btw. my most
important filter is a polarizer. The Minolta one is especially well suited for wide angles.
But at the cost, that You can't screw a lens shade on top of it. I use it very often, as
landscape is my primary interest.

35mm is a good choice for the second lens. And keep You eyes open for one of the
135mm, these are that ridiculously cheap, it's hard to believe. And the easily keep up
with those Carl Zeiss Jena Sonnar's. There are a few nice pictures taken with them on
some older post - but I forgot how took them, maybe You search for Sonnar, or for
Jupiter. Btw, albeit a bit awkward, it should be possible to use a Jupiter with a M42
apater on the SR-T, too. You would have to step down manually, but as it is typically
used wide open, so this is a decent choice for a short tele, where Minolta becomes
expensive.

Best regards
Peter

[rover]

Peter, great list, I have not seen that before.

May I ask regarding the MD 50/1.4, one of the versions has more aperture blades and stops down to a more perfect circle if I am correct. I believe it is one with a 55mm filter ring. Can you confirm this for me?

Sad story, I had one and sold it but can't recall what version I had.

[Peter S.]

Dear Rover,

no, there are only a very few Minolta lenses with 8 aperture blades. The only normal
one was the MC Rokkor-PG 1.2/58. The other ones are the MD 2/135, the MD 2.8/200,
and the 2.8/85 Varisoft. There are reports that there were a Auto Rokkor 35mm? lens
with 8 blades. But I don't know much on Auto Rokkors (the 2/100 is the only one, I
placed a bid on in the bay of evil - but my need for it wasn't as desparate as it was for
some other people ;-) ).

Best regards
Peter

[Just Plain Curt]

Hi Peter,
Wow, great information and thank you for the lens list and links. I print off a copy of all specification lists, models etc. so this is definitely going directly into my files. The sad part is now I'll need a 28, 35 and 135 Rokkor. It never stops, LOL.

[Peter S.]

Hi Curt,

it would be a good sign of lens-addiction-immunity, if You could remove the 28mm from Your list.
If You can't, You're bound to die. In the long run ;-)

P