|
Post by Peter S. on Apr 6, 2007 13:37:14 GMT -5
Willkommen an Bord, Harry,
es hat eine kleine deutsche Gemeinde hier! :-)
Viele Grüße Peter
PS: You English speaking friends may forgive me in falling into my mother language here...
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 12, 2007 15:55:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 24, 2007 5:24:48 GMT -5
Hi Walker,
You shurely made a good deal. The two lenses alone are worth the money You spent. And get a 135mm lens - they are ridiculously cheap. Two days ago I bought another one, 17,50€ for a MC Tele Rokkor 2.8/135. I could not stop myself although it might be my fifth 135mm lens. The Minolta glass in the 85 to 100mm range is pretty expensive quite on the contrary the prices for the Rokkor glass is coming down. In the Bay of Evil a 100mm lens will cost You at least 60€ (MC Tele Rokkor 2.5/100, a great lens), the 85mm ones are noticeably more expensive. Very good and inexpensive is the 4/200, which can be found for as little as 25€. Btw the MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 is maybe the best normal lens Minolta ever made. It is just a bit prone to flare (that's my I often use a MD Rokkor 1.7/50), but escpecially if You use a tripod You get a level of detail on a good film, that is really impressive.
On the wide angle side the 24mm lenses are renowned but pricey. The 35mm ones are pretty OK w.r.t. their optical performance and usually not very expensive.
My insiders tip is however the MC W. Rokkor 2.5/28. It might suffer from lens yellowing and require a good dose of UV to cure that. Two copies I got outperform my 2/28 at F=4! Its mechanics are relicts from a lost age...
All in all the great thing about the manual Minolta stuff is the availability of excellent lenses at moderate prices. So get a meter and a film in the SR-T soon ;-)
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Nov 26, 2006 10:58:37 GMT -5
Dwight,
I like the Minolta manual focus gear due to its performance in terms of image quality. I can take very sharp pictures (I suppose this would be possible with a Canon FD or an older Nikon camera, too). But the out-of-focus rendition seems to be better, especially for some of the 50mm lenses and some of the 135mm lenses. All this is possible with only quite a limited investment. Minolta MF is a dead system, and so prices are pretty low - except for some sought after special lenses.
Ron, I know, the MC Rokkor-PG 1.2/58 is one of those. Mine did cost me about 200$ - thus this is one of the expensive MC lenses. I saw it selling for 60$ on a Saturday morning, but the internet connection was slow on that day, so I missed it :-( . I think by myself, that we see a hausse at the moment, and that the prices will go down again. There are so many of these babies around, that I presume its price will go back to around 100$ again. I like the SR-T 101 - I took my best roll of film with it. 37 pictures consistently good without one exception. The slow way of photographing it requires (triple checking the exposure, often by my Minolta Spotmeter) lets me take way better photographs than any autoexposure camera. For the time being I use Zink-Air batteries in the SR-T, but I consider building a small voltage regulator to use standard silver oxyd batteries. This would better emulate the flat loading curve of the mercury battery. I already selected a two pole voltage reference and a ultra low drop opamp that shoudl do the job. I found no standard voltage regulator that could do it, since all these ultra low drop voltage regulators don't operate on 1.5V.
Walker, the SR-T 101 shure was a landmark camera. But from a today's perspective there are similar cameras available from all the major brands. But it is far from being a perfect camera: it only got a cloth shutter - unlike its successors the XE and XD cameras. Thus it suffers from a slow flash synch time. Those have responsive silicon diode based light meters, but lack TTL flash operation. The X-700 featured TTL flash, but went back to the cloth shutter. None of these had a spotmeter type of light meter - unlike the XE/XD derivatives that Leica developed.
It would be great to have a Bessaflex with an MD (or at least MC) mount. It would be greater to have a digital (to complement the analog one, of course) Bessaflex with MD mount.
So to summarize it, for me the great Rokkor glass is reason to be a Minolta addict. But I saw, that M42 is offering some neat things, too... so I am myself a serious bit tempted.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Nov 25, 2006 15:48:31 GMT -5
I just hunted down an SR-T 101 with three lenses I don't got so far: - MC W.Rokkor-HG 2.8/35 (7/6 construction rather than the later 5/5 I already got) - MC Rokkor 1.4/58 - I got the 1.2/58 and various 50mm versions. I am very curious on this lens - MC Tele Rokkor 3.5/135 (just got the MD 3.5/135 and the faster versions, I need the supplied shade)
And all this for 50$ including shipment! :-)
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 13, 2006 9:29:35 GMT -5
John, You might use the DOF preview button to switch it off. I saw I wiring diagram once, and it is really in series with the on-off-switch. Doing so, it should be sufficient, to switch the bottom switch only on on morning and off on evening.
Btw, my best roll of film ever I did take with the SR-T 101 - I love that camera for the slow way, it is operated. It improves the quality of my pictures greatly. I totaly fail in using the Canon EOS-D30 from the department I work. I borrow it from time to time to do the photographs for my Evil-Bay auctions. I took maybe 200 pictures using it, and there were only _one_ good shot. I'm not a mature enough photographer to take advantage of a point&shoot.
Gene, I'll do so. I am pretty well equiped in the short tele range (maybe in some others, too ;-) ). I can do a test againt those MD Rokkors 1.7/85, 2/85 and MC Rokkor 2.5/100. The different Minolta and Tokina zooms I already tested (albeit at 50mm) were way behind the primes, with the single exception of the 3.5/35-70. But those days I didn't have the MD 3.4-4.5/35-135. I hope, that this were a good one too. I did one test some time ago, in order to compare the Tokina AT-X 2.5/90 vs. the Minolta MD Macro Rokkor 4/100 (which is known to be one of Minolta's sharpest lenses, if not the sharpest off all): I weren't able to find any difference in sharpness. There are only two issues of the Tokina macro: first it got a little cooler color rendition than the Rokkors. For real macro work, this is no big issue, since macro photography tends be unusual at all, and on one doesn't expect a exact color - quite contrary to landscape or portrait. The second issue, is that the Tokina macro doesn't like strong backlight. On the other hand, if one concentrates on finding a suited background, then the creaminess of the background is on par with the Rokkors.
If there is interest, I can post some pictures, showing the performance and the limitations of the Tokina macro. For the new Vivtar macro I need maybe two or three weeks.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Oct 13, 2006 7:28:57 GMT -5
Hi there follow camera (& lens) collectors, I hunted down one of these famous Vivitar MF macro lenses. It is 2.8/90, which was the successor to the other famous 2.5/90 macro. As You might guess from my post in the Sights of Seasons Past section ( cameracollector.proboards30.com/index.cgi?board=past&action=display&thread=1160666614) I do like macro photography, and so besides the Tokina AT-X 2.5/90 I hunted down the various Minolta macro lenses, too. Btw, there is a nice review on the Tokina macro lens on dpreview, see: forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=13056277But this nice (and later) Vivitar has one benefit over the others: It focusses down to 1:1 scale without an extension tube. The lens gets larger and larger as You turn the focus ring beyond what one might believe. It did cost me 50€ (incl. shipment), what I explain to myself, that the seller (an Ebay selling agent) did label it as portrait telephoto - what it might be, too, but of course is not the unique feature of the lens. Here's a picture I ripped of Ebay (I think, I can do this, as I am the buyer of the lens, besides I asked for their permission). The lens is in a very good shape with only minimal marks on the edges of the the focus ring. The glass is perfect. A lucky find! I am pretty curious, whether it will win the Tokina's palce in my photo bag. Best regards Peter S.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 26, 2008 19:49:01 GMT -5
Dear Peter, I think we can agree, that these Ebay grading policy should not ours... ;-) The scuff on the filter thread does not look too nice - but there is the prejudice, that Minolta gear is bought to be used - as the showcase is already filled by all the Leica and Nikon gear. And performance wise this lens looks pretty OK - to say the least. Michael, my lens is only a few years older than Your's - and should have the same optics within. So in my own attitude of collecting they are identical for me as I rate the possible difference in coating as not being relevant. Btw, the 4/4 construction then got a diamond mark serving as indicator for both focus distance and aperture, while the older got a dot for aperture and a triangle for focus. This is relevant as the "PF" code apparently had been dropped prior to changing the construction to 4/4. But as You don't seem to use a tripod too often, and as Your copy seems to deliver excellent results, I don't think there is a need to hunt down a 4/4 (unless it comes along, and says: buy me...). And don't worry when a film flopped. Inspiration can't be forced. I'd be lucky that I wasn't a pro... and would wait a bit, until there is really nice weather and a real nice landscape, or some other interesting event. One can't force inspiration - even a good pro will do a technically OK work that is missing that magic bit when doing work just for earning money. And even though this might not help You too much, I can say You that I got two films back today. The first holds the test images of the MC Tele Rokkor 2/100 (labeled as great lens, and damaged to a point of uselessness). The second holds a lot of images of timered houses in the beautiful city of Wertheim. I had an hour time after being there for a buisiness meeting. Light was not that good, metering went wrong on a lot of frames - and the urge to go back made it impossible for me to catch the magic. Well, maybe next time I take a really good image... And yes, I think it is super to get inspiration by looking at images here and there. Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 25, 2008 17:01:38 GMT -5
Dear Michael,
I hope my post does not sound too rigorous - well, You see, I did recognize one lens - but I were wrong on the 50mm prime, where the difference between the lenses should have been more evident than for the 135mm telephoto.
And I am convinced that You did exactly the right thing: You tested Your lenses by using them in the way that is most natural for You. Your pictures are very good (I feel quite a bit of envy for some of them - the tomato on the wet table is georgeous). And considering the prices one has to pay for these Rokkor lenses I am sure You will be very pleased by its result. And as I already said, slide film is not strictly necessary for a lens test. As You use Rokkor lenses You don't have to worry for some tint or defects like that. :-)
The funny thing on the MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 is this: I feel that it is closer to the Nikon design philosophy than most other Minolta lenses. In the end it is pointless to declare some of these top lenses being worse or better than the other. But as pointed out by D. Kilpatrick (hope I spelled him right) there is a design philosophy that leaves some traces in the image.
That MD Zoom 1:3.5/35-70 is most likely the best zoom available for our camera system. In the 35..50mm range it is wide open as good as a prime lens. On the long end a bit of stopping down is recommended. It is by far the best zoom I own. Period. One caveat: don't confuse this with that crappy MD Zoom 3.5-4.8/35-70.
And no - You don't need to have an XD to join that group. You just need this for sending images ot it. ;-)
Well, I was so flattered by the offer to serve as co-administrator, that I not only write on my most farourite them (Rokkor lenses, You guessed it ;-) ), but I also do advertise the group on every occasion. ;-)
Dear Tommy,
Thank You for Your interest! I am not an expert flickr user - and I have to put some new images to it. I will surf by Your images for sure!
Best regards Peter
PS: Your 135mm lens is identical to my no. 4, the one with the knurled (short) grip.
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 25, 2008 13:43:22 GMT -5
Hi there fellow camera collectors, dear Michael, You won't be surprised hearing me labeling the Rokkor glass as a top notch lens brand. But I am also a lens test sceptic - as it is so difficult to bring out these small nuances that do count in the realm of top glass. You selected an ISO 200 film for the test - and this seems acceptable, albeit most serious lens testers would chose a fine grain slide film (e.g. Fuji Astia 100F, or maybe Kodak E100G, Velvia might be an option, but I think a less critical film is better suited for this application). The slide film would show vignetting more precise as well as different color rendition. When it comes to sharpness the difference might be less prominent than most of us think - I heard from reliable sources that negative film still rules when it comes to resolution (on very large prints). Also the pro's prefer slide film as this is the preference of the printer guys. (in case film still were acceptable) The next question would be on the scanning technique. To resolve the difference between the different normal lenses a scan of 4000 dpi is required (more is better, but leads back to the fundamental issue I see in lens testing: a possible lack of practical relevance). Scanning at 2800 dpi will be sufficient to comb out poor performers - but Your Rokkor's won't behave like that unless they are damaged. And then there is of course the issue with sharpening. For the downsized image some sharpening is essential as the down scaling process destroys the sharpness apparent in the image. To examine the sharpness of the lens one needs to look on the unsharpened full scale crops. A good Rokkor will resolve beyond the grain of the film (I suppose a good Nikkor, or a good Canon prime lens will do too) - that is not too important in lens testing, as the lens' resolution is still visible through the grain. Then I of course am pretty curious on which lens You exactly used. Look, this is my collection of 135mm lenses alsone... ... judging from the bokeh I would not be surprised if You had used an early variant (as the one in the center of my collection). Btw, when talking on Rokkor glass it is pretty practical to refer to the lens number as Dennis Lohmann assigned them in this lens list. minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/body_li.htmlThis is the ultimate resource to differentiate between the different incarnations of Rokkor glass. It is extremely reliable - and only extremely few are missing, but the ones mentioned did exist for sure. W.r.t. the normal lens, I don't understand what You used. There is a pretty old but highly regarded MC Rokkor-PF 1.4/58 (note: the construction code PF and 58mm focal length). The extremely smoth out of focus rendition of the coffee cup as well as the softness and moderate sharpness of this image would hint at that lens. There is also a MC Rokkor-PG 1.4/50 (note: code PG and focal length 50mm). This lens is regarded to be the sharpest normal lens Minolta ever designed. It's out of focus rendition is however way less smooth than it is for the 58mm lenses. Hence I tend to think, You did not use this lens here. Best regards Peter PS: Anthony Hands is a fiend, and for this april's joke (saw it on the evening of 31th of March due to sitting in a different time zone) he deserves sitting in the purgatory fire for a few years. ;D PPS: I don't want to bore the Nikonians and Canonists, and Leica, Zeiss, FED and all the other great camera's users here. But it were nice some of the Minoltians would join that small group of XD addicts, that I also use to discuss lens issues. Here is the address: www.flickr.com/groups/xd-11/
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 14, 2008 8:16:16 GMT -5
Hi Michael,
This is a fine picture of a beautiful landscape. I am glad You showed it!
Best regards Peter
PS: I like the crop ;-) PS2: I can't do any better - my English is worse than it might look like...
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Jan 23, 2008 8:24:23 GMT -5
Hi Roy,
I hope You will forgive me for disagreeing: The approach to photograph an object typical for Your work in order to find out how suited some gear is for Your photographical needs, seems highly rational for me. ;-)
I tend to think that one should look on a larger representation of an image than 640x400 pixels. E.g. a crop of just the blue sign or maybe the rooftop. But the first impression of these images is good. Thus the small Pentax (with its apparently very good lens) should be able to deliver prints as large as 20x30cm - at least for fine grain ISO 100 film.
But (I do repeat me) I can't deduce this from the small scans You showed us above.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Feb 14, 2008 8:20:22 GMT -5
Der Craigh,
These teeth around the bear look like You trapped it!
I'd crop the black strip on the left (and a corresponding one on the left to keep it centered). And I would rotate is a wee bit counter-clock-wise. Maybe 0.4 degrees.
I like the image.
Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Sept 21, 2007 7:24:27 GMT -5
Dear Bob, I liked looking at Your photographs very much. And indeed I took the 50mm with me on the after lunch walk today. I am part of the minority that finds the 50 an excellent focal length. Maybe this is due to the fact that I am so reluctant to approach my photographic subjects too much. I'd like to be a tourist... Sorry for the many images ... I'm ready now for the next lot ... I think this area of North America needs to be promoted more. Bob Maybe I missed something, but I'm not able to recognize it... The second waterfall picture is great. Did You have a lot of rain the days before? I do notice a touch of brown in the water. Best regards Peter
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on Sept 1, 2007 15:35:01 GMT -5
Dear Michael,
I hope You got a good one. It seems to have a tendency to creeping grease into the aperture blades. I messed one when trying to wash it (didn't know the the backside element would go off without any disassembly of the aperture/focus mechanism. Anyway, enjoy it as long as the aperture is snappy.
Best regards Peter
|
|