The big Rokkor try-out

[Peter S.]

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.html

This 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/

[minoltaman]

NikkortoRokkor, great shots!!! All the best with the Minolta, the greatest cameras ever made

[minoltaman]

Peter, I added you as a contact on flickr. My flickr name is Tommy Bass.

[nikkortorokkor]

Peter, thank you for your comments. I admit to hoping you'd notice the post, both for your scepticism (which I'm aware of) and your knowledge of all things ROKKOR.

Firstly, you've picked my blunder. I was too lazy to go and check that 50mm even though a little alarm bell rang when I wrote 'PF'. It is, in fact, an MC ROKKOR - PG 50/1.4. (#3250325). Very stupid mistake when trying to provide useful info. Doh!

Secondly, the 135 is a TELE ROKKOR - PF (i.e. it has 6 elements in 5 groups, for non minoltians). I'd say it's the 3rd from the right in your photo, & the model introduced in 1969, according to Dennis' amazing list. It has the aperture ring at the body end and a stop down button mounted between that ring and the body. (BTW, I also have another 135 Minolta lens, but it's a bit of a dinosaur, even by my standards, a ROKKOR TC 135/4 pre-set).

Thirdly, perhaps I unconciously chose the title 'try out' rather than test so that I could defend myself in this debate. I agree with you that slide film would be the most appropriate way of testing a lens' performance, but I really don't claim to be testing these lenses in any rigorous or repeatable way. Instead, I've tried 'em out in the field, using the most commonly available film (ISO 200 print, available in any supermarket - for the moment, at least) and shooting the kind of subjects I enjoy working with. There are plenty of variables with print film, whether scanned or printed, however, from a purely personal point of view, I've limited these to some extent by using the same small town lab and lab technician as I use for all my films. Thus, I figure if I see something I like, the lens used is probably a part of te equation. I admit that telling whether a Nikkor AIS 50/1.4 is 'better' than a ROKKOR - PG 50/1.4 is impossible using my rather sloppy methodology, but I can tell which lenses I can really rely on (the ROKKOR primes), which are useable (most of my Paxette lenses) and which are better left on the shelf (the awful Tri-Lausar on my Toyoca 35).

p.s., *sigh* does this mean I have to look for an XD to join? I took the XE ot for another trip, this time to a waterfall (I can bore anyone with my excessive love for waterfall pictures). It is just lovely to handle. My only reservation is the lack of mirror lock up or prefire. I'll soon find out if this is a problem on my 1sec exposures. If it is, the old SRT101 will continue to find its way into my bag.

Oh, and I've just finished cleaning my 'new' $11 ROKKOR: an MD Zoom 35 -70mm 1:3.5. (#8029743).

This is the 2 touch zoom with 1:7 - 1:4 macro, accessed by pressing a button on the zoom ring. It seems nicely made but not tank-like (polycarbonate lens barrel). Any thoughts on this lens, Peter?

[Peter S.]

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.

[nikkortorokkor]

Peter, not too rigourous at all. If not for you, my gaff about the 50mm would've gone uncorrected.

As for the 135, well, I haven't got the 'right one' yet. If your lens #4 is a 1969 MC, mine ain't, since it has the rubber waffle grip rather than the milled/knurled grip.

I've included some photos. You'll see it isn't prestine by any means, is fact it could be described as a 'beater'. But the glass is clear and that's all I care about, so the dings and scuffs can be worn like honorable scars from the battle.

Thank you for the kind comments about the pics, BTW. I have to admit that the 2nd film through the XE was much less inspired, with no 'keepers'. Some of this can be blamed on the Vivitar 85-205/3.8 which has proved disapointing so far (I see a Rokkor 200/4 in my near future). But unfortunately a lack of inspiration/ and poor technique is also in evidence

Part of the inspiration for the tomato pic came from seeing some truly inspiring work on these pages, so thanks guys and gals. There is an element of the virtual camera club about this board that I like very much.

[PeterW]

That's a "beater"? I've seen lenses on Ebay in worse condition than that described as "excellent condition".

Compared with yours, some of my user lenses are RUFF!

PeterW

[Peter S.]

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