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.htmlOn 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