Minolta-Phenix-Seagull kit

[nikkortorokkor]

Hi all,
I thought you might be interested in my first results from weird Chinese glass on classic Minolta bodies.

Because my local broadband connection consists of two Dixie cups and a piece of string, I can't upload to The Camera Collector. I have, however, managed to get 4 images onto Picasa, you can view them here: picasaweb.google.com/Tooheym1/11JuneO7Photos

I used plain consumer grade ISO200 films, run through each body (SRT-101 & XG-9 - both recent internet auction purchases) as test rolls and developed by a local mini-lab with no adjustments. My flatbed scanner is pretty cheesy, now that I know that the cameras are metering properly I'll spring the extra five bucks for a disc at time of processing!

I am very impressed with the metering capability of both bodies. (these are my first Minolta SLRs). With a bit judicious metering by the nut behind the viewfinder, each performed very well.

The Chinese lenses are... er, interesting, but can provide decent results if not challenged too much. I'll still be hunting for genuine Rokkor glass though.

[Peter S.]

Hi Michael,

I like the coal train - and the bush detail. The unsharpness rendition is very good - in the end, that is the very point, where the Rokkor glass shines. I know this wasn't made by Rokkor glas at all. Quite often the best blurry backgrounds are obtained by lenses that tend to be not pretty sharp (say that Jupiter-9 for example). The unique thing on very gool lenses (as the Rokkors, but of course not limited to them) is that those combine smoth backgrounds with sharp focus planes.

But I do disgress... You told, You were hunting down some Rokkor glas. I think this is a good idea. Especially since that manual focus Minolta stuff seems to be highly underrated, with the notable exception of the short telephotos and the extreme lenses, i.e. very wideangle, very fast apertures, or special function as shift lenses. But that should not bother You.

I would recommend You getting a MC or MD Rokkor 1.7/50, which is a very, very good lens, that sometimes sells for less than 5 € here in Germany. There is no bad Rokkor prime at all. So keep looking on the bargains. Btw the 3.5/135 and a Minolta close-up lens No. 0 make up a pretty decent macro setup.

Best regards
Peter
(confessing Rokkor collector ;-) - and a hopelessly lost in lens envy, now since I got allmost every Rokkor it started in Zeiss C for Hasselblad. Arghh. )

[nikkortorokkor]

Thanks, Peter for your kind and salient comments.

I too like the unsharp rendition of these lenses. The most interesting is a Seagull 50mm f/1.4 prime, which is very well constructed (all metal & glass) and which, with careful use, can render lovely results.

I am in awe of your Rokkor collection! I try not to be a true collector, but I guess that I am, considering that I bought a TC Rokkor, 135mm f/4 preset lens last night, and there can be no practical use for it outside of historic interest!

Rokkor glass is quite rare in New Zealand. Most Minoltas seemd to have been sold with the standard 50 or 55 and the ubiquitous 3rd party zooms and ultra wides down here. I'm sure that this has a lot to do with our once-draconian import regulations (we now have one of the freest economies in the OECD, but this was not always so).

I have an MC Rokkor PF 1:1.7 that is tatty but optically clean. It came with the SRT for very little money. These standard lenses and the popular 135mm teles - an f/2.8 is going for NZ$75 (about 42.6 Euro) in a reputable pro camera shop - are the most commonly seen Rokkors in NZ.

I mull over the lenses that I'd really like. I have got used to the convenience of zooms for cropping in camera, so some constant aperture zooms are high on the list. I'd also like a 17 mm, and one long Tele (not that I need it, but what is lens envy without a long tele?) But of course, if I actually got my 'must have' lenses, what excuses would I have for not making the perfect shot?

I turned down the perfect system for lens envy cure today, an Agfa Ambi Silette. With just 4 (albeit rare) lenses to hunt down, it has to be more economical than Zeiss C! But I digress!

[Peter S.]

Hi Michael,

You mean You bought that 3/3 construction lens with that M39 mount, that might fit to the
Leica, You won't never own?? OK, You could buy some FDU clone. You might run into troubles
with such a camera - but that will trigger a lot of assistance here.

The price for the 2.8/135 is OK for a shop. It might even be acceptable for a private trade -
but only if the think is nice, and the 4/4 construction. And if the shipment is inexpensive.
Given Your NZ constraints I would try to control my lens envy (so stop reading here - it might
be that I feed it even more...).

If You are wise enough not starting bird shooting (it will be more inexpensive doing this with
an airgun rather than with a SLR), then You are well served with that fantastic 4/200 Tele
Rokkor. Or even with a 75-200/4.5 Minolta zoom. Both are pretty inexpensive (at least here
in Europe) and readily available. Longer lenses are typically not needed.

Some time ago I bought a fine Tamron SP 5.6/300 Adaptall-2 lens, which is pretty nice. My
tripod can support this (on contrary to that 400 and 600mm lenses). Besides it focusses
down to 1.4m, which makes it a pretty useful macro lens.

On the wide side I find 35 and 24mm indispensible. The 35mm can be substituted by any
of the 35-70/105/135mm Minolta zooms. If You need constant aperture the 3.5/35-70 is
the way to go. This zoom is on par with the primes. It is hard to believe how good it is.
There is however no way for a Minoltian to avoid the 24mm prime. It is a hell of a lens.
17mm give a stunning view through the finder. But as Anthony on rokkorfiles.com notes,
those are pretty limited in their use.

But tell me more on that Agfa... disgression is a defining factor of this board (and quite
a fun one - because one can learn that much).

Best regards
Peter

PS: I decided to have the aim to reduce the number of my Rokkor glass to fifty
lenses. Er, OK, say to sixty. I got a small list. Just in case anybody is interested.
There are a few cost efficient, and a few rare ones.

[nikkortorokkor]

Thanks for the advice Peter.

I'm especially interested in your comments on the 3.5/35-70 Rokkor zoom. I'm writing that one in my notebook.

In my 'Nikon era' I had a Tokina 17mm of fairly average quality. I loved the images it made, however, especially if I managed to get the vignetting under control! Not hugely useful I know, but spectacular when used judiciously.

I too really find a 24mm useful. In fact, that is a reason I opted for an 'MD mount' (really MC, since it's an all manual, ttl camera) Phenix in China rather than a K mount: for the 24mm Seagull prime in MD. I do notice (and cherish) the extra FOV when I take off the 28-70 and fit the 24mm wide.

I've been having fun with the TC Rokkor 4/135 preset tele. It handles fine on the SRT 101 and the Phenix DC701 (which handles and operates pretty much identically to a Cosina clone, like an OM2000). I did get confused once today when hand holding the SRT in portrait position (couldn't remember if I was overexposing or underexposing), but otherwise I reckon it's a great lens for twenty bucks.

I take your point on the long teles. I 'need' them far less than a handful of wide to mediums.

Rather than act like an expert on the Ambi Silette, I'll direct you to Steven Gandy's site, as he is the source of all my knowledge on the subject! see: www.cameraquest.com/agfambi.htm

I think that it's an intriguing camera. The one for sale down here is getting no bites, but I'm over my monthly (yearly?) limit! G.A.S is threatening to destabilize marital bliss!

[Randy]

Michael, you can join Photobucket.com free and upload picture here with a cut and paste url. Most everyone here does it that way.

[nikkortorokkor]

Thanks, Randy,

I've finally worked it out!