Minolta SR-mount Lens Info (Rokkor, MD, MC, Celtic, ...)

[Vorchek]

Update: Sigma 18mm 2.8

I had planned to work with this lens some more, but unfortunately age caught up with it. It had become tricky to turn the aperture, until one day it came apart in the middle! Now I had two halves. The insides looked simple, but I never discovered the right way to fit it back together.
My subsequent investigation tells me the repair of old Sigma lenses is a lost art. I couldn't find anybody willing to deal with it. Too bad; even if I didn't get much out of it, I hate to see these old things disappear.

 

[shwaz]

Hi @barry13 a few basic questions about using Minolta lenses, and older lenses in general, if you have a minute to reply. i got a few lenses with my wife's grandfather's Minolta film camera and have been playing with them on my OMD EM5II. interested in possibly collecting a few others.

- do you have any particular recommendation for a m43 adapter? I am using a Fotasy adapter now, mostly because it was the least expensive, with a Celtic 135mm f2.8.
- i have a 50mm f1.7 Minolta, but I've really never shot with it as I have the Zuiko 45mm. any reason to keep the Minolta in your opinion?

teleconverters
- would the 50mm go nicely with a teleconverter, or would the drop in light make it a 100mm f4.0 (i don't know how to calculate the f drop, but am i better served simply using the 135mm f2.8 i already own)?
- how about the 135mm f2.8 with a teleconverter? holy zoom, batman... might be fun

thanks!

 

[barry]

Hi @barry13 a few basic questions about using Minolta lenses, and older lenses in general, if you have a minute to reply. i got a few lenses with my wife's grandfather's Minolta film camera and have been playing with them on my OMD EM5II. interested in possibly collecting a few others.

- do you have any particular recommendation for a m43 adapter? I am using a Fotasy adapter now, mostly because it was the least expensive, with a Celtic 135mm f2.8.

Hi, I'm using a cheap adapter from Amazon; can't remember right now if it's Rainbow or Fotasy or Fotodiox, but they're all about the same quality. Infinity focus is likely to be a bit off on all of them, so make sure you always focus manually and don't rely only on the markings on the lens.
If your Fotasy is not too tight and not wobbly, then it's fine. I got a Kipon adapter for Pentax Auto 110 after having significant wobble with a Rainbow one, and the Pixco is far better. I've also heard K&F are good.

I'm also using a Zhongyi Lens Turbo II focal reducer; it's quite good, but was a tight fit at first.


- i have a 50mm f1.7 Minolta, but I've really never shot with it as I have the Zuiko 45mm. any reason to keep the Minolta in your opinion?
- would the 50mm go nicely with a teleconverter, or would the drop in light make it a 100mm f4.0 (i don't know how to calculate the f drop, but am i better served simply using the 135mm f2.8 i already own)?

If you want to get a focal reducer (such as the Zhongyi), then the 50mm f/1.7 would give you ~35mm f/1.2.
A 1.4x teleconverter would make it 70mm f/2.4, and a 2x TC would be 100mm f/3.4. Many old teleconverters aren't very good though. If you happen to already have the Oly MC-14 or the Panasonic equivalent, try that as they're much better than anything made in the 1970's or 80's.
You can get SR (MD) teleconverters for under $15, but I'm not sure I'd bother; I wasn't happy with the (off-brand) one I tried -- it was very soft.

I tend to use my 58mm's much more than my 50mm's, mostly out of habit, but they do provide significantly more reach than my O45.


- how about the 135mm f2.8 with a teleconverter? holy zoom, batman... might be fun

Or a focal reducer; ~95mm at f/2.0, which is definitely interesting.

 

[JLGF1]

The two MD pass-thru adapters I purchased from Rainbow (one with tripod foot and one w/o) were both Fotasy. They work fine. The K&F may be made slightly better (I have one in Nikon F-mount), but they cost 2X as much as the Fotasy; still only $23 but not likely to be a significant improvement over the Fotasy, imo.

In case it's not clear (it wasn't to me at the beginning), the focal-reducers such as LensTurbo-II have actual optics (hence their much higher price) and reduce the focal length to approx 0.72 of the original and also increase the available light by around 1 f-stop due to refocusing the entire cone onto the sensor area.

 

[JLGF1]

In terms of long telephoto, you might consider one of the MD Rokkor 200mm (effective FL 400mm). Anything longer than that may be very challenging to hold steady without using a tripod, imo, although IBIS may help some.

 

[shwaz]

Thanks guys, the Lens Turbo II sounds like it could breathe a whole new something into a lot of these lenses, I might try that at $150. The only one I'd heard of prior is the metabones, which seems exorbitant to me.

Some mixed reviews on the Zhongyi, (not sharp and/or flaring),have you had good experience with it? @barry13

edit: found another off brand chinese speed booster for $80 shipped, "Pixco"
Focal Reducer Speed Booster Adapter For Minolta MD Lens to Micro 4/3 M43 | eBay

 

[barry]

Thanks guys, the Lens Turbo II sounds like it could breathe a whole new something into a lot of these lenses, I might try that at $150. The only one I'd heard of prior is the metabones, which seems exorbitant to me.

Some mixed reviews on the Zhongyi, (not sharp and/or flaring),have you had good experience with it? @barry13

I'm happy with it, haven't noticed much flare.
I've posted sample images with it, mostly in the 58/1.4 and 58/1.2 sample threads.
Note these lenses are a bit soft wide open, not the LT's fault.

 

[scottz]

I recently pulled out my Rokkor 45mm f2 the other day. I haven't used it in a couple of years. I had forgotten how good it was for portraits.

 

[shwaz]

I got the Lens Turbo II! happily found one used on ebay for 120. thanks @barry13 for reminding me about these focal reducers - i had been interested in them anyway, and i love how they widen the lenses especially given the m43 crop effect - the bonus light/speed is icing on the cake. had considered the less expensive Pixco version, but while that's probably fine, the LTii seemed more a known quantity.

pretty delighted. the 50mm 1.7 looks awesome mounted with it to my EM5ii. here' a pic at wide open on the showcase thread. instead of wondering if i need to keep this MD lens, i'm starting to wonder if i need my Olympus 45mm... also pretty tempted to try out a 50 or 58mm 1.4 now as well =D

 

[shwaz]

Not specific to SR lenses, but my camera makes a quiet noise when I half press and I'm wondering what it might be. I expect it with an AF lens but kind of thought it would be dead silent withwit adapted.

Same noise with nothing attached to the body.

Em5ii

 

[barry]

Not specific to SR lenses, but my camera makes a quiet noise when I half press and I'm wondering what it might be. I expect it with an AF lens but kind of thought it would be dead silent withwit adapted.

Same noise with nothing attached to the body.

Em5ii

That's the IBIS sensor stabilization.

 

[Petrochemist]

I got the Lens Turbo II! happily found one used on ebay for 120. thanks @barry13 for reminding me about these focal reducers - i had been interested in them anyway, and i love how they widen the lenses especially given the m43 crop effect - the bonus light/speed is icing on the cake. had considered the less expensive Pixco version, but while that's probably fine, the LTii seemed more a known quantity.

pretty delighted. the 50mm 1.7 looks awesome mounted with it to my EM5ii. here' a pic at wide open on the showcase thread. instead of wondering if i need to keep this MD lens, i'm starting to wonder if i need my Olympus 45mm... also pretty tempted to try out a 50 or 58mm 1.4 now as well =D

I think the model I got is the same as the Pixco version. I brought it before the LTii came out, it definitely outperforms the LTi which was awful!
When I got mine there were very few mount options available - I had loads of PK lenses but there wasn't a reducer to PK mount - so I went for a (dumb) MFT-EF version and add other adapters to that. Not suitable for all the adapted lenses I've collected since but the vast majority work with it. The only times it's not worked well have been when trying APSC lenses (it's designed for FF lenses).

 

[saladin]

Sorry Barry, this is a bit off topic but you're clearly a Minolta fan. I just picked up a very cheap Srt100x . I bought it because it had the 45/2 mounted on it , which I decided I wanted for my X700 (which I haven't used in ages, fwiw) . But then I discovered it came with two extra lenses - a 24/3.5 Sicor XL Auto , and a Kenlock 200/3.5 . I know nothing of either. Do you know much about the 24mm in particular? I thought Sicor was a rebadged Korean brand, but this is stamped as made in Japan and it actually seems very well built

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[barry]

Hi @saladin,
I've had one or more Kenlock teleconverters, but other than that I'm not familiar with either brand.
There were many brands in the golden age of film (1970s).

 

[barry]

BTW, the capacitors go bad in the X700's.
They can be replaced with the top and bottom covers removed, just need to find ones that fit in the small space.

 

[saladin]

Thanks for moving this here, and also the reply.

I've just ordered an SR to mft adaptor , keen to see how they all perform on the Em5iii .


Yes, so far my X700 has functioned ok. The shop I bought it from thought it was broken, but a set of batteries and it was good to go.

I post a few pics of my growing Minolta collection when I get a moment, lol.

 

[kmcsmart]

Does anyone have the Minolta 16mm f2.8 fish-eye lens? I am looking for a fish-eye and the Minolta looks interesting. Looks like it might be more expensive than the Takumar 17mm f4. I know the Minolta is a heavier lens for sure. I would love to hear any comments people have about the lens.
Thanks
Karen

 

[Vorchek]

Does anyone have the Minolta 16mm f2.8 fish-eye lens? I am looking for a fish-eye and the Minolta looks interesting. Looks like it might be more expensive than the Takumar 17mm f4. I know the Minolta is a heavier lens for sure. I would love to hear any comments people have about the lens.
Thanks

I have the Minolta Rokkor 16/2.8. It is a very good lens. I still use it, in fact used it within the past couple of weeks on an Olympus EM5 2. It does just fine on an M43 camera.
I have often read statements to the effect that old lenses don't measure up. My experience is different. Most of mine (all Minolta SR) please me as much as ever. Certain individual lenses seem to have problems, commonly poor contrast. The Rokkor 16 is not one of the latter.