Jump to content

Need some opinions!

Nick

By Nick,
in Legacy Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nick Apprentice

Nick

Posted
Posted

I currently shoot with the A7r, primarily landscapes and some portraits.  I currently own:

 

14mm Rokinon

35mm Zeiss

85mm Rokinon

 

 

 

I'm headed to Argentina soon and feel like there will be some occasions where I will wish I had a longer zoom.  I'm about tapped for cash after picking up all of the above so I started looking at legacy glass.  Here is what I have my eye on:

 

Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-QF 1:3.5 200mm manual lens

 

adapter

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00870NQRO?psc=1&redirect=true&ref_=ox_sc_act_title_1&smid=AAWX4OXQA15SW

 

 

How is this glass?  From what I've read it seems pretty good.  Anything else I should be looking at?

 

Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
f/otographer Apprentice

f/otographer

Posted
Posted

While I have not used this particular Rokkor I have used many shorter Rokkor primes. Old Minolta lenses are very special so I would assume this lens would perform at least in an acceptable manner, I doubt it would be a dog. But again I have never used one in the wild.

 

I can recommend another 200mm, the Konica Hexaon AR 200/4. I have been pleasantly surprised by my copy. The lens is more then sharp enough and has some pleasing rendering. And Konica adapters can be had for pretty cheap and have the benefit of being the shortest adapters of all the old Japanese SLR lenses. In other words they have the shortest flange to focal distance before you get into Rangefinder glass. Keep in mind if you ever get this lens, it is a HEXANON 200/4. There was a later HEXAR 200/4 that wasn't quite as good, at least the old lens reviews would have you believe. Here are some examples of my copy all shot on my a7.

 

22334585813_b90422ecd3_b.jpg

 

15360757338_9ddd93b468_b.jpg

 

15544206881_3de52cbb3b_b.jpg

 

20668743209_e54c52ae67_b.jpg

 

15523181346_81b60e02b2_b.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick Apprentice

Nick

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The good one in the Minolta MC / MD lineup is not the f/3.5 but the f/4.

 

It is as good as the f/2.8 version from tests I've seen around, only 1 stop slower.

 

I've pitted mine against my Leica R 180/4 and the Leica wins up to f5.6, the Minolta from f/8 onward so I'd call it a draw.

 

 

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MD-Tele-ROKKOR-X-200mm-F4-lens-/221957374345?hash=item33adb0c189:g:Fm8AAOSwc0FUpIRY

 

That's a pretty beat up lens, but something like that?  Are the Celtic versions ok or no?

Link to post
Share on other sites
addicted2light Experienced

addicted2light

Posted
Posted

http://www.ebay.com/itm/Minolta-MD-Tele-ROKKOR-X-200mm-F4-lens-/221957374345?hash=item33adb0c189:g:Fm8AAOSwc0FUpIRY

 

That's a pretty beat up lens, but something like that?  Are the Celtic versions ok or no?

 

The f/4 versions are to my knowledge all the same optically, so yes one like this one or even an MC version like mine (aesthetically similar, just "MC" instead of "MD" on the filter ring).

 

The Celtic are different lenses, of far far inferior quality. Once (30 years ago) they were much cheaper than the Minolta equivalent so buying one might have been justified, but nowadays they basically command the same price so you don't have a single reason not to go with original Minolta glass.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Nick Apprentice

Nick

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The f/4 versions are to my knowledge all the same optically, so yes one like this one or even an MC version like mine (aesthetically similar, just "MC" instead of "MD" on the filter ring).

 

The Celtic are different lenses, of far far inferior quality. Once (30 years ago) they were much cheaper than the Minolta equivalent so buying one might have been justified, but nowadays they basically command the same price so you don't have a single reason not to go with original Minolta glass.

I see a ton of F4.5 versions on ebay, but very few F4.  I assume those are not the same lenses, correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      2 Primes or 1 Zoom?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd opt for a small zoom, but I must admit that there seems to be a dearth of lenses in the e-mount in the 24-50mm range -- for some reason.  I have a small 24-70mm, but that's an a-mount Tamron.  Maybe you can find something by looking at lenses slightly longer.  I have a heavy, but small 24-100mm a-mount, and Tokina made a 24-200mm a-mount.  Maybe there are similar lenses in the e-mount.  Kill three birds with one stone.
    • Rodney G
      7 IV suddenly stopped connecting with Mac

      By Rodney G · Posted

      Well this! Thank you! I have been following suggestion after suggestion for the past 3 hours with my a7CR and never thought of removing the battery. Magic!
    • bs.shoots
      2 Primes or 1 Zoom?

      By bs.shoots · Posted

      I recently got an a7cii and to pair with the compact body, I thought of getting 2 of the trio compact lenses, 24mm F2.8 and 40mm F4.0. (I already have a 70-200mm) However I stumbled upon the newly released 24-50mm F2.8 G. I'm not sure which to get - I like the small factor of the prime lenses ON the body because it's discreet and helps me blend in as an average tourist / doesn't make it obvious when doing street. But if I add the dimensions of the 2 primes together, it takes up more space in the bag than the zoom lens. BUT THEN, the weight of the 2 prime lenses is 110g lesser than the zoom lens. The zoom lens has the added benefit of being more versatile.   So now I'm stumped. Each has their pros and cons and I can't decide which to get. I'd like to hear the views of you guys who are more experts at this.   Edit: I'm a bit concerned about weight because the last time I went overseas my shoulders were aching from carrying too much. Which is why I was looking for small compact primes in the first place.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...