Minolta MC/MD Differences

[markfireblade]

Are there any notable differences between MC and MD lenses of similar focal lengths, ie sharpness, IQ etc? I thought I might try a 135 prime which seems to be available as a ROKKOR-PF f2.8 (MC) or ROKKOR f2.8 (MD) or ROKKOR-X f2.8. Any info will be much appreciated!

[michelb]

See this for a description of most versions

http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

 

To my knowledge, no one has ever tested and compared all 16 variations

 

Sharpness is dependant on what you intend to use them for. They are all sharp but with some weakness that varies from version to version and whatever that particular lens has been through its whole life that we can not know.

 

As with any used item, it can be a hit and miss. 

 

In theory, the most recent versions would have better coatings but may have less reliable mechanics. I have quite a few and the most recent ones seem to be more prone to fungus and stiff focusing. The MC's have the best mechanical and focusing is smooth as silk.

[markfireblade]

That's quite a selection! Time to check what's what on eBay etc...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The QD is said to be sharper. That's because it only has four glass elements in four groups. The downside is more CA wide open. I've had quite a few variants and duplicates of 135mm Minoltas. (They often come with Minolta kits). I found sample variation to be to big to tell the difference between versions. (I suspect mishandling by previous owners). I eventually settled for the f3.5 because it's smaller and sharp as cactus needles.

 

Are there any notable differences between MC and MD lenses of similar focal lengths, ie sharpness, IQ etc? I thought I might try a 135 prime which seems to be available as a ROKKOR-PF f2.8 (MC) or ROKKOR f2.8 (MD) or ROKKOR-X f2.8. Any info will be much appreciated!

[michelb]

Just for some fun to show old is not always a handicap.

 

One very sharp one is the antique (circa 1960), only 3 elements, 13 aperture blades, Bellows Rokkor-TC 135mm F 4. This one was probably kept in the original case and box for 50 years when i got it.

 

Shown here on an antique Minolta Bellows I mounted on NEX-7 using Zhongyi MD-NEX lens Turbo focal reducer. This set-up actually focuses to infinity and down to about 1:1.2 magnification ratio.

 

See a full album here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72157636191007204/with/10089245703/

 

 Only downside shown on 10th picture (telephone pole) is that when closed down to F11 or more in some high contrast lighted situations, you get the internal reflection purple/magenta glob. The main reason for the reflections is the combination lens turbo that has elements close to the sensor and the fact that the 13 aperture blades are somewhat shiny silver in this antique design.

[Kirkp]

It’s good you have that lens turbo with the bellows. Bellows can have so much dust, I worried about fowling my sensor until I got one.

[markfireblade]

The bellows rig seems to work pretty well... I might also follow Jaf's lead and have a look at the f3.5.

[markfireblade]

Does anyone know the difference between the Rokkor and Rokkor-X versions of the MD f2.8?

[michelb]

Rokkor-X ( orange in colour until about 1978 ) was to distinguish the lenses sold in North America starting around 1973-74 and this lasted until 1980.

Rokkor was sold in the rest of the world.

 

This was to differenciate them so grey market materials could be spotted and avoid paying warranties on stuff sold abroad and imported by others than Minolta.  

Back in this days a lot of this was going on due to some sharp calculators that could play with currency exchange rates.

 

Minolta also did the same with SLR bodies that had different names in Asia, North America and Europe. For example XD-11 in North America was sold as XD-7 in Europe and as XD in Asia.

 

Later with AF cameras they repeated this scheme by using Maxxum in NA, Alpha ( A greek symbol) in Asia and Dynax in Europe.

[markfireblade]

OK cool thank you.

[markfireblade]

The f3.5 seems to be going for half the price of the f2.8, that's a compelling argument for an old lens...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The f3.5 seems to be going for half the price of the f2.8, that's a compelling argument for an old lens...

I think it's because there's more hype around the f2.8. I settled for the f3.5 mainly because it's smaller and lighter - and the fact that the 2.8 versions often need stopping down. At the time, I used a kit of Sony NEX-7 And Minolta XD-7 so it was super-convenient to have the small light f3.5 tele lens. Bokeh is still very good if you have some distance to the background.

[markfireblade]

I ended up with an immaculate f3.5. It seems very good after a quick check: sharp images, pretty easy to focus with and without MF Assist and the controls are very smooth. Very nice lens. Proper test tomorrow I hope.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Cool, i hope you like it.

[Username]

...... pretty easy to focus with and without MF Assist .....  

   

    

100 and 135 are soooo easy to MF. Focus is 

more distinct to your eye than with wide angle 

or even normal lenses, but not as twitchy and 

fussy as really long FLs [200 and above].