Jump to content

Minolta 35mm f/2 A-Mount vs older Minolta 35mm 1.8 MC mount

dclark2171

By dclark2171,
in Sony A-Mount System

 Share

Recommended Posts

dclark2171 Enthusiast

dclark2171

Posted
Posted

For my street-general non-work photography, I like to use vintage lenses. The Minolta Maxxum lenses I own (from my Minolta 7000 SLR system) work great on my Sony FF cameras (Sony Adaptor).

Anyone use the Minolta A-Mount f2 and the older MC version? Any thoughts or experiences with them? I have an MC/MD adaptor as well. 

I'm not looking for super sharp, perfect lenses here. This is more about character and myself enjoying photography outside of my photography business. Thanks

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted

All of the older Minolta lenses are worth a shot. I have my dad's old MC 58/1.2 and it's amazing. I use the Minolta 50/2 on my X370 when I feel like shooting film.

Coatings back then weren't great when it comes to flare and fringing, but Minolta had colors down to a science! I'm always happy with the colors I get from my old Minoltas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
michelb Community Regular

michelb

Posted
Posted

Pictures taken with MC W.ROKKOR-X 35mm F 1.8 lens ( latest variation from around 1975-76, without the HH suffix). My favorite lens altogether for great sharpness, bokeh, 3D rendering and some nice soft look at wider apertures. That is why i have 3 copies of this lens and this would be the last ones i would sell from my collection of over 300 lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72157673105559792/

Pictures taken with MC W.ROKKOR-HH 35mm F 1.8 lens ( MC-II version from 1969-72). Very similar results but because of the cold in my country, i prefer the rubber focusing grip of the MC-X

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72157674312810335/

Similar results would be attained with the MC-I version that has a smoother metal focusing ring, nt the hills and valleys of the MC-II

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72177720315501829/

 

Even though i still have a copy the the AF 35mm F 2 and it is very sharp, it does not have the personality of the MC ROKKOR so i have very few pictures taken with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dclark2171 Enthusiast

dclark2171

Posted
  • Author
Posted
9 hours ago, michelb said:

Pictures taken with MC W.ROKKOR-X 35mm F 1.8 lens ( latest variation from around 1975-76, without the HH suffix). My favorite lens altogether for great sharpness, bokeh, 3D rendering and some nice soft look at wider apertures. That is why i have 3 copies of this lens and this would be the last ones i would sell from my collection of over 300 lenses.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72157673105559792/

Pictures taken with MC W.ROKKOR-HH 35mm F 1.8 lens ( MC-II version from 1969-72). Very similar results but because of the cold in my country, i prefer the rubber focusing grip of the MC-X

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72157674312810335/

Similar results would be attained with the MC-I version that has a smoother metal focusing ring, nt the hills and valleys of the MC-II

https://www.flickr.com/photos/55173440@N08/albums/72177720315501829/

 

Even though i still have a copy the the AF 35mm F 2 and it is very sharp, it does not have the personality of the MC ROKKOR so i have very few pictures taken with it.

Thanks for the links. The 1.8 X images have fantastic colors

Link to post
Share on other sites
michelb Community Regular

michelb

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, dclark2171 said:

Thanks for the links. The 1.8 X images have fantastic colors

Most were taken using Daylight White Balance. since often times with vintage lenses, AWB gets fooled  and produces yellow cast that does not show when using fixed white balance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
dclark2171 Enthusiast

dclark2171

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, michelb said:

Most were taken using Daylight White Balance. since often times with vintage lenses, AWB gets fooled  and produces yellow cast that does not show when using fixed white balance.

You are correct. My Minolta Beer Can lens seems to give off an orange hue (so very slight) in auto AWBI. Generally shoot RAW anyway or in Camera B&W Jpegs.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted

I'm in the process of slimming down my A-Mounts, mostly because I just need to thin out my stuff. I've sold some, still have some left. Most are the typical stuff like a beercan, 75-300, etc. One that I had planned to keep but have since decided to let go is the 80-200 f/2.8 APO HS G. Fantastic lens, I just don't use it anymore. I bought it from a Japanese dealer a couple of years back.

One that I don't plan to get rid of is the 500/8 AF Reflex. An amazing reflex lens with really good image quality. And how could you not have fun with an AF Reflex? It even works for action shots!

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites
XKAES Experienced

XKAES

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 12/5/2024 at 7:59 PM, michelb said:

Pictures taken with MC W.ROKKOR-X 35mm F 1.8 lens ( latest variation from around 1975-76, without the HH suffix). My favorite lens altogether for great sharpness, bokeh, 3D rendering and some nice soft look at wider apertures. That is why i have 3 copies of this lens and this would be the last ones i would sell from my collection of over 300 lenses.

I have an MC W. Rokkor-X HH 35mm f1.8 -- with the HH -- and if I only had one lens, that's it!  (The only other 35mm I have is a Rokkor-X 35mm f2.8 -- nice and small.)

I like them both on my a850 with a converter which makes it about a 45mm f1.8 -- which is also great.

Much depends on how important auto-focusing is.  My converter is "chipped" so at least I get the green focus-confirmation LED in the viewfinder.

Edited by XKAES
Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, XKAES said:

I have an MC W. Rokkor-X HH 35mm f1.8 -- with the HH -- and if I only had one lens, that's it!  (The only other 35mm I have is a Rokkor-X 35mm f2.8 -- nice and small.)

I like them both on my a850 with a converter which makes it about a 45mm f1.8 -- which is also great.

Much depends on how important auto-focusing is.  My converter is "chipped" so at least I get the green focus-confirmation LED in the viewfinder.

What kind of converter changes a 35/1.8 to a 45/1.8? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pieter Mentor

Pieter

Posted
Posted
18 hours ago, XKAES said:

with a converter which makes it about a 45mm f1.8

3 hours ago, XKAES said:

All of my lens adapters/converters are between the lens and the camera.

In this case it's more like a 45mm F/2.2 instead of F1.8 as the entrance pupil size stays the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites
XKAES Experienced

XKAES

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Pieter said:

In this case it's more like a 45mm F/2.2 instead of F1.8 as the entrance pupil size stays the same.

I hadn't thought about that.  You're absolutely right -- no big deal though.

As to the "white balance" issue.  I just ran a quick test.  It's a totally overcast day, and I took shots with the 35mm f1.8 with AWB & CLOUDY.  There was a big difference between them, and the CLOUDY setting was the winner.  I then used a similar MAXXUM lens and did the same test.  There still was a noticeable difference, but it was not quite as pronounced.

The moral is no matter what lens you are using assume AWB is just a "good guesstimate".  If you can, take a few sample shots with settings other than AWB and see if they need "light" adjustment.  With my a850 & a900, I can take a PREVIEW shot and adjust the light on the screen easily.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Cameratose Rising Star

Cameratose

Posted
Posted
13 minutes ago, XKAES said:

I hadn't thought about that.  You're absolutely right -- no big deal though.

As to the "white balance" issue.  I just ran a quick test.  It's a totally overcast day, and I took shots with the 35mm f1.8 with AWB & CLOUDY.  There was a big difference between them, and the CLOUDY setting was the winner.  I then used a similar MAXXUM lens and did the same test.  There still was a noticeable difference, but it was not quite as pronounced.

The moral is no matter what lens you are using assume AWB is just a "good guesstimate".  If you can, take a few sample shots with settings other than AWB and see if they need "light" adjustment.  With my a850 & a900, I can take a PREVIEW shot and adjust the light on the screen easily.

Not going to respond then? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
XKAES Experienced

XKAES

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Cameratose said:

Ok, thanks. Is there any reason you're being so arcane? I am interested in an adapter that magnifies 1.2x. Can you tell me who makes it? I've done searches and can't find one. 

If your question wasn't so obtuse, you would have received a more specific response. 

Most adapters fail to mention their magnification -- don't ask me why -- but adapter magnifications (for the same two mounts) are not all the same -- I also don't know why that is the case.

I have tried several adapters, and sold off several as well, and have several now.  I only kept the ones that work for my purposes.  The only one that has a name on it is a Spiratone adapter without any glass.  I kept it because unlike most adapters that I have seen -- without glass -- as simply the same adapter with the glass removed, but without the glass HOLDER removed.  This can cause vignetting.  The Spiratone model that I have does not have the glass holder.

It's easy enough to figure out the magnification of any adapter, but unfortunately you have to have it in hand and run some tests.  That's what I did.  It sure would be easier if manufacturers provided more details, but they don't -- don't ask me why.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pieter Mentor

Pieter

Posted
Posted (edited)

Technically the question wasn't so obtuse at all: the way @XKAES wrote it (35mm f/1.8 converted to 45mm f/1.8) suggested that he's using a 1.2× front end teleconverter. These are very rare (non-existent?) and usually of poor quality. So I can totally understand the question if someone is getting good results with these. Hence @Cameratose's follow up request for clarification:

On 12/8/2024 at 3:32 AM, Cameratose said:

Does it use the filter threads or the lens mount? 

Edited by Pieter
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

    • 3dcase
      Intervalometer needed for A6500

      By 3dcase · Posted

      Yes if I do not get any concrete answers here that confirm either way I will have to resort to that.
    • tadwil
      Intervalometer needed for A6500

      By tadwil · Posted

      You do know that Amazon offers generous free return service?  Just order any intervalometer that states compatibility with your camera model, try it out and if it doesn't work send it back and try a different brand.  
    • Alejandro
      raw + jpg color mismatch problem

      By Alejandro · Posted

      Cengizt, what you want to get (and if you are usually mostly happy with the photos you directly shoot in jpg), might be better accomplished if you simply develop your raw files with Sony’s developing program: Imaging Edge Desktop (the one Sony allows to download from their website for free and can be used for the images taken with Sony cameras). Not bad and though very limited, it will allow you at least to recover shadows, a bit less of the highlights (not the burnt ones), correct white balance, and it will automatically correct lens distortions of most Sony lenses (not the ones from lenses of other brands in case you have any). With it, you can set the parameters for the take as you could have done it on camera (for example you can set the image to Vivid, as you asked for) or change the parameters as if you have done it on camera, but afterwards. As it has already been said, every other program does its own interpretation of the raw data of the image the better and more accurately they can. But Sony knows and uses (I might guess) their own developing algorithms (or whatever they are called), so you might be better off in respect to your goal just using the Sony program. After developing the file, you can export as tiff for further editing (and therefore keep on working with a 16 bit per channel image instead of an 8 bit per channel image as a jpg is).   But if you really want freedom and total versatility, using another good specific raw developing program, is obviously the better way to go. I don't use Lightroom, but from the ones I know and in my opinion, DxO PhotoLab excels for developing raw files (as has already been pointed out previously by Cameratose). It is expensive, but it is the champion concerning the automatic correction of the distortions of lenses and their chromatic aberrations, and one of the best if not the best for eliminating noise. It offers different good enough presets to choose from as a starting point, and you can make your own. Not complete enough for editing photos, though. ACDSee Ultimate is OK for developing raw and very good in my opinion for editing photos and with this one you can save your own parameters/presets to use as a start point as well (and it excels as a DAM for managing your media assets). Affinity Photo v1 or v2 (the previous ones to the very new and "freemium" Affinity by Canvas which I haven't nor will try) is/was limited for developing raw, it is good for editing images and very good in combination with Affinity Designer and Affinity Publisher for the tasks they can/could accomplish as a combo. Corel PaintShop Pro is very basic for developing raw and most of the correction for lenses it supposes to do are simply not done or done wrongly, though it is not bad but kind of outdated in my opinion for editing images. Capture One (which I tried when it had a limited free version for Sony cameras) is very good, but it has a limited list of lenses which distortions it corrects and is also very expensive. Concerning the rest of the programs, I don't have a clue nor can I recommend any, as I don´t have them nor have I tried any of them long enough.   Anyway, for what you wrote, you already have Lightroom and might want to stay with Adobe's program, which everybody says is excellent, though seems that most people (including me) hate their subscription scheme, and the monthly price which ought to be paid as long as being used (whilst there are programs for which you can only pay once if you want or update now and again, not necessarily every year).

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...