Jump to content

Need some opinions!


Nick
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

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

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

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

×
×
  • Create New...