Minolta Rokkor M 40/2 Your experience

[Alex Krasotkin]

Guys, just got Minolta Rokkor M 40/2 in LN condition (the latest version with a serial number on a barrel) for my M10. So nice and tiny lens! Sharp at f/2. What is your experience with this creature?

Many thanks,
Alex

 

[maddoc]

One of my favorite lenses of many years. Sharper than my 35 mm Summicron v3. Good color rendition, contrast and minimal distortion. However, I sold it went back to the 40mm Summicron-C, which is a lower contrast lens and more unbalanced (sharper in the center than the corners of the frame)

 

[cboy]

Beautiful old school rendering that is sharp but not clinical and has a subtle vibrance to the color rendition. I sometimes regret selling it. However if your picky about framing id suggest to pick up a 40mm viewfinder otherwise youll find yourself cropping lol.

 

[albertospa]

The 40 Rokkor is a great lens. I bought it for my M3 as I wanted a very compact, bright lens that used the entire viewfinder. I use it with great satisfaction also on M10. It has a very nice blur, right contrast, great colors. I have one of the latest versions, perhaps slightly more contrasted than the Summicron version.

 

[Guth]

I too own the latest version of this lens so will be following along with this thread with some interest. I acquired the lens along with a Minolta CLE last year. Not long afterwards I picked up a M-Rokkor 28/2.8 lens and have been using it exclusively with the CLE ever since. It provides an interesting alternative to the 35mm Summicron that I use on my M6. At some point I'll get around to using the M-Rokkor 40/2 lens. (I often take both cameras out with me and am using the CLE for color film while using the M6 for B&W film.)

 

[BWF]

It’s a great lens. Excellent colors. I think of it as a “rendering” lens but it’s also really sharp. Small and well built. I had it adjusted to bring up 35mm frame lines. I will never sell this lens.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Nothing special on digital and on film. The only special is its size. Odd FOV for correct framelines like on M4-2. Good match for crappy 35 mm framelines like from M4-P. It was more accurate with this lens on M-E 220 than with 35mm lenses.

 

[giulio stucchi]

I got one earlier this year and I shot a couple of rolls (Tri-x) on my M6.
Framing using the 35mm (I wear glasses) seems spot on.
It makes a very nice and compact combo.
Very happy with it.
Sorry, I don't have any print or scan on hand.
Enjoy the little and super light weight lens.
Cheers
Giulio

 

[Rich1950]

The Minolta CLE 40/2 is my most used lens. I used the Minolta optic with the MP 35mm frameline. The two are a near perfect match.

I tested the lens against a mint 35/2 v2 Summicron. Subject was 6 ft from camera and I evaluated on negative the edge sharpness and blur. The 40/2 is sharper at f/2.8 and by f/5.6 the two are the same. There is a tiny difference between the two lenses at f/4. Both lenses have a classic OOF rendering. Since the Minolta is a longer focal length it has more blur.

Minolta was sensitive to Leitz OOF blur aesthetic and emphasized it in their 1960/70s advertising.

The 40/2 is a very light/short lens and one reason its so nice to use. I believe its the lightest M mount in the 35-50mm range.

I just acquired a M3 and as others have written using the entire finder is the best way to frame. Regarding using it with a M2/4/5 …… with a little practice its preferred to estimate the 40 frame outside of the 50 frame line.

 

[Godfrey]

Guys, just got Minolta Rokkor M 40/2 in LN condition (the latest version with a serial number on a barrel) for my M10. So nice and tiny lens! Sharp at f/2. What is your experience with this creature?

It's a lovely lens. Compared to the original Summicron-C 40/2 and first series M-Rokkor 40/2, the last series M-Rokkor 40mm has multi coating and less flare than its predecessors, a bit more apparent contrast (which gives it more perceptual sharpness). I had all three together at one point in the past and would swap back and forth between the Summicron and M-Rokkor II lenses. 🙂

G

 

[Rich1950]

The M-Rokkor for the CLE has a Leica 100% compatible cam.

 

[Trask]

I've got the full CLE kit -- but didn't know there were/are three versions of the 40mm lens -- or versions of any of the three lenses. Any particular website that provides this information?

 

[Godfrey]

Version 1 is the Leica Summicron-C 40/2 made and assembled by Leica in Wetzlar, Version 2 is the M-Rokkor 40/2 made by Leica and assembled by Minolta in Japan. Version 3 is the M-Rokkor 40/2 manufactured and assembled by Minolta in Japan. At least that's my understanding through reading a few dozen different websites and commentaries mentioning the Leica-Minolta relationship of the 1970s-80s.

G

 

[Bingley]

I purchased the Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 CLE from member Back Alley years ago. I filed down the flange so that it brings up the 35mm framelines on my M2 (now sold) and M6. Like most of the others in this thread, I think it’s a terrific little lens, both optically and in terms of its handling. I’ve been shooting it a lot recently. Here’s a recent photo made w/ this lens:

Faded Glory by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

The lens displays very nice micro-contrast, like the version III 35mm Summicron w/ which it’s often compared. It’s a really nice lens to use on the M3 too.

 

[Bingley]

Some more photos made with the Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 CLE. Leica M6, TMax 400:

Guest quarters by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Hiding in the trees by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

Regarding clouds by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

Version 1 is the Leica Summicron-C 40/2 made and assembled by Leica in Wetzlar, Version 2 is the M-Rokkor 40/2 made by Leica and assembled by Minolta in Japan. Version 3 is the M-Rokkor 40/2 manufactured and assembled by Minolta in Japan. At least that's my understanding through reading a few dozen different websites and commentaries mentioning the Leica-Minolta relationship of the 1970s-80s.

G

This is my understanding, too. The CLE version of the M-Rokkor is multicoated, whereas the previous versions of the lens are single coated.

 

[giulio stucchi]

m6 + m-rokkor 40 (cle)
tri-x 400 (developer I believe is DDX here)
scan from the negative

I simply put some tape on the frame preview lever to bring up the 35mm framelines, a perfect fit IMO for the 40mm (I wear glasses)

cheers
giulio

 

[Bingley]

Spring at Maverick’s Beach, Half Moon Bay, CA. Leica M6, Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 CLE, dark yellow filter, Delta 400 @ iso 200 in Ilfotec DDX:

Spring at Maverick's Beach by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Bingley]

Pillar Point bluffs, Moss Beach, CA. Leica M6, Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm f2.0 CLE, TMax 400 @ iso 200:

Pillar Point bluffs by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Archiver]

I used one for a few days when a friend let me use his on a trip in 2017. It's a tiny, fast lens with a sense of solidity, and the images were pretty tasty. There was some glow/softness wide open, especially at long distances, perhaps this was from sample variation.

M9 - Gotcha by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - Tin Hau Temple 2 by Archiver, on Flickr