38Deardorff
Well-known
Yes....all the ones under discussion are M mount lenses. The only LTM in the entire thread is the one in photo in the opening post.
Last edited:
Any love for the Minolta 90mm F4? - I have some!
- Thread starter Rob MacKillop
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 29
- Views 673
Wenge
Registered User
90/4 M-Rokkor is almost same as Leica version. the Leica one I just grabbed next to the above ebay listing I've had a few days, has smoother action than Minolta, important when focusing this 90mm on details. f/7.1 and f/8 sweet spot with a short but learnable focus throw. I owned an M-Rokkor before, didn't like it like I should have except on GXR-A12 mount on that camera, but it was before the newer cameras and newer ibis to be fair (helps w/this f/4/90). Avoided buying the shown listing due to haze issue and went for the one for ~$100 more. It's a longer focal length to shoot but will work sometimes i think.
Last edited:
Rob MacKillop
Established
I’m glad I started this thread, as it has revealed my ignorance in certain areas, of which I am now wiser. That’s what I’d call a good use of the internet.
However, I’d still like to see more pictures from members using this lens, whether from Leica or Minolta. We can talk facts and opinions all day long, but photography should have ‘the photograph’ front and centre…well, I think so. The proof is in the pudding?
However, I’d still like to see more pictures from members using this lens, whether from Leica or Minolta. We can talk facts and opinions all day long, but photography should have ‘the photograph’ front and centre…well, I think so. The proof is in the pudding?
santino
FSU gear head
There is the image and there is the lens. There are mechanical aspects to the lens that should be addressed that no picture can tell you. It’s optical performance is really great, it is maybe a bit too sharp fir portrait shooting and therefore excellent for landscape photography.
I don’t have images at hand (at least not digitalized).
I don’t have images at hand (at least not digitalized).
Archiver
Veteran
A friend has this Minolta and uses it in his Sony A7R II to good effect. I should get one some day.
38Deardorff
Well-known
I'd have to hunt through boxes of slides from decades ago....
Here's the only photo from my current 90 f4 Elmar C..... during a film test. I so rarely use a telephoto lens
Rob MacKillop
Established
Wow. Imposing. I wish you had more to share, more readily uploadable. But that takes an awful lot of time. Great to have this one, though.
WJJ3
Well-known
To OP: There are 2 versions of the M-ROKKOR 90: the CL and CLE versions. The CL version has the shorter/steeper RF coupling cam designed for the Minolta/Leica CL. In Minolta's later CLE camera and lenses, Minolta used the standard Leica M cam length/slope. There are comments on the web saying the CL version lenses can produce focusing errors on non-CL bodies and that the CLE versions are the better choice for full compatibility. I haven't tried a CL lens on my M bodies.
I have owned 2 CLE version M-ROKKOR 90s and both were great performers. The first copy I owned was a bit rough, but performed well. The second copy I owned was very clean and was sharper than my previous copy. In my opinion, the M-ROKKOR 90 is practically flawless, and a no brainer if you want an inexpensive 90 in your bag. It has noticable falloff until about f8, but has great sharpness and nice OOF areas from f4. I'm sure there are countless exmaples of it's performnace on Flickr, if you take the time to search. Below is a shot from the 2nd copy I owned. I let my M-ROKKOR 90 go when I bought my MEM.
shanghai2AA009
I have owned 2 CLE version M-ROKKOR 90s and both were great performers. The first copy I owned was a bit rough, but performed well. The second copy I owned was very clean and was sharper than my previous copy. In my opinion, the M-ROKKOR 90 is practically flawless, and a no brainer if you want an inexpensive 90 in your bag. It has noticable falloff until about f8, but has great sharpness and nice OOF areas from f4. I'm sure there are countless exmaples of it's performnace on Flickr, if you take the time to search. Below is a shot from the 2nd copy I owned. I let my M-ROKKOR 90 go when I bought my MEM.
38Deardorff
Well-known
WJ... I've used the 90 Elmar on my M cameras with no issues.
Rob MacKillop
Established
To OP: There are 2 versions of the M-ROKKOR 90: the CL and CLE versions. The CL version has the shorter/steeper RF coupling cam designed for the Minolta/Leica CL. In Minolta's later CLE camera and lenses, Minolta used the standard Leica M cam length/slope. There are comments on the web saying the CL version lenses can produce focusing errors on non-CL bodies and that the CLE versions are the better choice for full compatibility. I haven't tried a CL lens on my M bodies.
I have owned 2 CLE version M-ROKKOR 90s and both were great performers. The first copy I owned was a bit rough, but performed well. The second copy I owned was very clean and was sharper than my previous copy. In my opinion, the M-ROKKOR 90 is practically flawless, and a no brainer if you want an inexpensive 90 in your bag. It has noticable falloff until about f8, but has great sharpness and nice OOF areas from f4. I'm sure there are countless exmaples of it's performnace on Flickr, if you take the time to search. Below is a shot from the 2nd copy I owned. I let my M-ROKKOR 90 go when I bought my MEM.
shanghai2AA009
Love that shot, WJJ, especially the OOF parts 🙂
Similar threads
- Article
