Film explorer
Member
Hi,
I was wondering how the Minolta HiMatic 7s II lens compares with the M-Rokkor 40mm?
I would assume that the M lens is of much higher quality, but frankly speaking I really don't know. I have an opportunity to purchase a Minolta HiMatic 7sII, or I was wondering should I save my pennies and get a Minolta CLE with a Rokkor.
Thankyou if anyone has some information about this^^
I was wondering how the Minolta HiMatic 7s II lens compares with the M-Rokkor 40mm?
I would assume that the M lens is of much higher quality, but frankly speaking I really don't know. I have an opportunity to purchase a Minolta HiMatic 7sII, or I was wondering should I save my pennies and get a Minolta CLE with a Rokkor.
Thankyou if anyone has some information about this^^
Film explorer
Member
I forgot to mention that the Himatic also has a Rokkor, so I was wondering if it was the same as the CLE's Rokkor?
Thankyou^^
Thankyou^^
micromoogman
Well-known
I have tested Minolta Hi Matic E and CLE Rokkor 40/2...
CLE Rokkor f2/40mm
Detail
Hi-Matic E Rokkor f1.7/40mm
Detail
CLE Rokkor f2/40mm
Detail
Hi-Matic E Rokkor f1.7/40mm
Detail
Film explorer
Member
Micro: Thanks for providing that example. It seems that there isn't much information on the net regarding comparisons between these two.
To my eyes the the Himatic seems to be garnering more shadow detail, but I could be wrong.
Does anyone else have experience with the Himatic ^??^
To my eyes the the Himatic seems to be garnering more shadow detail, but I could be wrong.
Does anyone else have experience with the Himatic ^??^
dberger
Established
All Minolta lenses until the early 80's were named "Rokkor" or some variation depending on the specific type (e.g., Tele-Rokkor, W.Rokkor, Super Rokkor). They brought the name back for the G-Rokkor in the 90's. So, the names being the same really means nothing.
In my opinion, the 40/1.7 on the Himatic is excellent, not unlike fast lenses in similar fixed-lens rangefinders of its time. The M-Rokkor, however, is quite special. It's one of the best ever.
Cheers,
David
In my opinion, the 40/1.7 on the Himatic is excellent, not unlike fast lenses in similar fixed-lens rangefinders of its time. The M-Rokkor, however, is quite special. It's one of the best ever.
Cheers,
David
Palaeoboy
Joel Matherson
I collect all 40mm lenses (fixed lens rangefinders included) and out of the fixed lens rangefinders I consider the Minolta 7SII one of the best lens wise although there are better body wise for construction. That said the CLE Rokkor has an edge on it in optical performance. Centre is similar but at the edges the CLE version does the job better. The CLE has better flare resistance as well but given the size of the front element of the 7SII you could how see stray light would be coming in at all angles. As such you can get away without a hood with the CLE most of the time but not really with a 7SII.
micromoogman
Well-known
The M-Rokkor has higher resolution seen in the detail pics. Same film but different times. Also, the HMatic E is all-auto so aperture is probably different to the M-Rokkor.
I don't know if Hi-Matic E has the same lens as 7IIs. 7IIs is essentially the same cameras as Konica Auto S3, Revue 400SE, Vivitar 35ES, Prinz etc. All made by Cosina.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
Well, my 2d worth is to add that the CLE is an all electronic camera and you may well have problems with it when/if it dies on you. That's problems in that no one will touch it as a repair. But who knows for certain?
Regards, David
PS FWIW, I used to have a CLE and bought it brand new many years ago. I would love to have another now but worry about the electronics following a disaster with a Contax Tix dying. Then I spoke to a lot of technicians and they all told me the same story.
Well, my 2d worth is to add that the CLE is an all electronic camera and you may well have problems with it when/if it dies on you. That's problems in that no one will touch it as a repair. But who knows for certain?
Regards, David
PS FWIW, I used to have a CLE and bought it brand new many years ago. I would love to have another now but worry about the electronics following a disaster with a Contax Tix dying. Then I spoke to a lot of technicians and they all told me the same story.
micromoogman
Well-known
Film explorer
Member
Thanks to everyone who contributed. I ended picking up a cheap ($50) Himatic with the exposure system dead, but I plan to use my Sekonic anyway. I will try and get into the groove with this camera before I seriously think about a Minolta CLE with Rokkor or Leitz CL.
I'm sure after reading all the input that the lens on this Himatic will give me images in quality that far superseed my novice ability behind the lens.
I also loved the old world feel of that photo example as well.
Thanks again^!^
I'm sure after reading all the input that the lens on this Himatic will give me images in quality that far superseed my novice ability behind the lens.
I also loved the old world feel of that photo example as well.
Thanks again^!^
lic4
Well-known
I don't think you'll be disappointed with the Himatic Rokkor. The CLE or CL Rokkor is a little better, but I don't think it's a huge difference. The main difference for me is in the choice of having a better camera body. The viewfinder and rangefinder patch in the CL, CLE, Leica M, Voigtlander, and Ikon are all better than those in fixed lens rangefinder. In my opinion, it makes a world of difference when you're working.
Trius
Waiting on Maitani
I have had a 7s and now a 7s-II. I found the lenses on both to be very nice. I didn't care for the ergonomics of the 7s, so sold it, and have kept the 7s-II. I have no doubt the M-Rokkor is likely "better" than the Rokkor on the 7s-II, but the differences are likely marginal. And the difference in price will buy a lot of film.