M-Rokkor 28mm

The 28mm Rokkor used to fetch a premium of up to $800 US when it was the only compact M Mount 28mm around. With the release of other compact 28's like the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 and now the Leica Elmarit 28 ASPH F2.8 the prices have dropped dramatically and so come up for sale quite regularly on Ebay. Often you will see several for sale at once. Now I would not pay more than $400 US for a perfect one. If it has the beginnings of the white spot problem then pay no more than $250 and if the white spots have progressed from the black paint on the side of the front element to the rear surface of the front element itself then dont bother buying it at all. The original bayonet hoods fetch a premium price as well so try get it with the hood so you dont have to add that to your overall cost.

Quite a good lens by the way but keep in mind that it brings up the 35mm framelines on an M. On a CLE its fine of course.
 
Palaeoboy, thanks for the info.

I'll have to look into the spotting issue, haven't heard of that before. I was hoping this could be a low-cost decent quality 2.8 28mm for my R-D1.
 
You may like to take a look on the RD-1 forum with a member LCT who use the 28mm Rokkor with great success with the RD-1.

Is the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 a bit too slow for you? You could get one of those new for the price of the Rokkor, just a thought anyways.
 
Last edited:
I would go so far as to say that by now maybe just about all M-Rokkor 28mm lenses show these white spots to some degree. I bought one a few years ago that had them in a circular pattern around the outer edge of the front element. It has never affected the image results and it has not progressed any worse since then. Due to the rarity of these lenses even showing up, I'd say the $400 range is not too high, but they may be less nowadays.
 
I would go so far as to say that by now maybe just about all M-Rokkor 28mm lenses show these white spots to some degree.
Click to expand...

Thats not quite true in that the wide spot problem manifested itself early in the lens' life and as such Minolta repaired a large number of them under warranty. So there are examples out there that exhibit no spots whatsoever. The trap is that some also dont exhibit the problem yet but haven't been fixed by Minolta and under certain condition (hot environments) and pop up out of the blue.
 
Palaeoboy said:
Is the Voigtlander 28mm f3.5 a bit too slow for you? You could get one of those new for the price of the Rokkor, just a thought anyways.
Click to expand...

Nope, the difference between 2.8 and 3.5 is negligible to me. I'm just researching my 28mm options. I want to stay away from the (overly, for me) pricey Leica stuff.

Now I'm looking up M-Hexanons, but they also seem hard to find and I have a feeling that they will be priced out of my league. I'm ashamed to say it, but what turns me off the Voigtlander is the look :eek:
 
I understand that, and acknowledge that my statement was toward the extreme, but note that I said "to some degree". In the 30 years (off and on) that I've owned Leica CLs and CLEs and having been actively in the market for one of these lenses for years, and been following these sales, I can't recall ever seeing one ad for one that was 100% free of spots. Some people while not specifically mentioning "spots" have stated in their FS ads that they "think they might see some issue," etc, upon further questioning about their lens.

Palaeoboy said:
Thats not quite true in that the wide spot problem manifested itself early in the lens' life and as such Minolta repaired a large number of them under warranty. So there are examples out there that exhibit no spots whatsoever. The trap is that some also dont exhibit the problem yet but haven't been fixed by Minolta and under certain condition (hot environments) and pop up out of the blue.
Click to expand...
 
Now I'm looking up M-Hexanons, but they also seem hard to find and I have a feeling that they will be priced out of my league. I'm ashamed to say it, but what turns me off the Voigtlander is the look

I'll grant you that the Voigtlanders are a little bit different in their appearance, but handsome is as handsome does. Optically their 28/3.5 is quite good. I have a chrome one available if you're at all interested.

I think you'll find the M-Hexanon is going to be probably close to $600 at a minimum these days, so yes, most likely those aren't in your range. Another option, though maybe harder to find, is the Avenon/Kobalux/other brand name I forget 28/3.5. This is an excellent and really small (truly pancake) lens.
 
I paid $265 for my Rokkor-M, albiet with a case of the spots. However, I haven't seen any noticeable degradation due to the spots (used on an M2) and am really happy with its color rendition (especially with Portia 160--that film is magic!).
 
KoNickon said:
I'll grant you that the Voigtlanders are a little bit different in their appearance, but handsome is as handsome does. Optically their 28/3.5 is quite good. I have a chrome one available if you're at all interested.
Click to expand...

I'll have to go check one out in person.
I'll hold off on buying a 28 until after the local photographic flea market, I've already got a 35 and a 50, and I still haven't got the camera...

Is this an RFF first... lens GAS despite having no body -- and I'm not even a collector :bang:
 
I've owned Leica CLs and CLEs and having been actively in the market for one of these lenses for years, and been following these sales, I can't recall ever seeing one ad for one that was 100% free of spots.
Click to expand...

Im surprised you haven't seem the advertised without spots as I monitor them as well as Im building a data base with serial numbers and see them listed quite often. I purchased mine a couple of years back listed as such. Some have even stated they have the original Minolta repair documentation.

I'm ashamed to say it, but what turns me off the Voigtlander is the look
Click to expand...

Some of the early Voigtlander lenses with their strange shapes dont look that great I must admit. The latest designs in M mount are really good though. The 28mm f3.5 doesn't look as bad as some but the main problem with this lens is that in black the paint wears off far to easily. Optics are very good though. Some report a fair amount of light falloff with this lens (Although I dont notice it significantly) but with an RD-1 crop factor it will be right as rain. With both the Voigtlander 28's now discontinued I am pretty sure some new designs are on the way. They may just be M mount upgrades but at least you wont have that bad look, so you may want to wait and see what's just around the corner.
 
I have the rokkor-M

It has some faint spots and my tests shows that it is much contrastier and a bit sharper than my VC Ultron at 2.8. (I have to say that I was surprised...)

I am using the VC because of its speed so Iam wiling to sell it or trade the rokkor. It's on its way to the classified. PM me if you are interested.
 
Joel,

Have you heard any stories such as even after the Minolta repair the spots returned? Also lots of info such as that the repair wasn't really cost effective, etc.
 
Joel,

Have you heard any stories such as even after the Minolta repair the spots returned? Also lots of info such as that the repair wasn't really cost effective, etc.
Click to expand...

Hi George, every example that I have seen officially fixed by Minolta has never had the spots returned. It was quite an expensive fix whereby they claimed to replace the front element. They were even doing so free of charge outside the warranty period. The problem is however as I mentioned above, you may see one genuinely listed without spots but you cant be sure if its one that has been corrected or one that simply hasn't met the correct conditions to induce the spots.

There are many theories regarding the white spots, what they are and how they manifest themselves. I believe the spots to be small crystals that leech out of the black paint that surrounds the front lens element. At the early stage you see this as a perfect ring of while spots round the entire rim. Its not in the optical path at this point so doesn't effect picture quality. If left unchecked however the crystals break off and find their way onto the rear of the front element and begin to etch the coating to which does effect the image quality.

With my lens which I purchased without spots like new in its box and took it out on a hot Australian Summers Day and came back that night to see the ring of spots that weren't there when I left. The catalyst seems to be subjecting the lens to heat, which makes sense if you follow the theory of a crystal leeching out of the black paint. If the black paint round the front element is replaced with an appropriate quality paint then it should never return.

Its a great lens. Without the white spot problem im sure it would achieve much more acclaim that it does now.
 
Hi Joel, I've heard from a lens tech that he's seen and fixed the problem, and that it comes from moisture that enters the lens barrel and is unable to escape because of the way the entire lens is constructed. I don't remember who said this; I believe it was John Van Stelten. But I'm not entirely sure why moisture would etch into the lens--you might be right in your theory.

In any case, this is his quote for the repair of white spots:

"Yes, I can usually repair the 28 M-Rokkor but sometimes there is
etching. It runs $225.00+ return shipping and if there is etched
spots that won't come out I still have to charge but it they usually
come out at least 75% better if not 100%."
 
My 28mm Rokkor is crystal clear and without dots. At one stage, I was offered over $500 for it, but I kept the lens.
 
Hi Joel, I've heard from a lens tech that he's seen and fixed the problem, and that it comes from moisture that enters the lens barrel and is unable to escape because of the way the entire lens is constructed. I don't remember who said this; I believe it was John Van Stelten. But I'm not entirely sure why moisture would etch into the lens--you might be right in your theory.
Click to expand...

Hi, I have heard this mentioned before but its not quite the case. Its true that the composition of the paint that coats the outer rim of the front element contains some kinda of "moisture" that leeches out to form white crystals that we know as the "the dreaded white spots" however its not from absorbed moisture from outside, its already within the inner paint from new. Moisture from outside would never manifest itself as white crystals and more specifically exactly on the black painted rim of the front element alone. When those white crystals grow to such an extent that they break off and mover about etching the coatings of the rear of the first element. Mind you this lens is not the only lens where this phenomenon occurs, I have seen in it a version 3 Elmarit 28 and also a 15mm Hologon M.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom