Minolta lenses kick ass!

[Riverman]

I'm just scanning a bunch of slides that my brother shot on my old X700 with a 50mm f1.7 and 28mm f2.8.

This was my first camera kit and served me solidly from 1998 to 2007. My god, when you look at the output from those lenses and consider how cheaply they go for on eBay these days, they're absolutely quality lenses. I find them very distinctive and prefer them to any of my Nikon AIS lenses. There's a certain softness and smoothness about the images. Normally we all crave 'sharpness'. I find the Minolta lenses the opposite but in a most appealing way.

Any others out there digging Minolta lenses?

 

[ItsReallyDarren]

I used a SRT 102 with a 24mm VFC for a while and loved the setup. The film advance jammed one day and its been sitting on the shelf waiting its turn for getting sent the repair shop.

 

[Keith]

I've got an old Auto Reflex half frame SLR and it came with a 57mm f1.4 Hex on it ... the first time I used the camera the lens amazed me. Like you say not blindingly sharp but the way it renders is beautiful.

 

[KoNickon]

Keith, the Konicas were great indeed (still are), but back then Konica and Minolta were unrelated. Anyway, I love the Rokkor MC and MD lenses, and the SRT 101 is one of the best SLRs ever, I think.

 

[Keith]

Keith, the Konicas were great indeed (still are), but back then Konica and Minolta were unrelated. Anyway, I love the Rokkor MC and MD lenses, and the SRT 101 is one of the best SLRs ever, I think.

😱 You learn something every day!

Is the SRT 101 the camera that has the rather odd shape ... sort of like rounded shoulders? I've always had a desire to own one of those!

 

[thawkins]

I have an SRT101, XG1, X700 and an XD11. The 101 and the XD11 re the best of the bunch. The 101 is a solid mechanical masterpiece and the XD11 is the last camera they built with a metal body. The other two don't share their reliability. I have an 35mm F1.8several 50mm F2, an 85mm F2 and a 100 F4 and a set of extender rings. Their output is better than several lens I have afor a Nikon D90 and I think are equal to some of my Leica lens. In a nutshell, they are simply great cameras and lens. 'nuff said.

 

[Riverman]

Here's some of the shots I just scanned. The bokeh just knocks me out.

 

[FrankS]

Sounds like I ahould put a roll through my X570.

 

[noimmunity]

Here's some of the shots I just scanned. The bokeh just knocks me out.

I'm a sucker for that kind of smooth bokeh! Looks like a great lens for candid portraits, not so much for landscape...

 

[Bingley]

Minolta SLR glass is great! In addition to the lenses mention by the OP, the 35/2.8 and the 85/2 are both very good. Some have noted the similarity in rendering between Minolta SLR lenses and Leica lenses, which is not surprising given the collaboration between the two companies in the 70s. Nowadays, Minoltas don't seem to get much respect, but the glass is quite special, IMO.

50/1.7:

85/2.0:

35/2.8:

 

[healyzh]

I have a Minolta SRT-101 with a 55mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2.8. I've not tried the 135mm, but the 55mm is dream lens! If it wasn't for the difficulty I have in focusing the camera due to the screen, I'd use it. As it stands I can't see paying what it would cost to get a better body, so it sits in its bag.

I also have a Minolta A-2 Rangefinder, but it is sadly gummed up. One of these days I'd like to get it fixed for the fun of it.

 

[Riverman]

Great shots. I'd love to try the 85mm.

I gather the 58mm f1.2 is legendary but seems to command a premium price.

 

[bkrystad]

I went on a Minolta bender a few years back and still have my black XD11 with a 24mm f/2.8, a 50mm f/1.4, an 85mm f/1.7, and finally a 135mm f/2 (with a 72mm filter! that lens is just nuts). I've been working with Leica this year, but I always pull out the XD11 with the 135mm to take backstage photos of my daughters at their dance recitals. Knocks my socks off every time.

If you're going to dabble in MC and MD lenses, check out the Rokkor Files, http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Lens Reviews.html. Don't say I didn't warn you, though. It's addictive.

 

[sparrow6224]

Generally speaking -- since folks are talking about Minolta and Nikon -- what you'll find is that Minolta shines over Nikon in the wide angles (with a few exceptions, like the Nikkor 28mm 2.8 AiS and the 28mm f/2, which the Rokkors can't touch), equals or occasionally betters them in the middle (the MD Rokkor-X 50mm f1.4 is the sharpest 50/1.4 I've ever used by far, with the most vivid color rendition and contrast, despite what y'all say about sharpness. The 55s and 58s have a soft look but not the 50/1.4. I have a 58/1.4 Rokkor and had a 58/1.4 Nikon which I sold for five times what the Rokkor would bring me, and the Rokkor is by a mile the more beautiful lens. Nikon shows its strength in the tele's. The 85s are gorgeous from both makers, though Nikon's 85/2 is more lovely than the late-version 85/2 Minolta produced; the Rokkors shine at 85/1.7 however, better than the Nikkor's in that max aperture. (actually theirs are 1.8 -- an old pre-Ai and the new AF-D). But every 100mm-105mm lens Nikon has produced is a masterpiece, including their E-series f/2.8. The 135s are taken all together about equal (edge to Rokkors perhaps for their 135/2 but you can't touch one now anyway from either company; and Rokkor offers a cheap f3.5 that's a secret gem); but then the Nikkor 180s, 200s, 300s, 400s -- these are the best long lenses ever IMO.

Now I've heard -- largely from this site, where all RF users cherish one SLR the Olympia OM - and I've invested in an OM camera and 24, 28, 35, and 100 f/2.8s, along witht eh 50/1.4, but I haven't shot enough with them yet to have an opinion. People say they are the best. If the famed and expensive OM 24mm lens equals the (of course, cheaper) Rokkor I'll be very surprised: the MD Rokkor X 24/2.8 stands withthe 50/1.4, and the Nikkor 105/2.5 as the best SLR lenses I've ever used. Not that there aren't better, I just haven't used 'em....

Oh, and the price: all the other premier lenses of the MF era -- Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon -- can be fitted out for good use on digital SLRs. Not the Rokkors. That's why the prices are so low -- although they are rising for certain lenses because some folks are actually cutting them and putting different mounts on the shortened barrel....

 

[Film dino]

It's significant that Leitz chose Minolta as partners in the 1970s; this was synergistic - if memory serves Minolta used to (do they still?) research & make optical glass

 

[amateriat]

To add a bit to the thread:

- Minolta and Leica had a relationship that started at least as far back as the early 1970s and continued until not long before the Konica-Minolta merger (which I still regard as a mistake on the level of the HP-Compaq merger, but that's another argument for another time). Minolta was also the only Japanese manufacturer, besides Nikon, to manufacture the very glass that went into their lenses.

- The quality of Minolta's camera bodies, as well as lenses, was noticeable well into the autofocus era. I used their Maxxum 9xi cameras for the better part of a decade, and regarded the cameras and lenses as second to none. I would rank their AF 28-70mm f/2.8 G zoom, to cite one example, above both Nikon's and Canon's equivalents overall, though not by a whopping margin. And, I'm still happily using a Minolta Dimage Scan 5400 film scanner.

Yes, Minolta knew their stuff, although, from a business standpoint, they played Chrysler to Canon and Nikon's GM and Ford (although who was whom between those two depended on the decade, right?), striving and frequently unstable, but occasionally bringing forth technological breakthroughs well before the others.


- Barrett

 

[Doug]

...Oh, and the price: all the other premier lenses of the MF era -- Pentax, Nikon, Olympus, Canon -- can be fitted out for good use on digital SLRs. Not the Rokkors. That's why the prices are so low -- although they are rising for certain lenses because some folks are actually cutting them and putting different mounts on the shortened barrel....

Worth noting here that the Sony Alpha series of dSLRs arose from a Minolta heritage, and will take the later Minolta lenses. Here’s one inexpensive avenue to fine glass on the Sony dSLRs. 🙂

 

[sparrow6224]

Doug,
The SONYs take only the Minolta AF lenses. The Rokkors need an adapter which multiplies the image in order to reach infinity (I might not be saying that right, but essentially there's no way to adapt a Rokkor lens to anything EXCEPT the m4/3 mount without have to use some cheap piece of glass that utterly undermines the image quality. Anyway as a result of the SONY's using them, the better AF Minolta lenses have risen sharply in price in recent years from what I have noticed.

 

[caperunner]

I have a couple or three RF Minoltas. I have used one, a Hi Matic F. I was very impressed with the output- i.e. rendering and clarity. Far too good for this sort of camera. I wondered if it marginally beat the snot out of the Nikon 50/f2 on my S3.
I am in denial on this issue however. Minolta hiding their lights under a bushel nevertheless. Great lens.

 

[Nokton48]

I have five or six black SRT101 bodies, and the motorized SRM pro model, and I'm happy as a clam. The 21mm F2.8 MC, 35mm F1.8 MC, 50mm F1.2 MC, 85mm F1.7 MC, and the 100mm f2.5 MC are all my favorites. All MC Rokkor lenses are great, I much prefer them to Nikon.