Minolta Rokkor MD vs Nikkor AI

[68degrees]

At the time in the 80s I had a teacher that told me Rokkor MD were sharper and better overall than Nikkor, so I bought a x-700 and two lenses instead of an FM with Nikkor AI lenses. Could someone help me put this to rest, any Rokkor fans on here or Nikkor loyalists can offer an opinion please?

 

[Pioneer]

I don't think there is any "rest" for this question. Minolta and Nikon have both built some very nice lenses. I am biased towards Minolta (and Pentax) but that is what I am used to using.

 

[FrankS]

Too many questions 68. Go out and just do it. Let's see some photos!

 

[JRG]

You might as well ask, "Which is the better baseball team? The Yankees, or the Red Sox?" You'll generate a lot of heat and noise, but precious little truth.

And the truth is apt to be, "What difference does it make?" Each company made excellent lenses, most of which were more than good enough for their intended uses.

The rest is mainly blither.

 

[68degrees]

You might as well ask, "Which is the better baseball team? The Yankees, or the Red Sox?" You'll generate a lot of heat and noise, but precious little truth.

And the truth is apt to be, "What difference does it make?" Each company made excellent lenses, most of which were more than good enough for their intended uses.

The rest is mainly blither.

Isnt that the point of this website? To talk about cameras. haha geez with that attitudes you could say whats the point of getting out of bed in the morning because it really doesnt matter. I like the cameras, as much as taking pictures probably more actually. Its a hobby in itself, actually much like your example of sports teams. Its fun for some of us to talk about so let us have our fun ahaha.

 

[farlymac]

While overall quality of both Nikon and Minolta lenses is quite good, there are some winners and losers in both bunches. You can find others opinions by searching through the threads to see what they like and dislike about any particular lens.

I think what FrankS is on about is the rehashing of old subjects that have been covered ad nauseum.

PF

 

[back alley]

minolta made their own glass, one of the few lens makers to be able to make that claim.
their cameras often were well ahead of the others.
minolta lenses often scored excellent in the mags that tested them.

nikon was known as the pros camera though as was canon.

i have owned nikon, canon, olympus and now minolta…many great lenses from all of them.

 

[68degrees]

minolta made their own glass, one of the few lens makers to be able to make that claim.
their cameras often were well ahead of the others.
minolta lenses often scored excellent in the mags that tested them.

nikon was known as the pros camera though as was canon.

i have owned nikon, canon, olympus and now minolta…many great lenses from all of them.

Which few made their own lenses besides Minolta?

 

[back alley]

most camera companies made most of their own lenses…minolta made the actual glass used in lenses, made their own lenses and sold glass to others who then made lenses from the glass.

 

[68degrees]

most camera companies made most of their own lenses…minolta made the actual glass used in lenses, made their own lenses and sold glass to others who then made lenses from the glass.

ok so Minolta is one of only a few that made their own GLASS not lenses. I mis read that, my bad. So which few companies made their own glass besides Minolta? and who used Minolta glass. This is very interesting.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

most camera companies made most of their own lenses…minolta made the actual glass used in lenses, made their own lenses and sold glass to others who then made lenses from the glass.

Nikon did too, at least in the 80s and 90s. I remember it was something they advertised heavily.

 

[Bille]

At the time in the 80s I had a teacher that told me Rokkor MD were sharper and better overall than Nikkor

Probably right. Nikon was the first with "pro" bodies and super telephotos. But the 20 to 85mm Nikkor AI / AIS range is typically quite soft unless two or three stops down.

 

[Bille]

So which few companies made their own glass besides Minolta?

Fuji

"(...) In fact, we didn't just make lenses, we even went so far as to manufacture our own optical glass for our lenses." (Contemporary Fuji ad)

 

[leicapixie]

Minolta made some of the Leica R lenses.
One of reasons, Leica teamed up, was quality and "look" of Minolta lenses.
Now able to use both systems, Nikon seems contrastier and sharper.
Nikon lenses in MF, are better built than Pentax Takumar,Minolta.
However after a few very long jet flights, my 105mm f2,5,
literally fell apart, when using it on landing in Toronto..
One F was jammed and the 28mm also needed attention.
They were at that time 15 years old, having worked in appalling conditions.
Oh! a real bumpy flight into North America, when many upper lockers,
all shed their contents, all services were stopped.
That ride not equaled till Universal Studios in LA..😀

 

[redisburning]

it depends on how you look at it really, and on individual lens comparisons.

as a general rule, my experience with Nikon lenses which is borne out by looking at Photodo's MTFs is that they have/had a lot of coarse structure contrast but field curvature once you started getting into finer detail + a lot of divergence of sagital and tangential MTF values ie astigmatism which leads to the impression of blurring of fine details. in addition, I personally find the feel of their lenses to be bottom shelf, while the early metal ring Rokkor 58/1.2 I had was probably the second finest built lens Ive ever owned (my Leica-R 60/2.8 takes first place).

the Japanese lens makers were all more or less in the same place, despite what internet rumor has to say. they made different compromises which led to most of the differences, and some designs proved superior to other contemporary lenses by a significant margin (e.g. the Canon 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL, Nikon 200 ED) before the others caught up.

If you want a hard answer, the latest generation of R lenses made by Leica or the Contax lenses made by Kyocera under the direction of Carl Zeiss are in my opinion a step above in the meaningful measures of image quality (fine detail reproduction, flatness of field, low astigmatism). then canon and olympus. then minolta and pentax. then nikon. just my 2c.

 

[68degrees]

it depends on how you look at it really, and on individual lens comparisons.

as a general rule, my experience with Nikon lenses which is borne out by looking at Photodo's MTFs is that they have/had a lot of coarse structure contrast but field curvature once you started getting into finer detail + a lot of divergence of sagital and tangential MTF values ie astigmatism which leads to the impression of blurring of fine details. in addition, I personally find the feel of their lenses to be bottom shelf, while the early metal ring Rokkor 58/1.2 I had was probably the second finest built lens Ive ever owned (my Leica-R 60/2.8 takes first place).

the Japanese lens makers were all more or less in the same place, despite what internet rumor has to say. they made different compromises which led to most of the differences, and some designs proved superior to other contemporary lenses by a significant margin (e.g. the Canon 55/1.2 ASPHERICAL, Nikon 200 ED) before the others caught up.

If you want a hard answer, the latest generation of R lenses made by Leica or the Contax lenses made by Kyocera under the direction of Carl Zeiss are in my opinion a step above in the meaningful measures of image quality (fine detail reproduction, flatness of field, low astigmatism). then canon and olympus. then minolta and pentax. then nikon. just my 2c.

so you place Nikkor lenses last place?? Wow!

 

[Jamie Pillers]

At the time in the 80s I had a teacher that told me Rokkor MD were sharper and better overall than Nikkor, so I bought a x-700 and two lenses instead of an FM with Nikkor AI lenses. Could someone help me put this to rest, any Rokkor fans on here or Nikkor loyalists can offer an opinion please?

In practice, there is no way to measure this. Yes there are MTF curves, and images filled with bokeh, and focusing rings smoothed with the grease of gods. But it always comes down to your own appreciation of the images created. For example, the lens at the bottom of dxomark's test score list, the $50 Olympus 15mm f8 plastic wonder, is a lens that's made some of my favorite images (at least as judged by folks here that have commented on my photographs). Summicrons, Nikkors, Noktons, Rokkors... all do something a bit different, but not better. So I say, pick a few lenses, go out and make images for a year with them. Then come back and try something else... for the fun of it! 🙂

 

[Ryan1938]

I'm mostly a Leica guy when it comes to legacy stuff, but the affordability turned me onto Minolta stuff a few years ago. I've tried a bunch and have found these three to be really great:

50/1.2 - most people prefer the 58mm, but I love this lens

35/1.8 - great multipurpose lens that is fast... and quite sharp when stopped down

24/2.8 - probably the sharpest of all the Minolta lenses and, in my opinion, almost as good as anything Leica offered in this focal range.

Having said that, I have no Nikkor experience to speak of...

 

[Phil_F_NM]

All the manufacturers made top end lenses and pedestrian lenses (except Leica.)
This may be a gear forum but no person can say which system is better than another. It's Ford vs. Chevy.

Now, there ARE optical design issues which can definitely say that one type of system offers what some (myself included) think are advantages.

Rangefinders and scale focused cameras with wide angle lenses (no mirrors) can be designed with true non-retrofocal optics, minimizing distortion but at the cost of vignetting and some lens speed.

The non-retrofocal Biogon / Topogon formulations are renowned for extraordinarily low distortion. Leica's Super Angulon is a true Biogon design and is ultimately sharp but suffers from a bit of vignetting and has no distortion for all intents and purposes. The paper you print on probably has more curl to it than the SA has distortion. If a scanner is used, you'd have to have a frame wet-mounted on anti-newton glass then look at the scanned image at 1:1 and put a ruler on the image to see any distortion. Real life isn't that precise though so everything looks perfect.

As for SLRs (which is what this discussion is about) all of them have shining stars. Canon's FD mount has some L lenses such as the 24mm f/1.4 L which is technically better than any other 24mm lens ever made for an SLR. I wish I could use it on my Nikon!

Pentax has some naysayers but the 50mm f/1.4 SMC Takumars are some of the greatest 50mm lenses ever made by any manufacturer. They can hold their own against any equivalent focal length even by Leica, Zeiss or whomever. This is because of their rare-earth elements.

Nikon has their ED series and they are without peers. They also have some hyper-corrected lenses in the wide to short telephoto range. The 28mm f/2.8 AiS is one of the lowest distortion SLR lenses ever. The 58mm Noct-Nikkor is just an insane optic which is perfect.

Minolta has some very special lenses of their own. The 24mm VFC W Rokkor is outstanding but also has the ability to change field curvature.
The Minolta 17mm, 20mm and 24mm lenses have floating elements which serve as focal length corrections the same as Nikon's CRC and make those offerings excellent.

Personally, I prefer Nikon for their (mostly) backwards compatibility. If Pentax took a leap forward and introduced a full frame camera on-par with a full frame Nikon, I'd go with Pentax because of cost and the access to that 50mm SMC Takumar.

Ultimately, it comes down to the tool you have in your hand then before that, the tool you are comfortable with. It doesn't matter how great the camera/lens combo is if you aren't proficient with it, know its peculiarities and actually carry it with you for the shots. A camera on a shelf isn't worth anything if you intend to make photographs with it but leave it at home.

It's all what you prefer to carry. It could even be a disposable.

Phil Forrest

 

[redisburning]

there's a big difference between a fast 50 and a slower one in terms of how it performs.

let's not confuse "revolutionary" or "pleasing" with technical excellence. if you want a top flight lens, one that is truely perfect, I suggest looking at the upcoming 55/1.4 distagon Otus. even that is not perfect, but it is as close as anything you will see for 5 more years. even if we "step down" to the 135/2 APO sonnar, that lens is in a different class even than the 50 and 100 MPs, much less an ancient fast 50.

and I do not rate Nikkor lenses last. I rate them behind those I mentioned, and ahead of some others I did not specifically mention. do I think they are overrated? without question; but if all you have to look at are slides I could see how you could make that mistake.

I prefer measurements to real life when talking about technical rating. sorry, sharpness is sharpness. do I only buy lenses for sharpness? no, not especially. I buy them because they are 50mm AND sharp and to be fair my favorite is not the sharpest though the sharpest lenses I own are all near the top of my personal list.

anyway you can praise a lens all you want but reality often tells a different tale. of course with a 5k price tag not many will ever know: