tripod
Well-known
Nokton48
Veteran
KEH has a plentiful inventory of Rokkor lenses. I have the MC 1.4 & 1.2 and they are both worth having.
Happy New Year!
-Dan
Happy New Year!
-Dan
kuzano
Veteran
Another "feel good" for ya....
Another "feel good" for ya....
Another XK just sold on eBay this AM for $316. It did have a 1.2 lens on it.
So, that means you can spend $291 for a 1.2 lens and still be good. Just kidding. A 1.2 will be a bit spendy, but there are 1.4's in good supply for reasonable.
Another "feel good" for ya....
Another XK just sold on eBay this AM for $316. It did have a 1.2 lens on it.
So, that means you can spend $291 for a 1.2 lens and still be good. Just kidding. A 1.2 will be a bit spendy, but there are 1.4's in good supply for reasonable.
kuzano
Veteran
Here's a 1.2
Here's a 1.2
You can follow this for price and see if you want to go that much for a 1.2. You'll need a hood for all that glass. Frankly, I'd just get a nice 1.4 for $50.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-MC-58-m...ryZ48554QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
Here's a 1.2
You can follow this for price and see if you want to go that much for a 1.2. You'll need a hood for all that glass. Frankly, I'd just get a nice 1.4 for $50.
http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-MC-58-m...ryZ48554QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem
tripod
Well-known
The 50mm f1.2 and 1.4 are quite spendy, and I'm cheap. How good is the 50 f1.7 or the 45mm f2? Can ayone direct me to a website more dedicated to Minolta film SLR?
KoNickon
Nick Merritt
Try rokkorfiles.com
wgerrard
Veteran
Ken Rockwell, whose name always seems to provoke reactions here, has reviews of 4 or 5 MC and MD lenses on his site. He likes them.
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
tripod said:
The 50/1.7 is excellent. The 45/2 was a later-model, light-weight, "economy" lens that performs well optically, but it will feel cheap and look chintzy on your massive XK. (The lenses marked "MC Rokkor-X" would be the most age-appropriate and the best styling match for your camera.)
If you want a practical, useful lens that's as wild-looking as your camera, comes from the same era, and exemplifies the original thinking that used to characterize the best of Minolta's designs, be on the lookout for the 40-80/2.8 "gearbox" zoom lens.
It looks positively bizarre: all the controls are on a rectangular box that sticks out one side (hence the "gearbox" nickname) with focusing via a thumbwheel on the side of the gearbox and focal-length selection via a rotary joystick coaxial with the thumbwheel. It sounds nutty, but actually works very well: you can zoom and focus easily via a thumb on the bottom of the wheel, while supporting the lens comfortably on the flat bottom of the "gearbox." I had one of these for a while that I used with my XE-7, and it was a very practical outfit.
The lens was sharp, too. The reason Minolta did it that way was that it was one of the first zooms in which all the lens elements could move individually, a design feature that allowed enhanced performance at wide aperture. But the cams required were so complicated that Minolta couldn't design a way to fit them into the lens barrel -- so instead they put them in the box on the side.
Here's a picture I found, of the lens on an XD; you can see the zoom/focus control on the side of the box:
Picture credit: http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/HMbook12.html
Last edited:
dee
Well-known
.... however the excellent Rokkor 45 f2 and 50 f 2 [ from the old SRT 100 ] are excellent performers - and if f 2 was fine for most Nikon pros - it' fine for me ...
it's worth looking out for the 35 f 1.8 too - made to pro spec , lovely lense .
AND THE DERIDED PLASTIC LENSES KEEP THE WEIGHT DOWN !
dee
it's worth looking out for the 35 f 1.8 too - made to pro spec , lovely lense .
AND THE DERIDED PLASTIC LENSES KEEP THE WEIGHT DOWN !
dee
ChrisPlatt
Thread Killer
A neat camera, and quite rare in working condition nowadays.
Designed to compete with Nikon F/F2 and Canon F-1 pro models,
I hear the lack of a system motor drive killed it.
I wonder if the "unproven" electronic shutter may have also contributed?
Chris
Designed to compete with Nikon F/F2 and Canon F-1 pro models,
I hear the lack of a system motor drive killed it.
I wonder if the "unproven" electronic shutter may have also contributed?
Chris
jlw
Rangefinder camera pedant
ChrisPlatt said:
There was a separate XK Motor body with a fixed motor drive, intended for pro users who invested in the XK system and needed motor capability. The idea of a separate motor-drive body was a Minolta tradition going all the way back to the SR-M model: Minolta felt that an add-on motor could never be as rugged or as well-integrated as a built-in one.
I've heard that the electronics in general (rather than the shutter in particular) were the weak point on the XK series -- not too surprising considering the number of contact points needed to interface the shutter (in the body), meter system (in the prism) and meter-on switch (body again.)
We're all used to digitally-controlled systems now, and these are more tolerant... but when everything was analog, poor electrical contacts were a bane of many cameras. I feel it's no accident that on their pro cameras, both Nikon and Canon stuck so long to "meter prisms" where all or most of the electronics were kept in one place and could rely on soldered connections, rather than needing extensive rows of contact blocks that could oxidize or gum up. (Even their early AE finders kept all the guts in the prism and relied on a mechanical connection to the camera body.)
So, a good-working XK at a bargain price is a real find! Enjoy...