Olympus 35RC/RD/SP compared to Rokkor 40/2

[tonys]

Hello All,

Just wondering if anyone has compared the lenses on one or more of the RC/RD/SP as against the Leitz Minolta CL version of the Rokkor 40/2?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Tony

 

[charjohncarter]

I have an RC and a few other flimsy RFs from that era, all of them have really great lenses (even the Petri 7s). I think it is because around 40mm is an easy design. I know the 50mm Elmar and the 50mm Super Takumar are different 'oranges' but all my fixed RFs give them a run for their money. These are just evaluations from prints made, not scientific testing.

Konica C35:

 

[shadowfox]

In my mind, two things are against anyone who is looking for a good comparison:

1. Manufacturing quality tolerance is probably more relaxed for 35 RC/RD/SP because these are meant to be consumer-grade cameras. Therefore sample variations alone could impact the comparison.

2. The Rokkor is a stand alone lens, built by Minolta from the ground up to be an "expensive" lens. So it's more likely to have a better quality control.

Having said that, I bet I can't tell the difference in the results 99% of the time.

 

[ianstamatic]

I finally got a CL.
here is a link to a thread i started with a bunch of sample photos to compare. http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113244
I also recently got a 35SP. PICS POSTED in this thread http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113247
I also have a 35RC.http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=111716

Same broken lightmeters, film, photographer and development. compare away.

 

[dreilly]

It'll be nice to see some side by side comparisons. I have a 35LC which has the same lens as the SP...just in an earlier body. I've also owned a CL and a CLE with both the Leica and Minolta versions of the 40/2. I've shot a lot more and more recently with my LC, but I love that lens, and have done some of my best work with that camera. I never got results with my Rokkor/Summicron that I liked as much. This doesn't mean much since I can't substantiate with either articulate comments or examples, so it's more of an impression. I was always underwhelmed by the 40/2, whereas I was almost always impresssed by the LC's 42mm.

 

[vidgamer]

Hello All,

Just wondering if anyone has compared the lenses on one or more of the RC/RD/SP as against the Leitz Minolta CL version of the Rokkor 40/2?

Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Tony

I haven't done any side-by-side comparisons with my RC, but I'll just say that mine has some negatives -- noticeable vignetting and the bokeh is not that nice-- but overall, does a good job. (Contrast with the Petri 7s someone else mentioned, which has good bokeh.) What I like about the RC is the compact size. Easy to justify tossing it along for a trip. Seems sharp enough.

 

[ianstamatic]

The RC has somewhat limited bokeh (let call it depth of image in the RC's case), the SP has more and it is can be nice.
With the RC its more like foreground separation, its not too busy so looks ok.

The CL 40mm has less than the SP but what it has looks great.

One big difference I have found is the the CL 40mm deals with flare much better.
Both lenses draw sharply yet with character.