JeremyLangford
I'd really Leica Leica
I have a Rokkor 50mm f/1.4 manual focus that I keep on my Minolta SRT-101. I also have a Rokkor 50mm f/1.7. It seems like I read somewhere that the f/1.7 is a better lens with better quality and sharpness. Does anyone else know if this is true?
eric
[was]: emaquiling
I've also read this. Somewhere in internet legend, there was a web page that said the 1.7 is 2nd close to some Leica 50mm. I like the 1.7 (49mm thread) cause it almost seems like a macro. It focuses so close.
cbass
Nutmegger
Don't know about the 50/1.4, but I have an MD 50/1.7 that I know is sharper than my old MC 58/1.4.
The 50/1.7 is an excellent lens. The 50/2.0 is no slouch, either.
The 50/1.7 is an excellent lens. The 50/2.0 is no slouch, either.
IGMeanwell
Well-known
The 1.7 MD is very sharp ...pleasing out of focus characteristics
I also have the 58mm PC MC 1.2 is great too, though a little soft wide open, but its pleasing to my eye
I also have the 58mm PC MC 1.2 is great too, though a little soft wide open, but its pleasing to my eye
IGMeanwell
Well-known
This shot is wide open
Tri-X
Tri-X
dee
Well-known
The MC or MD 50 /1.7 is a most underated lense, as is the plastic 50 . f2 and 45. f2 , which , 'cos it's tiny and light , tends to do most of the work .
I came to Leica from Minolta , to find a kind of family resemblance , even in 1950s lenses - my MC F1.4 has a greater tendency to flare , but still has that quality - at that time , faster lenses tended to be have a little less contrast ? as a trade off for the extra speed , but I would not give up my really old 58 1.4 auto Rokkor
'cos it's acceptable in the centre , but tails off dreamily at the edges.
It's strange - I found Leica and it revived my '' considered snapshooting '' , then Minolta and those old Rokkors keep turning up in these forums !
dee
I came to Leica from Minolta , to find a kind of family resemblance , even in 1950s lenses - my MC F1.4 has a greater tendency to flare , but still has that quality - at that time , faster lenses tended to be have a little less contrast ? as a trade off for the extra speed , but I would not give up my really old 58 1.4 auto Rokkor
'cos it's acceptable in the centre , but tails off dreamily at the edges.
It's strange - I found Leica and it revived my '' considered snapshooting '' , then Minolta and those old Rokkors keep turning up in these forums !
dee
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
I just checked my garage sale SRT 102 and it has the Rokkor-X 50mm 1.7 lens on it...
I got it about 8 years ago for $5...it's in great shape only the film door and bottom plate show any wear...
I gave it to my son who used it a few times but now I have it back...
He went digital...
I got it about 8 years ago for $5...it's in great shape only the film door and bottom plate show any wear...
I gave it to my son who used it a few times but now I have it back...
He went digital...
xayraa33
rangefinder user and fancier
the Rokkors came closest to the iook that german glass gives of any of the major japanese lens makers in my opinion.
xayraa33 said:
Agreed.
The 50/1.7 is critically sharp and modern. The 50/1.4 is warm and a great combination of sharpness and smooth warm tones. The 58/1.2 is lower contrast, very vintage looking.
Phoenix Phil
Established
I had all three at one point (50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 58/1.4). I love and kept the 50/1.7. I thought it was as sharp or sharper than the 50/1.4. Someone mentioned that the 50/1.7 was "modern" and if "modern" is contrasty with vivid colors then I would agree. I also agree that the 58 is a bit soft and less contrasty (I kept it too). I sold the 50/1.4 since it would have the most market value and it would be easy to sell.
One day if I can scan the negatives from my test rolls, I will post the examples.
If I could have, I would have loved to put the 50/1.7 onto a digital SLR body. I am really impressed with the Rokkor and I have used Olympus, Pentax, and Bronica primes.
One day if I can scan the negatives from my test rolls, I will post the examples.
If I could have, I would have loved to put the 50/1.7 onto a digital SLR body. I am really impressed with the Rokkor and I have used Olympus, Pentax, and Bronica primes.
Last edited:
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I've had my MD Rokkor 50/1.7 since I purchase it in Singapore in 1978; it's a great lens, but the only attribute I don't like is its 6-bladed shutter, which can show a distinct hexagonal spot to out of focus specular highlights. In this regard the Schneider Xenon on my Retina IIIc delivers better out of focus performance, as it's equipped with an 8-bladed leaf shutter.
Alas, I rid myself of my old SRT-101b body when it went t*ts up, and replaced it with an X-370, which I still use. The X-370 with 50/1.7 Rokkor is a nice street shooter combo, though it lacks the depth of field preview button that I enjoyed on the SRT.
The MD Rokkor 50/1.7 can close focus to just under 18 inches, making it a virtual macro. I think the MD series are great, especially considering the prices they can be had for. Olympus Zuikos are also a great SLR lens worth looking into.
~Joe
Alas, I rid myself of my old SRT-101b body when it went t*ts up, and replaced it with an X-370, which I still use. The X-370 with 50/1.7 Rokkor is a nice street shooter combo, though it lacks the depth of field preview button that I enjoyed on the SRT.
The MD Rokkor 50/1.7 can close focus to just under 18 inches, making it a virtual macro. I think the MD series are great, especially considering the prices they can be had for. Olympus Zuikos are also a great SLR lens worth looking into.
~Joe
Last edited: