For many years during the golden age of slide film I owned a Minolta SRT-100 and a few Minolta primes, all of them thoughtlessly given away when I converted to digital. As I rediscovered the merits of vintage glass and the joy of using classic manual focus lenses on Sony full frame digital bodies – a story chronicled throughout this blog – I gravitated towards Olympus, Konica, Zeiss and, most recently, Leitz. Rokkors where always in the peripheral vision. I knew they existed, I had used them, I was familiar with their qualities, but for reasons that I can’t give words to I never felt the urge to try them on modern digital sensors. I eventually came back to Minolta in a rather circuitous way. While researching Leica lenses I was reminded of the Leitz-Minolta collaboration of the 1970’s and 80’s, and of the fact that a few Leica lenses of that era are Minolta designs. Two in particular sparked my interest: the Elmarit 24mm f/2.8 (aka Rokkor MC/MD 24mm f/2.8) and the Vario Elmar 35-70mm f/3.5 (aka Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5). I had recently purchased the newer 35-70mm f/4 Vario Elmar (a Leica design built by Kyocera, I believe) so I thought that it would be interesting to compare it to the older Minolta zoom. It was relatively easy and inexpensive to get a late model, almost mint, Minolta MD 35-70mm, a “post-Rokkor” version with macro focusing. I was utterly blown away by this lens. It may not be in the same league as the newer Vario Elmar f/4, nor of the 35-70mm Contax Vario Sonnar, but it is very, very close. It is a different animal altogether compared to the Hexanon 35-70 f/3.5 and the Zuiko 35-70 f/3.6. I owned and sold both of these lenses. The Hexanon is sharp but otherwise unremarkable, the Zuiko is barely unremarkable (and this from somebody who loves Zuiko primes). To use a much-repeated phrase, the 35-70mm Minolta zoom is, like the newer Vario Elmar and the Vario Sonnar, a bag of primes. This will be a story for another day, however.
For the kind of photography that I do 35 mm is often not wide enough. So the MD zoom had to be mated to a wider lens in the same mount, as I am reluctant to switch adapters when I want to switch lenses. I confess to a weakness for the 24mm focal length, probably because it often generates perspectives that are more expansive than what we can perceive with our eyes, and yet look almost natural. As it turns out, the Rokkor 24mm f/2.8 has a well-established reputation as one of the best primes in this focal length, even if Leica aficionados tend to look down on its Elmarit sibling. I find this interesting, and I wonder. Is this opinion based on observations? Or is it because the Elmarit is “only” a Minolta? If Leica could build a better 24mm lens, why did they choose to re-badge a Minolta? I digress. Back in my Minolta days I never had the money to buy a 24mm Rokkor, but thanks to old age (mine and the Rokkors’) I was now able to afford one. An almost mint W. Rokkor MD with the original optical design. The newer Minolta MD (49 mm filter size) is reputed to be as good or better, but it does not have the hefty Rokkor feel that I like so much, and in any event I wanted the classic version. If it was good enough for Leica it certainly would be good enough for me.
So how good is it? Let me begin with some close-up shots at f/2.8 that will put to rest any doubts about how sharp this lens is – not that there are any, really.
I think that the out-of-focus rendition is quite pleasant – it would not be frowned upon in a 50mm prime lens. But what I can’t get enough of is the sharpness in that one tulip that is in focus, at f/2.8. So here goes another image, of another tulip with different light and from a slightly different perspective.
Are the corners this sharp at f/2.8? Almost certainly not, but who cares? If one is using a lens fully open it is because one wishes to separate some compositional element that is in focus from an out of focus background. If one wishes to shoot a landscape where deep focus is needed, then one does not shoot fully open. End of story as far as I am concerned. No need to invest vast amounts of time pixel peeping (I am of the inpatient creed). Minolta lenses were always renowned for their color rendition, so I thought that I would check how the 24mm Rokkor displays color on a Sony A7. There were some other tulips nearby that looked promising….
But it is not only about strongly saturated colors. As the image below shows, the Rokkor also renders softer pastel colors very beautifully. In this sense it is different from Hexanons, with their always pyrotechnical color rendition. Minolta lenses are more “flexible”, it is easier to make then do what you want them to do.
It is a lot of fun, and certainly rewarding, to compose close-up images using wide angle lenses, but for me their chief application is in landscape photography. And here again the 24mm Rokkor delivers. First a couple of photographs of Akaka Falls in Hawaii Island.
You may want to pay attention to the detail in the foliage, the moss-covered basaltic wall and the waterfall. I find the level of detail simply stunning, especially considering the distance to the trees and wall in the background (perhaps 100 – 200 meters). Also, although these two particular images don’t show it very well, at the typical apertures that one would use for landscape work (I guess that I shot these images around f/11) there is virtually no vignetting. The same cannot be said of the 24mm f/2.8 Zuiko. I love that lens, but, as with all wide-angle Zuikos, vignetting is an issue even at f/11 and above. Perhaps this quality of the Rokkor is better seen in the next few images, with which I will end this post. The dry grassland is the Kohala coast of Hawaii, the waterfall is Onomea Falls, also in Hawaii.
Here we go again,got me hunting for this lens now, 🙂 .
As always brilliant photo examples ,Have you tried either the rollei 28mm 2.8 or the olympus zuiko 28mm 2.8,and if so what are your thoughts, and if not what else would you recommend in the 28mm range,i have the hexanon 28mm 3.5 and the zuiko version as well,i recently missed out on a yashica 28mm 2.8 ML and i’ve read great things about it.
BTW wanting to use these on my newly acquired olympus Om D EM5 ,so it’s micro four thirds mount..
Amazing read once again and thanks for these awesome reviews,they’re so helpful and better than some of the hyped up or biased waffle on some forums.
Howdy Chris – thank you for your very kind words, truly appreciated!!
Regarding your questions, I used to own the Zuiko 28mm f/2.8 and it is an excellent lens. Color rendition is a bit more subdued than the Rokkor, but nonetheless very beautiful. I sold it only because I was not using it much and wanted to fund another purchase. If you do get one get a late multicoated version.
Regarding the Rollei 28mm f/2.8 I believe that it is a Mamiya design and I have read good things about it, but have never used it myself. The Rollei 28 f/2, on the other hand, is a Zeiss Distagon, stratospherically expensive and reputedly very very good, but again I have not used it myself.
If you can live with 35mm a true gem is the Zeiss Color Skoparex f/3.4. It comes in both Zeiss Icarex mount (adapters are available) and M42 and you can get a good one for less that USD 100 if you are patient. Sharpness and color rendition are simply stunning – and it is a 1960’s design!!! I hope to post a review of it in the not too distant future – but I also have a day job….
All the best!!
Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Could you please point me in the right direction for the exact adapter I would need to use, I can’t seem to find a cheap one for the Icarex (BM) to NEX mount.
Thanks in advance,
Malik
Hi Malik,
I think that the only Icarex – Nex adapters available are from Kipon, and they are indeed not cheap (about 50 dollars). They are good quality, though, and there are another 2 or 3 lenses with this mount worth having, for certain the marvelous Ultron 50mm f/1.8, and also the 90mm Dynarex, so the cost of the adapter can be spread out.
I hope this helps
Alberto
Well, I was on the ledge, and your fine article pushed me over. Nicely done.
Thank you Don! You’ll love the lens. Since I wrote the article I had a chance to shoot with the newer MD lens and I think that it is every bit as good, as far as optical quality goes. The older Rokkor is better built, though, so I’d still choose it over the newer lens.
Dear Alberto,
I stumbled upon one of your talks on Youtube (Athens Photography Guild – 2017) and the points you were making plus the images presented certainly got my interest. Then I found the four billion years sites and more interesting information that you kindly took the time to share. Thank you!
I am writing here because I find myself at a crossroad and could use some advice or opinion. After shooting with film with various cameras (soviet DSLR-s, compact Kodak, compact Fuji, Minolta Dynax 5), I moved to digital and for the last 13 years I’ve been using a Canon 400D and 3 lenses. Eventually decided that it’s time to upgrade and decided to move to mirrorless mainly because it seems to be mature enough and for better portability. While researching, I found other advantages too, many of them mentioned in your talk.
So the Canon kit is all gone now, but I didn’t buy my new kit yet. Comparing the various options available and wanting to keep the budget within reasonable limits, I’m attracted by the Fuji X-T30 with the 18-55 f 2.8-4 and maybe the 55-200 f 3.5-4.8 plus probably a wide lens at some point.
And then I found your resources and now I’m questioning everything. The X-T30 (like all the Fuji X-series) is an APS-C camera. I noticed you use two cameras – a full frame (Sony) to give you the nice background rendition, high dynamic range and low light performance and a micro four-thirds (Olympus) for the increased telephoto reach. One could regard an APS-C camera as a happy medium, but I’m wondering if it’s not a case of losing on both fronts. Still I don’t see myself investing in – and carrying around – two camera bodies.
The other conundrum is about lenses. One of the reasons for switching to mirrorless was portability. Carrying around the 70-200 Canon (still my favorite lens from the old kit) just to take a few shots felt like a bit too much. And I wonder how heavy are the classic lenses described in your posts and how many do you actually carry around with you (on a trip abroad and respectively on a day out).
And then, part of the same lens chapter is the eternal debate of primes versus zoom.
Of course, like probably everyone else, I would like to take great photos with the minimum budget and weight to carry around. And I know that great photos are more about the photographer’s skills, but I think the gear matters too.
Any opinions or advice would be much appreciated.
Thanks a lot,
Victor
Hello Victor, and Thanks for your visit! There are several parts to your question, I will try to get to all of them, but if I miss something please feel free to remind me.
First, on the issue of sensor size, I have to tell you that since the video was made, and since I wrote my early posts, I have let go of all of my Olympus gear and have become 100% full frame. There is nothing “wrong” with the small sensors, but physics says that they simply cannot compete with larger sensors in terms of dynamic range, noise control and resolution. Once I got used to the image quality that a large sensor can deliver I simply was unable to keep working with the 4/3 raw files. Also, and this is more directly related to the kind of photography that I do and to the fact that I use only old vintage glass, the crop factor is a problem for me. I often go to focal lengths in the 18 to 28mm range, and you cannot do this with vintage lenses on a crop sensor. Of course, if you use long focal lengths crop sensors are great, but at the other end of the range they are a problem.
Having said all of this, my limited experience on APS-C sensors (I owned a Sony A6000 for some time) is that they are much much closer to full frame sensors than to 4/3 sensors in terms of image quality. If it were not for the fact that I love my vintage lenses, and that even on APS-C a 24mm wide angle becomes a less distinctive 36mm lens, I would have no problem shooting with APS-C. I do not have any personal experience with Fuji digital cameras, but all I have heard is uniformly excellent, so I don’t think that you can go wrong with them. I have some experience using vintage Fujinon EBC glass on the Sony digital cameras and they are outstanding lenses. If the new Fuji optics are like those of 40 years ago then, again, you can’t go wrong.
I don’t think that there is a significant difference in size/portability between full frame and APS-C mirrorless, the bodies are very close in size, and many of the lenses too. Long telephotos are going to be large and heavy for both systems. I wouldn’t use the size/weight factor as a criterion to decide between the two formats. Vintage manual focus lenses are also generally smaller and lighter than digital lenses, so that is another factor to consider. Plus, if you don’t need autofocus, and are happy doing everything manually, you will save a ton of money buying good old lenses, that, in addition, have nothing electronic that can go wrong.
Zooms or primes? Depends on what zoom and what prime. The fact is that many vintage zooms were not very good, but there are some that will give any prime, vintage or modern, a run for their money. Among my favorites: any Zeiss zoom from the Contax line and the Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5 and 75-150mm f/4 (both Minoltas are a true bargain, at about USD 100 each).
To summarize: if you are happy using modern AF lenses then either APS-C or full frame is fine, and your choice of Fuji is, from all that I have heard, an excellent one. If, on the other hand, you think that you might get stung by the vintage glass bug (and the danger is there), then my suggestion would be to go full frame, as that is the format that old 35mm lenses were designed for, and the format that does them justice.
Take care!!
Alberto
Hi Alberto,
Thank you so much for taking the time to write such a comprehensive reply. And very useful too. I cannot say I’m now sure what I’m going to do, but you certainly helped and thank you for that. I guess the rest is for me to decide and in the end it’s not like a road of no return if I feel like changing direction again at some point, just more money needed…
Apologies for posting this under the Minolta lens review, where it’s maybe less relevant. It was meant to be posted under the Camera Commentaries – The Best of Both Worlds. I had the two tabs opened and I wrote everything on the wrong tab – completely unaware. I noticed only after pressing the “post” button when I looked up to see the browser refresh indicator, but it was too late. Please feel free to move it if you want.
And finally, if you happen to come to Ireland at some point, I would be delighted to meet you in person so please drop me a line if the feeling is mutual – although at this point I know much more about you than you know about
me. I’ll just say that after reading the About page on this site, I think we would get along fine as we agree on many points and even share a somewhat resembling path through life (I was born and raised in communist Romania in the 60-s and immigrated to Ireland 20 years ago). We might differ on some points (I actually like Bob Dylan’s music – although I don’t get the Nobel Prize), but I guess that’s OK too… And I must read more Borges – I only read The Book of Sand back in Romania, many years ago, in my student years – a time when I would go to the cinema two days in a row to watch Stalker again and absorb the atmosphere and all the symbols in that movie. I now wonder what lenses was that filmed with…
Apologies for all the rambling and thanks again,
Victor
Hi Victor,
I would really love to spend some time together. I am sure that we would have many things to talk about, whether or not we agree on most of them. We do have a plan to visit Ireland in the not too distant future, and it might have happened last summer except that we ended up spending about three weeks across the Irish Sea, driving around Wales (we loved it!!). At this point I am not sure when it will be, but I will definitely take you up on it. I will be retiring at the end of this year and moving to New Mexico so if you have plans of traveling around the American SW let me know. My wife will stay in Georgia a bit longer for professional reasons, so I will have the house all to myself for a year or two, although you might have to walk around carpenters, plumbers, etc.
Let’s keep in touch!
Alberto
Thanks again Alberto,
Looking forward to meeting you and hopefully your wife too on either side of the Atlantic – which we didn’t cross yet but would like to at some point. I’ll send a direct email with more contact details.
Hopefully these crazy times are over soon and life as normal can resume.
If you’re stuck at home, I thought of a movie that I saw recently and you may enjoy – if you didn’t watch it already: “The Distinguished Citizen” – the original is in Spanish. We watched it on Netflix, so I guess it’s available in the USA too.
And a photography-related tip (although you might have been there, done that, already) – if you visit Tenerife, make sure to include in your trip the Mariposario del Drago. Our holiday to Tenerife was the first with the Dynax 5 and ended up shooting 20 rolls of film in two weeks (a large number by my standards – but some of my best photos are still from that trip) and a good few of them were in this small but really nice butterfly zoo. I loved your photo of the Papilio Machaon and guessed you might be interested.
Take care and Happy Easter,
Victor
Alberto, nice write up on the 24mm. I too got on the vintage glass train (appears there are no stops) I have been shooting ( Zeiss and Petrie) since I was 15, a tender 54 years ago! Was out for a few years-life, kids, and making a living. When I got back I went digital with Sony. Sony had classes (free) at the head office in Toronto and I attended for quite a few years, no gimmicks or sales-you tell us what you have, bring it with you and we will teach you how to use it. Over the years I was invited on several excursions with them, car races, fashion in Montreal, with the highlight- a week in Cuba. I do have the film bug back and use a Minolta XD-11 with a stable of many vintage Minolta manual with a few excellent AF lenses. I like to research different glass looking for very good ones that I can afford, I tend to be a bit frugal and I have adopted a Meyer Optik and Helios. I have progressively moved up bodies and settled with the XD for film and A7, A77 ( a gift from Sony), and a RX100m5 (for the motorcycle) for digital. I am going on a motorcycle trip with a bunch of other grey hairs to an area south of James Bay and I want to shoot the milky way while I’m up there. Minolta MD 24/2.8 is the smallest I own (at this time)..would you use it on the A7 for star gazing? I also read your ‘About’ page like Victor and I like what I read. Have a Merry Christmas …..and make sure you have some fun.