Originally Posted by Peter Jennings
From a year ago. Have been shooting mostly 35mm lately.
You've got many great shots there Peter, from a variety of lenses. These old LTM lenses are definitely underappreciated (except by the folks here!).
I'd use mine more often but the viewfinder on the camera is so dark and dirty. I want to have it CLA'd considering it's rare for them to have working shutters with curtains in good condition in the first place, but I'd rather put that money towards an ever-increasing-in-price Bessa R which will be so much nicer to use. It's difficult to get consistent images on film when one doesn't have consistent metering. I used a Minolta Autometer IVF but it's just so inconvenient and distracting. I think I'll leave it at home next time.
Originally Posted by David Murphy
Very nice work all. I once owned the 5 cm F2 Rokkor, and I was always surprised at how well it handled color film. My impression from these examples is that the F1.8 is an improved lens. It reminds me of the Topcor-S 5cm F2, i.e. sharp with rich color rendition.
Cheers David. I was really surprised with the images I got back. I do process most of them in LR to boost contrast - but we do this even on digital when we shoot RAW -, but the rendition and colour isn't much worse than any of the Minolta SR/MC lenses from the 60's. The Super Rokkor certainly outperfoms the SLR lenses, though, in terms of sharpness by quite a margin.
The only other LTM lens I own is an Industar 61-L/D but I found it's not really useable on m4/3, at least without a hood. My images were entirely washed out and amber - I think due to reflections off the sensor.
The Super Rokkor 5cm F2 is very nice too, but it does contain one more element and is only single-coated, whereas the 1.8 is double-coated and that does make the difference in contrast and colour saturation.
There's a comparison here if you haven't seen it.
As you can see the Minolta 1.8 is certainly an improved lens - first in centre sharpness - but in some ways not better than the Canon 1.8 which utilised a Canon-first solution to extreme coma. Mind you, the Canon was first introduced in 1951, 7 years before the Minolta. The coma on the Minolta isn't really reduced by the aperture.
To give some more context, the introductory price in November 1951 for the Canon was 26,000 yen. In 1958 you could buy the F2 Super Rokkor with the Super A (in its unique bayonet mount) for 37,000 yen and the F1.8 for only 2000 yen more. To give you an idea of the value of 2000 yen at the time, it was about the price of the leather case for these cameras - about US$100 today or around $2200 for the whole kit. To buy the F1.8 with the Minolta Model 35 IIB was only 3280 yen more than the Super A kit.
Unfortunately there's no inflation data since before 1956 for the Yen but you can imagine that they were probably similarly priced lenses at launch
when accounting for inflation.
Though, if the Minolta had resolved the coma issue like the Canon before it, and simply been a better, sharper lens - well then it may have been quite boring. It is the flaws that make some of the differences. I think the Minolta has the nicer bokeh over the Serenar, and appears to be more out of focus too.
I wouldn't choose the F2 Super Rokkor for its out of focus rendering... perhaps that justifies the premium price of the F1.8.
I do want to try the 45mm F2.8 Super Rokkor (the so-called Heliar derivative). I probably wouldn't buy the Canon 1.8 when I have the Rokkor, but I do like the look of the 1.4! Oh, and a Topcor 1.8, and maybe a Fujinon.