Hello from Tennessee!

PSDigital

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
3
Location
Loudon, Tennessee
Real Name
Paul
Hello everyone! I stumbled across this forum while looking for a review on a 135 Minolta Celtic f/3.5 lens.
I'm happy I found it since I just bought my Sony A7rII 2 days ago. I'm waiting on my adapter for my A Mount lenses and am considering M-42 and MD adapters as well. Canon and Sigma will come later. Lol
I'm so excited to begin using this camera and all the possibilities it offers!

Anyway, I just wanted to say Hello and introduce myself. Looking forward to reading posts on here and sharing some photos.
 

WNG

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 12, 2014
Messages
3,972
Location
Arrid Zone-A, USA
Real Name
Will
Welcome aboard!

As for the MD Celtic 135 f/3.5.
I have the MD-I and MD-II versions. The MD-III version is optically identical to the MD-II.

I prefer the MD-I version. It's a 4 in 4 optical formula, physically larger than the successors, but also higher build quality. I found it to be a bit sharper.
The MD-II is much smaller and lighter. Use of plastics and a simplified design was used. Some of the elements are glued to the mounts and no longer serviceable. It's a 5 in 5 design with a smaller 49mm filter diameter. It's image quality is very good. If size and weight matters, then this one is it.
It's one of the smallest and lightest full frame 135s.

There is some online statements that the Celtics were inferior versions of the Rokkors, but that isn't the case. They were identical optically with only minor cosmetic differences.
 

PSDigital

New to TalkEmount
Joined
Mar 30, 2016
Messages
3
Location
Loudon, Tennessee
Real Name
Paul
Welcome aboard!

As for the MD Celtic 135 f/3.5.
I have the MD-I and MD-II versions. The MD-III version is optically identical to the MD-II.

I prefer the MD-I version. It's a 4 in 4 optical formula, physically larger than the successors, but also higher build quality. I found it to be a bit sharper.
The MD-II is much smaller and lighter. Use of plastics and a simplified design was used. Some of the elements are glued to the mounts and no longer serviceable. It's a 5 in 5 design with a smaller 49mm filter diameter. It's image quality is very good. If size and weight matters, then this one is it.
It's one of the smallest and lightest full frame 135s.

There is some online statements that the Celtics were inferior versions of the Rokkors, but that isn't the case. They were identical optically with only minor cosmetic differences.
Thanks for the info! That's good to know since I haven't bought any of them yet.
 

bdbits

TalkEmount All-Pro
Joined
Sep 10, 2015
Messages
1,969
Real Name
Bob
Welcome.

I must warn you that it appears you are already coming down with a bad case of GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). This condition is especially common among e-mount camera owners. There is no cure, and those who post here are unlikely to be able to offer much assistance with the difficult road to remission. But you might go into remission when you've run out of room to store your lenses. Or your financial advisor (i.e. spouse) gives you an ultimatum, and you have to make a difficult decision. :rofl:
 

NickCyprus

Super Moderator
Joined
Oct 11, 2012
Messages
6,747
Location
Cyprus
Real Name
Nick
Welcome along! Big fan of MD lenses here also but its a slipery slope as others have said :D

Also have the 135mm 3.5 MD and its a nice lens but I do think the f/2.8 is better :)
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
TalkEmount is a fan site and not associated with Sony Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2011-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom