1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Konica 135mm f/3.2 EE or the Minolta Rokkor-X 135mm f/2.8

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by robfactory, Oct 13, 2014.

  1. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    Hello everyone!

    Recently I shot with the Minolta MC 135mm f/2.8 - PF and though the lens was pretty good. I posted some of the images in this forum.
    However, as I read more about the 135mm lenses, I've read the Konica at 3.2 is the sharpest lens out there. I wanted to get the opinion on the matter from the forum users.
    Which one would you get and why?
    Thanks ahead of time.
     
  2. MAubrey

    MAubrey TalkEmount Top Veteran

    The Konica is a fine lens, but it certainly isn't the sharpest out there.

    There are a number of Konica lenses that are claimed to be 'the sharpest.' And while they're good, sharp lenses in my experience, the superlative 'sharpest' isn't the right word. The Canon FD 135mm f/2 is as sharp at f/2 as the Konica is at f/3.2...albeit also larger and heavier. Of the legacy 135mm's that I've used, that's the sharpest one and I've since gotten rid of the rest.

    Of course, the Canon goes for $250-400, while the Konica can be had for $40-80.
     
  3. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    Thanks,
    What I meant was one of the sharpest lens out there, compared to price.
     
  4. jedilost1

    jedilost1 TalkEmount Regular

    93
    Oct 1, 2014
    New Jersey
    I'd love to see some shots taken with focal lengths of 135mm and above handheld

    I still have concern about that shutter shake

    Have you experienced any?
     
  5. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    Not really. You saw my photos from the zoo and all were handheld. I will be trying some other 135mm these next coming weeks as I have another Minolta Rokkor-X and a Konica 135mm f/3.2 on their way. I will post photos of the experiment.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. jedilost1

    jedilost1 TalkEmount Regular

    93
    Oct 1, 2014
    New Jersey
    Yes and those shots were great, I will be testing a minolta 135mm tomorrow myself and a 200mm canon fd to experiment
     
  7. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    I also had it on shutter priority because of the subjects. So that might have helped with it. Which Minolta 135mm will you be testing?
     
  8. jedilost1

    jedilost1 TalkEmount Regular

    93
    Oct 1, 2014
    New Jersey
    Here is pic of a couple lenses I plan on using [emoji3] ImageUploadedByTapatalk1413243911.532221.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    Haha. I have the Minolta 101. That 3.5 is a decent lens. You should get some nice images. I have that lens, but it's full of oil. I have to open it and clean it out.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    Got the Konica on Friday and will go to the zoo tomorrow
     
  11. mrlrz

    mrlrz TalkEmount Regular

    65
    Nov 13, 2013
    In my experience Konica is really good (for the prices I see). I have a rokkor 2.8 PF and the hexanon is a clear winner, I recently got the MD but haven't used a lot yet...
     
  12. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    I got the MC Rokkor 2.8 PF and I think it is a good lens. I went to the zoo with it in some of my pics. HERE I will see tomorrow how the Konica lens does. I also have a Vivitar Teleconverter 2x-7 that should be an interesting combination.
     
  13. mrlrz

    mrlrz TalkEmount Regular

    65
    Nov 13, 2013
  14. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    There is a later Minolta MD 135/2.8 that is 4 elements in 4 groups that is supposed to be extraordinary. Unfortunately I have no clue how to tell which one it is from the many Minolta 135's out there. I always like the Konica 135/3.2. it was the nicest of the Konica 135's and cheap as chips.
     
  15. robfactory

    robfactory TalkEmount Regular

    124
    Aug 23, 2014
    Rob
    I got it for 30 including the case, filter, and shipping.
     
  16. Dan Euritt

    Dan Euritt TalkEmount Regular

    191
    Jan 11, 2014
    i struggled with that as well.

    it seems that not every minolta 135/2.8 is the 4/4 element version?
    http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/171-minolta-135mm-f28

    perhaps that diamond index mark is the common feature? need to hear from adi, i think.

    it may not stand up to ff use quite as well:
    http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/341-sony-a7-and-classical-rokkors
     
  17. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Definately not! You can clearly see it in the Minolta Manual Lens list
    http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/

    If you want an 4/4 element MD 2.8, look for the 1977 year copy. How to tell them apart? Well, they are the significanly heavier lenses (compared to the later MD 135 2.8s) ;)
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Its because they have a large floating element as I understand it. Of course its tough to figure that out on eBay. When I look at the list it appears that there are only 2 MC versions of the 135/2.8 and one of them has the designation PF on the front ring. Apparently the non PF version is a 4/4. Looking for that and the diamond mark over the infinity symbol (as mentioned earlier seem like the best bets)

    This look like the MD version on eBay
    http://www.ebay.com/itm/MINT-OPTICS...47662479?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2c8d359e8f