Minolta MC 35/1.8

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Sep 24, 2017.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Does anyone here have any experience with this lens? I've been able to find a few things Googling but opinions seems to vary between "it's great" to "don't waste your time" so I was wondering if anyone here had anything a bit more concrete than that. I'm picking up a really nice MC 24/2.8 and have the opportunity to possibly grab an equally nice 35/1.8 as well but I have zero knowledge about it.

    I know that there are a good deal of adapted lens suers here (some with LOTS of Minolta experience) so I thought I'd see what folks think.
     
  2. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    I have one. It’s very soft at 1.8. Gets a little better at 2.8. Nothing to write home about. IMO.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    Btw. I also was in search of a NFD 35 f2. I found a great copy. Big disappointment. The 24, 28 and 50 are great but the 35 is garbage in comparison.
     
  4. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    Best 35mm I used in adapted lens had to be the ais 35, 1.4 and the ais 35 f2.
     
  5. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Kevin! So nice to see you back :)

    I don't (didn't) have that lens but from what I understand most of the Minolta "MC" lenses weren't sharp wide open. Something about the coatings used back then - they had that special "dreamy"/soft look. Personally I like that look - I've always dreamed of owning an MC 58 1.2 back in my adapted lens times...

    I did have the later MD 2.8 version and it was very good wide open at f/2.8.

    Quick-Review: Minolta MC Rokkor 35mm 1:1.8 - phillipreeve.net
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    That was the general impression I was getting. I already have a Nikkor-O 35/2 (which is a pretty terrific lens) so I don't know that I have much of a need for another 35 because it's not a focal length I find myself using all that much.

    Heres a few from the Nikkor 35/2:

    36441194741_dfed8a5ff3_b.
    spider universe
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    29410086521_5eb053437e_b.
    a man and his pizza
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr

    32780926873_676593ab2b_b.
    pynk
    by kevin dixey, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    If you're getting rendering at that level from the Nikkor-O, IMO, don't waste your money on the Rokkor. Those shots are superb for a f/2.
    I know the MC 35mm f/2.8 is a complete waste of time and money. As is the Pentax Super Takumar 35mm f/2 w/49mm thread.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I've got one and while it's not too bad, I wouldn't spend a whole lot of money on it; a Minolta MD 2.8/35 is much more value for money IMHO. Some impressions and tests in a blogpost of mine.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Good to know, thanks. BTW what's your opinion of the Rokkor MC 28/2.8? I have been wanting a more compact 28 for a while (smaller than my Nikon 28/2 AiS). I like to use a 28mm as a standard lens on my old NEX and don't always need the Nikon's close-up abilities.
     
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2017
    • Like Like x 1
  10. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    It's kind of OK but it suffers from field curvature, which is a very common trait of almost all Minolta wide-angle lenses. The MC version has the same optical design as the later MD W.Rokkor versions as well as the first plain MD variant; the second MD variant is significantly worse (at least my sample is). Recently I did a blogpost on these lenses as well. If you want something cheap, good, small and light, I'd advise the Olympus OM Zuiko 3.5/28, test shots here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    I've been a fan of the OM 28/3.5 for years. It is most definitely small and capable of some pretty great images. I like it better than the OM 28/2.8 and 24/2.8.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. firemist

    firemist TalkEmount Regular

    162
    Dec 4, 2015
    Here's a shot taken with my Minolta MC 55/f1.9 (yes, that is correct) on A6000. I don't think it's soft. A tad warm, maybe. Shot at f5.6

    _DSC1936.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. michelb

    michelb TalkEmount Veteran

    214
    Oct 27, 2013
    Greater Montreal area in Quebec, Canada
    Michel Brien
    16095647258_bf68a5b947_b.
    Album with MC ROKKOR-X ( late model with no HH suffix so it is from circa 1977-78 before they replaced it with the MD II model in 1978)
    Minolta MCX MC W.Rokkor-X 1:1.8 f=35mm

    36651131013_985c19cfd1_b.
    Album with MC W"ROKKOR-HH MC II version from about 1970 since it is a low serial number among the MC II lenses
    Minolta MC2 MC W.Rokkor-HH 1:1.8 f=35mm

    These are all out of Aperture jpg's with no PP
    All pictures with original lens shade and NO filter
    Many i voluntarily took at wide aperture and a smaller one ( see shutter speeds in EXIF for comparison, i usually use around F5.6 to F11 for general shooting)
    No artistic pretention, i was just enjoying taking pics with these antiques to see what would come out of them on a walk day.

    I also have a mid to late MCI ( lens body looks beaten and has scratches all over the body with even a license number scraped off ) but with pristine glass and i can not really see a difference with MC II except in very flare prone situations.
    14242529856_f0cdacabbe_b.
    I prefer the handling of the MC-X

    I had issues on some pics since one of my adapters does not allow infinity focus with most of my lenses and i did not realize this immediately. probably more obvious with the MC II pictures.

    I also have MD W.ROKKOR and Plain MD but i have not yet used them enough

    Overall impressions is that all are somewhat soft wide open.(depending on lighting and distance) and they are sharper at F2.8 than my 35mm F2.8 Rokkor's at 2.8
     
    Last edited: Sep 26, 2017
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Arutemu

    Arutemu TalkEmount Regular

    177
    Jun 11, 2015
    • Like Like x 6
  15. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Damn...Minolta color is soooo nice. I think the rendering is lovely on those images. I looked through your album as well. Nice stuff. I’d be thrilled if it performs like that.
     
  16. Arutemu

    Arutemu TalkEmount Regular

    177
    Jun 11, 2015
    I stand behind what I said about the lens. With one qualifier, which has to do with your reply. Namely, Minolta color. In my opinion and experience, if you shoot RAW, the color and rendering will be whatever you decide it to be in post.
     
  17. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Kevin
    Agreed, but I rarely shoot RAW