Showcase Minolta MD 135mm 1:2.8

Discussion in 'Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase' started by addieleman, Mar 18, 2013.

  1. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    This is as much a tribute to peaking as to the performance of this 135mm lens. I went out on a practice mission to see how I'd get along with a set of primes (Sigma 19 and 30, Minolta MD Rokkor 50/1.4, MD 85/2, MD 135/2.8). When seeing birds in the pond I decided to see how peaking works with my MF lenses. I was amazed to see that I got a hit rate of well over 50 % in terms of nailing the sharpness, even when viewing at 100 %.

    All pictures taken at f/4 with the MD 135/2.8. BTW, the MD Tele Rokkor 135/2.8 lenses I have are just as good, but the two earliest models are significantly heavier.




    100 % crop
    • Like Like x 6
  2. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Wow really nice. How do they compare to the Celtic 3.5 135mm?
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Thanks! I don't have a Celtic 135/3.5 :frown:, so can't compare against it. My experience is that you have to stop down a Minolta MD 135/3.5 to f/5.6 to get really good performance, while a 135/2.8 only needs to be stopped down to f/4, so in practice you gain 1 stop with the faster lens. Celtic lenses are rumored to have cheaper coatings, but they offer the same lens design as their Rokkor(-X) counterparts and the few Celtics I have are just as good as the Rokkors, albeit sometimes with a different colour balance.
  4. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Very nice!!! Thanks ;)

    I was too after the 2.8 version but for now I have to live with my '79 MD (Tele Rokkor) 135 3.5 which I love for its compactness and lightweight but strangely my copy doesn't seem to peak very well (compared with my MD 50 1.7)...
  5. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Ad Dieleman
    Did you try to stop it down to f/5.6? Sometimes peaking works better then because the lens is sharper there.
  6. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Yeah I did (that's the aperture I have mostly use it 5.6-8). I think its copy specific...
  7. claude

    claude TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Jan 13, 2013
    Ottawa Canada
    Great looking lens. I have the MC Rokkor-PF 2.8. It is also quite sharp at 2.8 but very sharp at f4. But yes it is quite heavy.
  8. freddytto

    freddytto TalkEmount All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2011
    Puebla, Mexico
    well mate, wow amazing photos, something I like about the Rokkor is the sharpness and contrast it offers.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Damovich

    Damovich TalkEmount Regular

    Jun 6, 2014
    Mine is also really sharp, even wide open though its sweet spot sits at f/4.

    f2.8 - Sony A3000 s.o.o.c (click on the picture for 100% crop).

    Attached Files:

  10. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    Jun 16, 2014
    Wow - looks great! This is one of those lenses that i'm dying to use on a digital body. (Just picked up my NEX 3N and already I want to grab an A3000 or NEX 6) I've actually got THREE variations of this lens. Off the top of my head I've got a 4/4 "Rokkor-X 135 2.8," a 4/4 "Rokkor-QD 3.5" and then another Rokkor 2.8, i think, but I forget the lens/element composition. I've amassed a bunch of Rokkors that were either given to me or were picked up as part of a lot. Have to go through and weed out the gems. I'll probably be testing the 135 in the park on Friday (i'll post here if I get any good shots). Anyone have multiple versions of the 135 and like each of them for different reasons/subjects?