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

Thank you Ad . . .

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by TonyTurley, Jun 13, 2014.

  1. TonyTurley

    TonyTurley TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Apr 24, 2013
    West Virginia, USA
    . . . for your excellent web page compiling all of the photos and stats on your Minolta lens page. I spent many hours bouncing back and forth between your page and a couple of other Minolta lens pages while shopping on eBay for a legacy Minolta 135mm lens. I wanted an MD mount lens to use on my Pentax Q and my NEX, and I knew that there was a wide variation in features. I wanted the best lens at the lightest weight, especially since the little Q is not nearly as forgiving with an adapted lens as the NEX.

    I looked at a lot of listings; I even found a couple of lenses you don't list, an MC Tele Rokkor-PF 135/2.8 and an Auto Tele Rokkor-PG 135/2.8. It appears from my readings that beast was one of the earliest Minolta 135 lenses from around 1959; intriguing, but not what I was after. I also gave strong consideration to the MC Tele Rokkor-QD 135mm/3.5 due to its 4/4 design and the comments I'd read about it. In the end, it came down to an MD Tele Rokkor-X 135mm 1:3.5 and a pair of MD 135mm 1:3.5s. All were in very good condition, but the Tele Rokkor-X was in mint condition in the original packaging for only $40 USD, shipped. The fact that it is 20g lighter is icing on the cake. I did hesitate on the later lenses because some have claimed the 5/5 construction is not as "sharp" as the 4/4 construction of the 1:2.8 lenses, but I wonder if my eyes would even notice the difference. I also read that the coatings on the late model MD lenses were more flare resistant; I hope that is correct.

    I know it takes a lot of time to put together web sites like yours, so I just wanted to say thanks.

    Tony

    PS: The 135 on the Pentax Q gives an equivalent of 765mm. Makes the Pentax Red Dot Sight I bought come in handy. :)
     
    • Like Like x 5
  2. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Thank you for your kind words Tony, it's good to know that the work I put in is appreciated. The better contrast of the MD lenses compared to the earlier MC lenses is the reason you'll only find a few MC lenses on my site: I simply don't have that many of them. Of the 135mm lenses I prefer the plain MD 135/2.8 which is supposed to have a 5/5 construction because it's so much lighter than the earlier 4/4 lenses and is just as good in my experience. If there's a difference wide-open I'd never notice because I stop them down at least 1 stop to avoid the somewhat lower contrast and tendency of purple fringing wide-open. Of course the Pentax Q will greatly enlarge differences in sharpness between lenses, so you'll be one of the few people to find out how these lenses fare on it :).

    Edit: $40 for an MD Rokkor 135/2.8 looks like a great deal to me!
     
  3. TonyTurley

    TonyTurley TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Apr 24, 2013
    West Virginia, USA
    It is actually a 135/3.5, but still in mint condition. Prices were all over the place, and some were well over $100 USD.

    Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Not an expert like Ad, but since I daily follow the prices, the MD 135mm has a weird pricetag :D The f/3.5 can be had very cheap (I wouldn't spend more than $40 for a mint copy), while the f/2.8 version is at $80-100 on average and no need to see the prices for the legendary and rare f/2 version ($700-1000) :p
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. TonyTurley

    TonyTurley TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Apr 24, 2013
    West Virginia, USA
    I did see some f/2.8s in the $50-60 range, but they were the earlier MC versions. I even saw a couple in the $30-40 range, but I really wanted the much lighter MD version. Losing a stop of light doesn't bother me in this case.
     
  6. Hawkman

    Hawkman TalkEmount Top Veteran

    940
    Sep 10, 2013
    Virginia, USA
    Steve
    I'd like to chime in and add my own "thank you" to Ad for his excellent site. He, and some of the other Minolta aficionados here on the forum have been my inspiration - and an invaluable source of information and advice - on my legacy lens journey.

    I've found the Minolta legacy lenses to be consistently priced more "affordably" than most others and the performance does not disappoint. I regularly check Ad's site for information and insight into Minolta lenses, and it is largely because of Ad's insights that I now have both an MD Rokkor-X 28mm 2.8 and a MC Rokkor-X PG 50mm 1.4. Thank you Ad.

    It's also on his site's recommendation that I am keeping an eye out for a decent priced MD 100 F/4 Macro. The MD Celtic 135mm 3.5 in my collection I just grabbed as a $17 impulse buy when I got the MD 28mm... and at that price, well, it's a great addition. ;)




    Sent from TalkEmount app on iPad
     
    • Like Like x 2
  7. TonyTurley

    TonyTurley TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Apr 24, 2013
    West Virginia, USA
    My 135/3.5 arrived today. I'll post more in the sample images sub-forum, but I'm already impressed by the lens.

    Tony
     
    • Like Like x 1