This is a great review. This lens is quite the drop off from the Minolta 50mm 1.4, but for $15 bucks, not the end of the world. Nice to see another Maryland guy and Ellicott City recover from the flooding.
Thank you so much! Great to receive a comment from another Marylander! OEC is so different now that they are removing buildings to prevent future floods. But still one of my favorite places to go!
@steven1811I have the 50mm but was curious about this as it seems like it's significantly thinner and also curious about the 5mm wider lens. Curious to hear more about what you think the significant drop off between the two is!
@@geoffreybalasi4342 the 45mm is thin. Not quite a pancake lens, but it is very lightweight. I can only compare the 50mm to other lenses that I own. The 50mm has the sharpness of the Sears Auto 55mm 1.4 with the bokeh of the Leica Summitar. To me, the 50mm is magical. A top 10 vintage lens for sure.
Might I suggest that you look at the Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f1.8. That is one of my all time favorite lenses. Also a pancake lens, small light weight, but where as this Minolta MD Rokkor-X is not sharp wide open, the Konica lens is shockingly sharp wide open. It was considered by Photography Magazine, THE Sharpest lens they had reviewed at that time back in the late 70's- early 80's. It is really a a very fine lens. I use mine with a lens hood, but even without it, its fine, but it can flare. That was my gateway lens into Konica Hexanon AR lenses. As a group of lenses, its one of my favorite. The 50mm f1.4 and the older 58mm f1.4 are both amazing lenses as are the 135mm f3.2 and the 135mm f2.5. I'm still not sure which one is better. The 2.5 lens is obviously faster, but that 3.2 version is also very nice! And the classic and very common 50mm f1.7 shouldn't be passed on either. Another wickedly sharp old lens. Konica didn't get a lot of attention and ultimately stopped making cameras and lenses, then merged with Minolta, but back in the day before that merger, they were making some of the nicest lenses available. And now, with the advent of mirrorless cameras, we get to rediscover these lenses. I really love all my Konica Hexanon lenses.
Thank you for the watch and comment! The Konica 40mm F/1.8 is on my list to try! I've heard nothing but great things about it! I am very interested in the performance and want to see how it is firsthand. I'm also very curious about the Konica Hexanon AR 57mm F/1.2. Have you had any experience with it? I want to do a comparison of the Konica 57mm vs the Minolta "hawkeye" (since the Hawkeye has very quickly become one of my favorite lenses ever). Currently, I don't have any Konica glass. But I'll be on the lookout!
I think the konica has much more softness wide open. But as soon as you get it to 2.8, its golden. Like you said, flare control is just not good at any aperture...
Like a few others have mentioned, I am surprised by the softness of the lens at f/2. I have the Minolta MD 50mm f/2 and it is pretty darn sharp at f/2. Also, and I am not trying to be a troll, but I think yoy mean spherical aberration instead of halation, since halation is common to film cameras where particularly bright light reflects off of the film, then bounces off the rear element, back in to the film again (at least, that is how I understand, but I ain't no scientist). MAYBE there is halation caused by light reflecting off a digital sensor and then reflecting back off the rear element. Either way, I think the effect is somewhat similar, but I think halation is more pronounced / limited to the highlights, while SA would affect the entire luminance range of the image. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Thank you so much! And thank you for watching! I totally get that. I think the price would heavily factor. If you get a deal like we happened to stumble on, I’d say go for it. It does improve a lot at f2.8. But it all depends on price and value.
Interesting. I wonder how much variation there is between copies of this lens. In my usage, it's very sharp at f2.8 and f4. But f2 has a lot of character but is extremely soft. That's cool to know. I might try and pick up a second copy to compare. Thank you for watching!
On a copy without fungus like this one, it's sharp wide open. It's my walkaround lens on my 50r. It's better wide open than most vintage 50mm F1.8's or 1.4's.
This is obviously a very damaged copy of the 45/2. A good copy of this lens is very sharp wide open with none of the blooming you showed - which is not normal nor "part of the character of the lens" and is obviously caused by the amount of fungus inside. A normal copy just has a bit of softness in the corners. Wide open it's nowhere close to the image at 2:30. This Minolta 45mm F2 is frequently adapted to medium format cameras like Fujifilm GFX 50R or 100S - which house big 50 & 100MP sensors, which is clear evidence of its usability wide open and beyond. It sits on my 50r at this very moment. This particular lens you tested has either a misaligned lens element inside or it's purely the fungus messing the image quality up. Or both. I you review a lens with obvious faults and defects, make a disclaimer at the start of the video. But you never connected the bad results wide open to the fungus...
This is fair. I will give the concession that the fungus could have damaged the coatings of the lens and resulted in lower IQ and blooming. Perhaps I should have been a bit more assertive to the fact that this is not a pristine example of the lens. That said, for this copy of the lens, I stand by my tests. And I stand by the conclusion that it is a lens worth owning. I'll look into getting a pristine copy and doing a comparison. Thank you for the comment and the watch!
Nice review of one of my favorite lenses. Thanks!
Thank you! I appreciate the watch. It's quickly becoming one of my favorites too!
This is a great review. This lens is quite the drop off from the Minolta 50mm 1.4, but for $15 bucks, not the end of the world. Nice to see another Maryland guy and Ellicott City recover from the flooding.
Thank you so much!
Great to receive a comment from another Marylander! OEC is so different now that they are removing buildings to prevent future floods. But still one of my favorite places to go!
@@michaelmarshallphotography5515 I am going to have to check it out the next time I visit family in Catonsville
@steven1811I have the 50mm but was curious about this as it seems like it's significantly thinner and also curious about the 5mm wider lens. Curious to hear more about what you think the significant drop off between the two is!
@@geoffreybalasi4342 the 45mm is thin. Not quite a pancake lens, but it is very lightweight. I can only compare the 50mm to other lenses that I own. The 50mm has the sharpness of the Sears Auto 55mm 1.4 with the bokeh of the Leica Summitar. To me, the 50mm is magical. A top 10 vintage lens for sure.
Might I suggest that you look at the Konica Hexanon AR 40mm f1.8. That is one of my all time favorite lenses. Also a pancake lens, small light weight, but where as this Minolta MD Rokkor-X is not sharp wide open, the Konica lens is shockingly sharp wide open. It was considered by Photography Magazine, THE Sharpest lens they had reviewed at that time back in the late 70's- early 80's.
It is really a a very fine lens. I use mine with a lens hood, but even without it, its fine, but it can flare.
That was my gateway lens into Konica Hexanon AR lenses. As a group of lenses, its one of my favorite. The 50mm f1.4 and the older 58mm f1.4
are both amazing lenses as are the 135mm f3.2 and the 135mm f2.5. I'm still not sure which one is better. The 2.5 lens is obviously faster, but that 3.2 version is also very nice! And the classic and very common 50mm f1.7 shouldn't be passed on either. Another wickedly sharp old lens.
Konica didn't get a lot of attention and ultimately stopped making cameras and lenses, then merged with Minolta, but back in the day before that merger, they were making some of the nicest lenses available. And now, with the advent of mirrorless cameras, we get to rediscover these lenses. I really love all my Konica Hexanon lenses.
Thank you for the watch and comment! The Konica 40mm F/1.8 is on my list to try! I've heard nothing but great things about it! I am very interested in the performance and want to see how it is firsthand.
I'm also very curious about the Konica Hexanon AR 57mm F/1.2. Have you had any experience with it? I want to do a comparison of the Konica 57mm vs the Minolta "hawkeye" (since the Hawkeye has very quickly become one of my favorite lenses ever).
Currently, I don't have any Konica glass. But I'll be on the lookout!
I think the konica has much more softness wide open. But as soon as you get it to 2.8, its golden. Like you said, flare control is just not good at any aperture...
Nice lens! I paid $40 for mine in very good condition. Shooting on Micro 4/3 basically elimnates soft corners and vignetting
That's awesome! I am curious to test it on different crop sensors and see how the performance is impacted.
What camera are you shooting?
Like a few others have mentioned, I am surprised by the softness of the lens at f/2. I have the Minolta MD 50mm f/2 and it is pretty darn sharp at f/2. Also, and I am not trying to be a troll, but I think yoy mean spherical aberration instead of halation, since halation is common to film cameras where particularly bright light reflects off of the film, then bounces off the rear element, back in to the film again (at least, that is how I understand, but I ain't no scientist). MAYBE there is halation caused by light reflecting off a digital sensor and then reflecting back off the rear element. Either way, I think the effect is somewhat similar, but I think halation is more pronounced / limited to the highlights, while SA would affect the entire luminance range of the image. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it.
Nice video and presentation! I was considering buying this lens too, but seeing how soft it is at f2 makes me kinda think otherwise now.
Thank you so much! And thank you for watching!
I totally get that. I think the price would heavily factor. If you get a deal like we happened to stumble on, I’d say go for it. It does improve a lot at f2.8.
But it all depends on price and value.
This lens is full of fungus. Of course it blooms wide open. A normal copy is sharp wide open and used on sensors larger than full frame.
I use this lense on gfx camera and it’s very sharp at f2, you can almost see every hair on a persons face
Interesting. I wonder how much variation there is between copies of this lens. In my usage, it's very sharp at f2.8 and f4. But f2 has a lot of character but is extremely soft.
That's cool to know. I might try and pick up a second copy to compare.
Thank you for watching!
On a copy without fungus like this one, it's sharp wide open. It's my walkaround lens on my 50r. It's better wide open than most vintage 50mm F1.8's or 1.4's.
.incrível...legal
Thank you so much!
If you got that lens for $15 you got a deal.
Not bad for budget lens.
I definitely think it's a great lens for the money. And I'd be willing to pick it up for more!
I find I am very partial to the 45mm angle of view.
This is obviously a very damaged copy of the 45/2. A good copy of this lens is very sharp wide open with none of the blooming you showed - which is not normal nor "part of the character of the lens" and is obviously caused by the amount of fungus inside. A normal copy just has a bit of softness in the corners. Wide open it's nowhere close to the image at 2:30. This Minolta 45mm F2 is frequently adapted to medium format cameras like Fujifilm GFX 50R or 100S - which house big 50 & 100MP sensors, which is clear evidence of its usability wide open and beyond. It sits on my 50r at this very moment. This particular lens you tested has either a misaligned lens element inside or it's purely the fungus messing the image quality up. Or both. I you review a lens with obvious faults and defects, make a disclaimer at the start of the video. But you never connected the bad results wide open to the fungus...
This is fair. I will give the concession that the fungus could have damaged the coatings of the lens and resulted in lower IQ and blooming.
Perhaps I should have been a bit more assertive to the fact that this is not a pristine example of the lens.
That said, for this copy of the lens, I stand by my tests. And I stand by the conclusion that it is a lens worth owning.
I'll look into getting a pristine copy and doing a comparison.
Thank you for the comment and the watch!
The PF range of lenses is far better ....
I do really like my PF 58mm. Did they make a PF 45mm? If so, I would definitely be interested in comparing to this one.