I think it's also important to judge these lenses by their times. In the late 60s and early 70s, you just would not have been using f/1.4 all that often because film was slower (200 still being considered "fast" at that time), and shutter speeds rarely went above 1/1000 for any camera (the mainstay Minolta line at this time, the SRT series, only went to 1/1000, with only the "pro" Minolta X series in the early 70s getting to 1/2000). The rationale in buying such a lens was to have that aperture if you needed it for low light, while also getting a lens that was likely sharper than its cheaper f/1.7 or f/2 counterparts across the entire focal and aperture range. Put simply, the lens was not designed to be at its best wide open, but stopped down. On those terms, this lens was, and still is a success (especially if you're shooting film).
I totally agree and thank you for reminding me/us. I should have, and will, mention this next time I post a review - my observations are solely concerned with how the lens performs on today's digital cameras. With no judgement on how they were designed to perform on film cameras. I used film cameras for many years/decades before digital, and seldom used my lenses wide open - unless the camera/lens/film couldn't handle the low light, or capture the speed of moving objects. And I didn't chase out of focus highlights/bokeh bubbles or geometric shapes, wide-open, like I do now!!
@@0action847 Or between lenses from the 30s and lenses from the late 50s. 30s and 40s glass tends to have more flaws in the glass lattice (bubbles, for instance). And of course the late 70s and onwards saw mass production of aspherical elements (previously a rarity) and floating elements as opposed to fixed groupings.
Slower film means you'd want 1.4 MORE often. Personally I have this lens from my grandma and have been using it recently with 400 speed HP5 a lot, and I can use 1.4 during the day pretty frequently. As long as it's not brightly sun lit in an open field (which is usually bad photography anyway). If I had 200 film even more so.
I love the hexagons, So vintage! I love the "messy" bokeh - it's perfect for creating out of this world dreamy compositions. It's not a documentary lens, it's an artistic lens with unique look that set's it apart from the modern lenses with their regular smooth output.
This was the kit lens with my Dad's SR-T 101; since that was my first proper SLR & a truly great combination for learning photo basics, I'm still a big fan of this one. I use it with my MFT gear nowadays as well & have learned to love its color rendering for macro work in particular. *If you're looking for other good Rokkors:* •the 28mm f/2.5 can do some nicely nebulous, thoriated-glass things •the 45mm f/2 is much better than its price suggests •the 50mm f/1.4 is just plain wonderful •the 85mm f/1.7 is supposed to be one of their best ever •the 135mm f/2.8 was produced for so long for good reason •the catadioptric telephotos are inspirational tools despite their very-short focus throws •the 70-210mm f/4 is as good as *any* other old zoom Have fun with Minolta... They're probably not going to stay so affordable for much longer!
Minolta and their Rokkors to me have a special character, personally, I love them and the images they produce. They all are unique, I'm talking about different lenses, and it is the variation between them that is tempting to me.
Here are time links to the different sections: 00:00 Introduction 00:53 Why did I buy the lens? 01:57 Specs 03:26 Wide open - the case for the prosecution 04:50 Stopped down performance 07:01 The case for the defence 10:15 Conclusions - a great lens or not?
@@GregorPQ Thank you! Here are links to my Flickr album for the 58mm f1.4: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307497529 ...and the Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 55mm f1.7: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307423083
Today I found this lens in my Grandfathers camera. My first photograph ever at 6 yo was with this lens. Can't wait to grab a mount for putting it on my a7iii ❤❤❤
You had EFCS enabled on the wide-open bokeh shots at around 4:16 , 4:42 , 5:30 , 7:32 , 8:21. The bokeh balls are all truncated at the bottom of the bokeh ball, a clear indication of EFCS on fast lenses in bright light. That's creating the "poor" rendering that you see - an artifact of fast shutter times and electronic first curtain shutter. Turn OFF EFCS and use all mechanical shutter or all electronic shutter to correct this issue and get the whole bokeh ball back. I personally love the bubble edge highlighted bokeh of the MC 58mm f/1.4. It's generally smooth with simple backgrounds but highlights really pop with defined bubble bokeh.
Yes! I’ve posted a Short video on this. I actually like the cut off bokeh balls in some compositions. I don’t see it as poor rendering - it’s a positive choice!
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, I had heard about problems with using the first electronic curtain but I had no idea what it could affect in that way. I am going to try again with a large number of Minoltas and Zuikos that I have using my A7RIII in mechanical shutter only.
I appreciate your methodology on this review. This was my first real vintage lens acquisition some 4 years ago, and I still grab the lens from time to time due to its overall lovely character. The build quality is quite impressive and it is a joy to use. When one is not trying to emphasize bokeh as the main event, I think it excels as a portrait lens. On my Sony a7iii, I have used it at a wedding with good results in indoor ambient lighting. Minolta has always been one of those curious systems that invites opposing viewpoints. Yet this lens and the MC 50mm Rokkor-X 50mm F1.4 are both interesting examples of Minolta’s unique position in the camera community, not to mention the highly coveted 58mm F1.2. As one that now shoots with a lot of other lenses from Nikon etc., I still keep a place in my heart for Minolta gear like this. Cheers!
...if this helps at all, here are a few of my photos taken with 55mm f1.7: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307423083 And photos from the 58mm f1.4: www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307497529
@@MysterDaftGame That's very kind of you. I might take you up on that offer in the summer. I'm still trying to work out what to do next with my channel. One of my videos (discussing how good old lenses are on digital cameras) has over 500,000 views. And my earlier bokeh video has nearly 400K views. On the other hand, my lens reviews have far fewer views, averaging around 10,000 views per video. So it make more sense to focus on general topics.
I have the MCii version and honestly can't fault it. You're absolutely right about it, i don't see its flaws as flaws at all but character that can be utilised. Out of around a dozen vintage lenses in my collection it is easily my favourite! Best £30 i've ever spent photographically!
Great to see your review. My Minolta 58 1.2 is my first vintage lens that I have adapted to my Sigma fp L. and I LOVE it. I was lucky enough to find one at a camera shop which had been overlooked and discounted. I look forward to seeing your review of the f1.2 when you inevitably get your hands on one. Mine has a little dust (as is expected of a lens this old) inside. I have wondered if this ads to the glow when shooting wide open? I am curious if it would be worth getting it professionally cleaned, or maybe getting the tools and cleaning it myself.
Personally, I don't mind a little dust, or even diffracted glow wide open. But what really bugs me is where the dust particles in the lens or on the sensor are big enough to show up in the sky etc., when the lens is stopped down. When I've tried to clean lenses myself I fear I've contributed more/new dust or smears than I removed (except when I'm dealing with fungus, and then it's essential to get rid of it...). Some lenses are far easier to open up than others, so I only open up lenses where there's a good UA-cam video on how to open and reassemble exactly the same lens. Don't know about the f1.2!
I have been here before and will help you from going through all the mounts. For vintage lenses you will either end up with Zeiss Contax/Yashica or Leica R. Leica R is going to cost you a lot more, but you will have to determine if paying that much for older designs is worth it. Zeiss Contax/Yashica will be the best compromise between vintage, price, and performance. With Minolta you should also try the latest MD versions that you can. Those were the best optically.
Another great review. I do highly recommend the Yashica Yashinon-ds 50mm f1.4 M42 mount it's cheap, very sharp, nice flares and very nice colour renditions.
I have been using this lens now with my Sony A7iv… not only for my personal shots but also when I am shooting with pro models . And I did not regret buying it. I use it more often now than my 35 GM lens. It’s all on my IG. ❤
I have this lens and agree with your analysis regarding the softness and how it sharpens up. You should try the Rokkor 2/45mm pancake lens. One of the sharpest lenses i have ever used.
Another great video Simon. I have the much newer 50mm f1.4 Rokkor-PG, which at one time was "glued" to my Fujis. Can't beat those incredible vintage lenses. In particular, I find the Olympus lenses "in tune" with Fuji X camera.
The 50mm PG is, indeed, a wonderful optic! My copy is an MC Rokkor-X PG model; apparently if you can find one with all those markings it should have both the all-metal build quality of the older Rokkors but also some of Minolta's most advanced coatings (as evidenced by the late-MC-stage "Rokkor-X" US-market labeling.) Once the MD designation started, more plastic parts started showing up in all of the Rokkors.
I have an MC Rokkor PG 50 1.4 and it's true that wide open it was often a little soft and odd in terms of rendering on my Sony a6600. I haven't used it in a year since I switched to the Canon 5D line that won't take the minolta mount, but I'd like to try that lens out once again. I'm sure that in the right conditions it can look uniquely beautiful like what you showed in your video. Thanks for making these reviews, as a vintage lens addict I enjoy watching😅 I'd be interested in you trying the Nikon F mount on these old fantastically built pre-ai lenses (hills and valleys focus ring). I have a 105 F2.5 pre-ai and I was really impressed by the images and build.
I have the same Rokkor 50 1.4 and I absolutely love it. Not only for the optical quality, but also for the build quality. It's such a pleasure to use that lens.
Really excited on hearing your opinion on this one, since it's one of the first that I settled on buying. I think your critique is on point, and that "dreamy" and "glowy" nature wide open could be sweet and/or annoying. I settled on it with the same reason: I want a lens with character. And I had a lot of fun! You comparison really gave me many ideas too. I might try f2/2.8 more from now on!
That's the thing with Minolta lenses, they are full of character and are an acquired taste. I love my MD II 35mm f/1.8 and MD I 85mm f/1.7 ! I haven't tried any MC lense yet, that will eventually happen 😊
Another excellent lens review - presenting the case, for and against with supporting evidence. I enjoyed the evidence - being your wonderful selection of images. I also very much enjoy you command of the English language. I guess that I was one of the ‘compellingly vociferous advocates’. I own this same lens, and at the moment it is my only Rokkor lens. Though I recall from years ago that Minolta was very popular amongst the amateur enthusiasts. They manufactured a wide range of high quality lenses, similar to Pentax or some of the other Japanese brands you listed. They have a few ‘halo’ lenses that you already have an eye on. It’s an lovely lens to use and no qualms about shooting wide open. Has some wonderful flares, Bokeh and glowing highlights that are the hallmarks of character filled vintage lenses.
I stumbled apond this absolutely gem of a lense sometime ago. Not realizing what I had.I didn't pay it much attention. Until one day I used it for some end of a shoot portraits. Best pics of the shoot, and many Oh my goodnesses later. I now have two copies 😊
I won a bid on a minolta 50mm 1.2 and the 1.4 as well. I have yet to try them out because they have yet to arrive. I also suggest trying out the Zeiss planar 50mm 1.4
I bought one off the internet, and was only mildly impressed. I then took it apart and cleaned the optics (there are videos on the internet) and things improved markedly. I generally shoot at f2. For me, ay least, that seems to be the magic number. Reasonably sharp, but still with the interesting bokeh
Bokeh is related to the ratio of the distance between the subject and the background from the lens. When the background is far enough to be blurred, but not far enough to be obliterated, then it can be jittery and busy. I think the examples you gave were demonstrations of this.
Hey Simon i got my 58mm f1.4 Rokkor today. I do like it but not as much as the smc 50mm f1.4, the Pentax has a way better focus, more precise, the Minolta is a little stiff and not as buttery smooth as the Pentax IMO. Now as far as bokeh, i prefer the Pentax again, but over all sharpness goes to the Minolta, but there both good lenses.
this reminds me of my Oreston. I really love some of the shots I get with it. Stopped down it gets quite sharp. The bokeh and highlights are another story. Sometimes the bokeh is magical. Sometimes it's a mess. The problem with the Oreston is that once you stop down by just one stop, highlights turn into stopsign shaped bokeh balls, similar to this Minolta. Wide open I capture some amazing images sometimes. But the hit ratio is something like 15%. Certain compositions that would work on a Helios or Takumar simply end up a mess on the Oreston. So it really only works for particular portraits and such where I can control the distance between subject and background better.
Great video, I have always enjoyed the image quality and affordability of Minolta glass.I gave away my MC 58mm because the rear element collided with my speedbooster, but now that I shoot adapted full-frame I miss it quite a bit! When going for sharpness I usually grab an MD 45mm f2, but if I want to shoot portrait or have nice bokeh I'll reach for the MD 50mm f1.2. It's my go-to lens but unfortunately my copy sometimes exhibits Petzval swirl, I'm not too sure if that's a flaw or a feature but it's definitely not for everyone.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!! Really wonderful to see this lens getting some love and attention! And of all of my many vintage lenses, it really has a special place in my heart. Good also to see such a measured and balanced case for what is after all a 50 year old analogue tool with a combination of flaws and strengths, and I’d agree with all your points for both sides. Especially the point about the aperture blades being curved enough to mitigate the shape of the bokeh bubbles once stopped down a little… I actually really admire the bulbous hexagonal shapes when they do appear, although such reactions are subjective. For me once one has weighed up the pros and cons, it’s the emotional response that you’re left with in the experience of using a lens and also crucially with the results that make a lens become a favourite or just a ‘meh!’. And whilst there are certainly results such as the once you’ve shown here that end up on the cutting room floor, the keepers for me just have ‘something’ that make my mouth water. I’m also left to reflect that in any creative process that I’m often looking for ‘happy accidents’ where something happens that I don’t expect, some dose of imperfection that sprinkles magic dust instead of disaster on an image. Of course such imperfections can look wrong or just plain ‘bad’ but when they work… ooh-lala! One tip I’ll give to people to maximise the joy factor of the 58mm f1.4 (and other fast lenses too) is not to forget that if you like the softest, largest bokeh it can produce but are not impressed enough by the wide open sharpness, then there’s always the choice of taking a rapid second shot of the same composition at of f2 or f2.8 to combine in a stacked image to achieve the best of both worlds. I’d also stress that for portraits, the wide open softness really is a flattering advantage to most of us gnarled and wrinkly subjects :) and also wanted to flag up that although it is called a 58mm, it has a focal length closer to 61mm. This may explain that when compared to my Minolta 58mm f1.2 version, a scene is rendered a little larger but also the bokeh bubbles are not rendered so very much smaller than the larger aperture lens. For those interested in exploring the more expensive f1.2 version, I would say that it’s another beautiful old tool with its’ own kind of magic and qualities (as well as flaws thank heavens) but don’t expect it to be sharp wide open either and it’s a fair bit larger and heavier. The MCIII version has better coatings too (I had an MCII on that did render quite flat) but this is another area where technical improvements can lead to less interesting ‘character’. I’ve heard many suggest that it’s a better lens shot at f2 as seems to be one conclusion here for the f1.4 version, and bokeh on both lenses does become smoother when stopped down a bit with sharper focus detail. But for me, part of the magic of fast glass is in the way that mid-frame and corners ‘fall apart’ ever so slightly when shot wide open and the way that the slightly contorted details in the outer image frame the central focussed area… it’s almost as if one is teetering on the edge of the lenses optical limits, with the lens just about holding everything together :) Anyway, clearly I’m in the advocate camp for the Minolta 58mm f1.4, proudly biased in its’ favour of its many qualities despite not being blind to its’ shortcomings too. And at current values, it’s an absolute Billy-bargain, so much so I’ve bought a second back-up copy… just in case! Keep up the great work Simon and hit me up whenever you’re ready to try the legendary Hawk-eye!!!
Hi Henry, Thank you so much for your kind words and for pushing me to get this lens. I've absolutely no regrets at all - a great value buy, and such an interesting lens. And thank you also for your comments and observations here - I agree with them all. I'll be trying your stacking suggestion. I'll be in touch in the second week of July about your offer (can't wait!). Kind regards, Simon
Definitely try the Olympus 50mm f1.4. I think the sharpness will surprise you. My copy truly amazed me, and was on my camera for months. Lot's of fun with that lens.
Thanks for your review! I have a Minolta MC Rokkor PG f1.4 50mm. Presently it’s mounted to my SRT-201. I also adapt it to my Sony a6000. In both cases, to me, the lens produces wonderful results. Love to use it.
Great review! Way back in my Minolta SRT-201 days I had the 50mm f/1.7 (or was it an f/1.8?); a high-school freshman couldn't afford the f/1.4! I'd love to see you review of the Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2. It's one of my favorite vintage lenses. Zenography (I believe) described it as 'perfectly flawed'. Best wishes from shadowphoto!
I have two of these. One I've gotten with a "junk" camera and another I bought outright. I haven't watched yet but am curious to see what you have to say.
I had this lens until very recently. I bought it for peanuts since it required repairs. A completely stuck, oiled up aperture and a heavily bent front filter thread. I repaired it and proceeded to try it out but it was too soft wide open compared to my other f/1.4 standard lenses, so I sold it. If I need to shoot at f/2 for usable images, there's little point in keeping this.
Hello Simon! I'm now subscribed. I have been a fan for a number of years as we share an admiration - and collector mania - for M42 and now even Minoltas. My practice is shooting Video with a Black Magic 4k, thus this review has guided me to stop down and dedicate this lens for longer shots.. Thank You. Note... This Minolta design has been used by new Chinese makers of the Zhongyi Mitakon 0.95 lenses. They combine this glass design with Lens Turbo Speed booster design as one! On another note, what is your call on the, Jena Tessar 50mm 2.8? I have an old silver one, it seems kind of cool here on the first outing. Once again from a long time fan and new subscriber, Thank You.
Many thanks for subscribing and this interesting information. The Tessar is a good lens stopped down. Wide-open (and I'm sure the lens was not optimised or designed for a lot of wide open photography), I've not so keen on Tessar bokeh. I've recently been trying a Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Xenar 50mm f2.8. This is a West German Tessar design lens, and it's a class above the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar.
I like the slight hexagonal bokeh on f2 and f2.8 personally. I prefer Konica Hexanon lenses because their aperture blades maintain a curvature on the edges of the bokeh.
I have the MC 58 1.2 PG along with the matching MC 50 1.4 PG. I absolutely love them. The 58 isn’t super sharp at 1.2. But, I love the bokeh wide open. However, stopping down to 2 or 2.8 it gets incredibly sharp.
The lens definitely has character. I wonder how it performs compared to the newer MC and MD rokkors? I personally only have the Plain (non rokkor) MD Minolta 50mm f/1.7, though plasticy in build design, it performs well for a lens I got for $15. It is a sleeper. Hopefully prices don’t skyrocket due to this video. Great review.
I also got an MD 50/1.7 aside from my PF 58/1.4. Haven't used that a lot, but I think it is very light and comparative to its heavier brothers, good for an all-around walk-around. Also another blogger had a review on a set of different 50s, and in which the MD is the best in contrast and color in my eyes. At the rise of a boom of old lenses, these 1.7s really are hidden gems, cost-to-performance wise.
I have the Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58mm f1.4 AND the MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 I prefer my MD every time - although it is 50mm and not 58mm (so keep that in mind). It's a sharper, much more reliable lens. I prefer the look of it also? Almost to the point that I feel guilty never using the PF. It's just a smoother experience. THAT BEING SAID, the PF does have a lot more character. Almost too much. The MD is unique and the bokeh is incredible, but if I had to film a dream-sequence I'd use the PF. It's like the 58 PF is closer to the Helios-44 in unique look than the MD is. I hope that makes sense.
@@pbft.j Yeah, that is what I assumed from this and other posts on the internet. The older Minoltas are the best built and have the most character but lack the sharpness, and flare/CA control of the MD rokkors.
@@rh9909 The Minolta MD 50mm f1.7, though some UA-camrs have made videos, still seems to be a really cheap. It’s build quality seems to steer people away but the optics are great. As you said a hidden gem.
Thank you for making this video! I've been thinking about getting this lens for a few weeks, but now I'm not so sure. I recently got a Minolta 55mm f1.8 with 8 aperture blades that I use with film. I haven't seen the results yet, but I'm now thinking I won't gain much by getting the 58mm f1.4. Looking forward to your comparison with the 55mm f1.7!
I also own one of these! I rarely use it. I prefer my Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 over it every time. I'm a professional videographer, in which I can usually use unique film-like lenses. I NEVER take this lens on even the most creative of jobs. However, I like to have it in my collection because sometimes I just LOVE the dreamy 58. It's like my preferred alternative to the Helios-44. The bokeh is messy and delicious. It's one of my favorites to have on my camera when I'm shooting for myself and the shot isn't critical. It's about trust. I don't trust this lens. I love it, it just takes a little extra care to get everything out of it. --- ALSO, there's something to be said about this model. I read somewhere that the manufacture country of origin is incredibly important. Like many lenses of this time period, the differences in soviet manufacturing standards result in essentially 2 different models of this lens (although they're the same model on paper) I don't remember how to tell.. I think it's something to do with serial numbers. I believe that the more rare soviet version is leagues beyond in quality. Take this with a grain of salt. I only own this version so I cannot speak for both. That's why I bought mine in the first place. - also I feel like the lens coating is radioactive? - It's been a while since I did a deep dive on this model. Most online sellers do not know that this matters so they both go for the same cheap price. I'd love to have a comparison between the two in the style of your video! You should look into it.
@@StanleyKubick1 I'm not sure why people keep saying that. Mine is all metal. So it's not a material thing, right? I know that newer models of MD had plastic housing. but I have the first generation of the MD 50 1.4 which is an all metal build and incredibly solid. I don't see how it could be any better in build quality. That being said, I've never had one of the plastic ones in my hands so it's difficult for me reference my MD. It's absolutely the same tank of a metal lens housing as my older PF. Same in build quality, anyway.
An interesting and well-made vlog as usual, Simon, but after seeing the list of lenses you considered before getting the Minolta, I'm thinking you might have made a better choice. Are you familiar with Schneider Kreuznach? Though I've been taking pictures and collecting gear for fifty years, it's only recently that I've tried the SK lenses, a 38mm Xenar (Tessar design) and a 45mm Radionar (a triplet) and have been very impressed with both though the triplet does often require more image processing. I've just purchased a set of three SK lenses in DKL mount, a 50mm Xenon f1.9, a 35mm Curtagon f2.8 and a 135mm Tele-Xenar f4 with the Instammatic body for a nice price. The Xenon is what particularly interests me, though the Curtagon also might see some use. Cheers!
Ha. You tease. It wasn't an easy choice, but I'm very happy with my choice. (And "it's not over yet" with other lenses). The Minolta 58mm f1.4 is the kind of imperfect lens I like, and it was rather cheap. Have fun with your Schneider lenses - I'll be very interested to see what you make of them. I know them reasonably well, but don't own any. However, I've not come across the Radionar 45mm. Right now I'm playing with a new triplet lens and enjoying the experience! All the best, Simon
Have a bunch of Minolta stuff and it's the colours that I appreciate. They look "expensive" for some reason - think glossy Sunday supplement. Even extends into the AF series range from the 80's.
I do own this lens, although not perfect I think it's a great lens. Also the price, very affordable lens ... maybe they've gone up in price in the last 2 years but I remember when purchasing it 2 years ago, it was quite affordable
Great review and video! I’ve owned this lens for a few years and have always loved its character wide open. I had a hard time articulating why though. Your video finally made sense to the areas where the lens excels and has weaknesses. Keep up the great work!
¡Gran episodio! Gracias por todo el trabajo duro que pones en estos videos. El contenido informativo y entretenido es la razón principal por la que veo y disfruto de UA-cam. Viva El Rokkor!
The softness should be used for appropriate types of shot. I see a lot of 'dreamy' flower photography on Instagram, and the really good ones are VERY rarely sharp in any area. They just employ a kind of relative sharpness where the principal subject is vaguely in focus compared to the bokeh soaked whole. Dreamy photos really don't work so well with any absolute sharp areas. Cheers, good review as always. I'll probably stick with my 44-2 though. I love that lens.
Hey Simon, lovely video, as always. I can't seem to find the follow-up video you mentioned, between this lens and the f1.7 50mm, but I take it that if I have that lens already, it's not worth getting this one too?
Thank you! I still haven't made a video comparing my 55mm f1.7 to this lens. Personally, I don't think it's worth getting both, as I enjoy the f1.4 so much. However, some owners do seem to prefer the bokeh from the 55/1.7, for it's smoothness. I prefer the more chaotic bokeh from the 58/1.4. My copy of the 55/1.7 was so cheap (£25) I bought it anyway, since I'd invested in the adapter for my Sony!
Thank you for the video! Vintage lenses are very popular right now. I want to purchase this lens for black and white portraits. I think the soft image of this lens is good for this.
and after seeing the video I can completely agree with everything you said. I love it because at 1.4 is barely usable, which works for me since I do portraits and people want to have blurry skin anyway, and if I ever want a more serious sharpness I just stop down to f2 and get good round bokeh and enough depth of field. sadly my copy is a bit scratched so it's even softer.
I had this lens for my GFX and it fully covers the sensor with no hard vignetting - and I remember using it at f2.0 and beyond but never at f1.4 because of its "glow" - and it yielded very nice results. But it has noticeable field curvature that got even worse on the GFX edges and corners, which is why I sold it in the end.
@@Simonsutak I'm pretty sure it was the second version - but just to re-iterate, the curvature was only a real issue on the corners of the GFX sensor, so no real issue for 35mm full frame!
I only use this lens when I think I really need that much light. If I think I can get away with less I use a Helios 44M-4 or other Helios lens. I need to get this one out more, your video makes me think I haven't given it a fair chance.
I have a same lens..but unfortunately there are many scratches on front element and the overall condition of the lens is not good. But I really love your review of vintage lenses... thanks for being a vintage lens reviewer.
It is very rare for a lens of this vintage to be sharp at this aperture, but stop them down a little and they came into their sweet spot. That's where each vintage lens should be compared with others, at their sweet spot. Slower standard lenses in the 2.8 range were also not at their best until stopped down a little, so a 1.4 lens was far better at 2.8 than a 2.8 lens was. That's where lens speed came in. Capture a shot with available light. I bought my SRT with its 58mm 1.4 in the mid 1960s to replace my SR3 with a 50mm 1.7. I would not say the 1.4 was a big improvement over the 1.7 in any way and If faced with purchasing either of them new again based on my experience I would buy the 1.7. Actually I think I would forgo both and use my 45mm f2. a little secret wonder.
you could do this with so many lenses - and i hope you do! as much as i love bokeh, i'm not very interested in it when i go shoot. having said that, i have amassed a collection of fast 50's for the sole purpose of bokeh that i never get around to comparing. it's nice to have someone else - a "bokeh pro" to check it out instead. thank you.
Many thanks for your kind words. I wish I could do more reviews, and produce them faster. I wish I could clone myself and produce all the reviews at the same time; all the reviews I'd like to do. And me and my clones could go out for a walk with multiple cameras and lenses and shoot the same scenes for comparison. (And perhaps you wish this too!!!).
The appeal of the lens is it's impressionistic quality wide open. It's not about detail as it is a feeling, or a mood. If I have to get the center sharper I'll stop down and then combine that with the wide open. The lens gives me ideas.
Is it possible to tell if a lens swirls from a review if it is not something the reviewer looked for? I was looking at a particular lens that exhibited really cats-eye bokeh except for the center. The lens is the 7artisans 25mm f0.95, it was released in 2021 so there wasn't much testing for this effect. I was hoping that in the pursuit of the f0.95 aperture, Chinese lens manufacturers would sacrifice sharpness and maybe allow for bokeh balls to swirl.
There are some new swirly lenses, including Lensbaby. And the Chinese do seem to looking at making a few lenses that try to recreate "old fashioned" bokeh effects. My experience of testing swirly lenses is that the shape of the cat's eyes helps in part to give a sense of swirl. I've looked at this in a number of videos - here's one video that has a section on comparing a swirly lens versus a non swirly lens looking at out of focus highlights. ua-cam.com/video/pvuWIAkV-qI/v-deo.html
Thank you for another stellar review! I like the approach you took with this one! You built a case all the while remaining neutral! The single issue I have with this impeccable review is that know I want this lens! The best part is at least this lens is within my budget! Thank you from The Novice Photographer 😂! Update: I just purchase this lens today!
This was very helpful. I've been looking at Rokkor lenses recently, hoping to add something different to my collection. From your samples I would say the bokeh is a bit too busy for me. It reminds me of my Revuenon 55mm 1.2 so I already have something like that. I was thinking that this might have cleaner bokeh, like the Revuenon toned down a bit. But it doesn't look like it. If you are looking at other lenses to test, I would be interested in the ROKKOR 85mm F1.7.
A very interesting review Simon, and I have always found Minolta equipment excellent. Am I right in thinking that it was Minolta who made the Leica CL camera?. I would have added the Carl Zeiss Jena 'Prakticar' 50mm f1.4 lens, (version 1 or 2), to this lens list.
Interestingly, I went on a walk last week with a friend who was using a Nikon AIS 50mm f1.2 on his camera. He likes the lens at lot, but wasn't really over-the-top enthusiastic about it. I think he prefers his Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 T*.
Nice content! I am wondering what a Leica lens is like now.. I still think old is gold, not nonsense, after all new technology has to grow from acorns, not buttons.
Your review was the ‘decider’ on pushing the button on this lens. Got it this evening and it is pristeen - except for a large speck on the inside. One that stared walking round and has legs. Have you ever heard of an insect trapped in a lens 😳
Sorry to read this. I don't have any lenses myself with insects trapped inside, but I occasionally see lenses on ebay where the seller "owns up" to their lens having a dead insect on the glass inside. It makes you wonder - if an insect can crawl inside a lens, just how much dust can also get in over the years. Hopefully, the insect won't show up in wide open or partially stopped down shots, and stopped right down the silhouette could make for some creative opportunities. (My wife has asked me to see the glass half full, not half empty, for one of my new year's resolutions).
It is a beautifully made lens and looking forward to trying it as soon as the adapter arrives. Any chance of a comparison\exploration review of some helicoid adapters? They look very interesting but not sure on the differences. Happy New Year@@Simonsutak
Maaf saya tidak tahu karena saya belum pernah menggunakan kamera itu. Anda dapat memeriksa situs ini untuk adaptor: www.kentfaith.com/lens-mount-adapters
Topaz Labs Sharpen AI and other similar programs can make the wide open sharpness on this lens go up significantly in post. It is like the lens is sharp under the softness and a sharpening program can bring that out. Now, such programs can of course also help many other lenses as well, but I find such programs and especially Sharpen AI to work very well with this lens. Another matter: There is no MD-mount. The mount is called SR-mount and nothing else. Name comes from the first body, the SR-2 (yeah one can wonder why they didn't start at SR-1 but that model came later) . The SR-2 came in 1958. Auto, MC and MD are lens series. I know that every adapter maker writes wrong and claims their adapter is for MD. As you already mentioned MC stands for meter coupling which came in 1966 (with the legendary SR-T 101) and when MD came later Minolta introduced aperture control from the body. No adapter can do that so it doesn't make sense to write MD on the adapters from any point. One can compare to Nikon F-mount that came in 1959. They also had different lens series with added on functionality like AI-S etc, but there everyone seems to say correct. This wrong labelling with MD is just like an urban legend now that seems impossible to stop.
May be not the greatest, but it's sharp and well defined stepping from F2.8. So, for me " more great " than not. Bokeh it's a question of personal feeling... Probably not the best, but surely a GOOD bokeh and a nice blur ! - Nice Review !
Hello Simon! So, I am a bit confused because you say that the MC2 starts at 5064519 but my copy is 5109*** and it does not have the „waves” on it. It is a flat design. My question is: Is my copy a mc2 with a flat design or a mc1 with a bigger serial number? Thank you
Hi, I'm not an expert on Minolta serial numbers I'm afraid. The serial number information I quoted in the video was taken from internet searches. I've searched on-line for a while and can't find the answer to your question. Hopefully, you will have more luck than me. (I should add that I have a Takumar lens whose serial number and design is out of synch with all published serial numbers/designs, so these things do happen!).
Thank you for giving my question a part of your time. I guess the best comparison I can make is to buy a legit mc2 in the future and test em’ out. Till then, I have a contradiction of a lens! Happy holidays to you and your family! Cheers!
I’ve enjoyed using the 58mm f/1.4 for years. :) Here’s a music video I made in part with it. ua-cam.com/video/YMr27h-coro/v-deo.html That’s from around a decade ago where some of the shots were done wide-open with that lens on a GH2. I worked with Joanna St. Claire on both on the music and the video and that sort of dreamy and soft look wide open was just what we were looking for in those shots and it cut together surprisingly well with the RED Scarlet shots on a much more expensive cinema lens.
I use this lens for 80 percent of my photos. The version with the little arm is a bit sharper, but the arm keeps breaking off. This lens is absolutely amazing.
Great review. I have had a MC 58mm 1.4 II like yours for several years and also use it on a Sony A7 series body. I love the vintage rendering and solid sharpness it offers. I usually shoot mine at f/2 or F/2.8. If I do shoot it wide open I usually do so with the intent to convert to black and white. I also use it on my Minolta XD-11 35mm body and when coupled with film it really shines.
![Messerschmitt Me 262 - Himmel über Deutschland | Jagdzeit | Cinematic Momente | IL-2 Sturmovik [4K]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/y_fIiu5T09Q/mqdefault.jpg)
I think it's also important to judge these lenses by their times. In the late 60s and early 70s, you just would not have been using f/1.4 all that often because film was slower (200 still being considered "fast" at that time), and shutter speeds rarely went above 1/1000 for any camera (the mainstay Minolta line at this time, the SRT series, only went to 1/1000, with only the "pro" Minolta X series in the early 70s getting to 1/2000). The rationale in buying such a lens was to have that aperture if you needed it for low light, while also getting a lens that was likely sharper than its cheaper f/1.7 or f/2 counterparts across the entire focal and aperture range. Put simply, the lens was not designed to be at its best wide open, but stopped down. On those terms, this lens was, and still is a success (especially if you're shooting film).
Also people seem to group all vintage lenses together but there is a huge difference between a lens made in the 60's and a lens made in the 80's.
I totally agree and thank you for reminding me/us. I should have, and will, mention this next time I post a review - my observations are solely concerned with how the lens performs on today's digital cameras. With no judgement on how they were designed to perform on film cameras.
I used film cameras for many years/decades before digital, and seldom used my lenses wide open - unless the camera/lens/film couldn't handle the low light, or capture the speed of moving objects. And I didn't chase out of focus highlights/bokeh bubbles or geometric shapes, wide-open, like I do now!!
@@0action847 Or between lenses from the 30s and lenses from the late 50s. 30s and 40s glass tends to have more flaws in the glass lattice (bubbles, for instance). And of course the late 70s and onwards saw mass production of aspherical elements (previously a rarity) and floating elements as opposed to fixed groupings.
@@Simonsutak I do apologize if I came off as harsh up above. Was not my intent.
Slower film means you'd want 1.4 MORE often. Personally I have this lens from my grandma and have been using it recently with 400 speed HP5 a lot, and I can use 1.4 during the day pretty frequently. As long as it's not brightly sun lit in an open field (which is usually bad photography anyway). If I had 200 film even more so.
I love the hexagons, So vintage! I love the "messy" bokeh - it's perfect for creating out of this world dreamy compositions. It's not a documentary lens, it's an artistic lens with unique look that set's it apart from the modern lenses with their regular smooth output.
This was the kit lens with my Dad's SR-T 101; since that was my first proper SLR & a truly great combination for learning photo basics, I'm still a big fan of this one. I use it with my MFT gear nowadays as well & have learned to love its color rendering for macro work in particular.
*If you're looking for other good Rokkors:*
•the 28mm f/2.5 can do some nicely nebulous, thoriated-glass things
•the 45mm f/2 is much better than its price suggests
•the 50mm f/1.4 is just plain wonderful
•the 85mm f/1.7 is supposed to be one of their best ever
•the 135mm f/2.8 was produced for so long for good reason
•the catadioptric telephotos are inspirational tools despite their very-short focus throws
•the 70-210mm f/4 is as good as *any* other old zoom
Have fun with Minolta... They're probably not going to stay so affordable for much longer!
Minolta and their Rokkors to me have a special character, personally, I love them and the images they produce.
They all are unique, I'm talking about different lenses, and it is the variation between them that is tempting to me.
Here are time links to the different sections:
00:00 Introduction
00:53 Why did I buy the lens?
01:57 Specs
03:26 Wide open - the case for the prosecution
04:50 Stopped down performance
07:01 The case for the defence
10:15 Conclusions - a great lens or not?
Do you have a link for the photos on flickr?
Lovely, painterly images, btw.
And a great review!
@@GregorPQ Thank you! Here are links to my Flickr album for the 58mm f1.4:
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307497529
...and the Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 55mm f1.7:
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307423083
Today I found this lens in my Grandfathers camera. My first photograph ever at 6 yo was with this lens. Can't wait to grab a mount for putting it on my a7iii ❤❤❤
Great! It's a fun lens to use on the Sony.
You had EFCS enabled on the wide-open bokeh shots at around 4:16 , 4:42 , 5:30 , 7:32 , 8:21. The bokeh balls are all truncated at the bottom of the bokeh ball, a clear indication of EFCS on fast lenses in bright light. That's creating the "poor" rendering that you see - an artifact of fast shutter times and electronic first curtain shutter. Turn OFF EFCS and use all mechanical shutter or all electronic shutter to correct this issue and get the whole bokeh ball back. I personally love the bubble edge highlighted bokeh of the MC 58mm f/1.4. It's generally smooth with simple backgrounds but highlights really pop with defined bubble bokeh.
Yes! I’ve posted a Short video on this. I actually like the cut off bokeh balls in some compositions. I don’t see it as poor rendering - it’s a positive choice!
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge, I had heard about problems with using the first electronic curtain but I had no idea what it could affect in that way. I am going to try again with a large number of Minoltas and Zuikos that I have using my A7RIII in mechanical shutter only.
I appreciate your methodology on this review. This was my first real vintage lens acquisition some 4 years ago, and I still grab the lens from time to time due to its overall lovely character. The build quality is quite impressive and it is a joy to use. When one is not trying to emphasize bokeh as the main event, I think it excels as a portrait lens. On my Sony a7iii, I have used it at a wedding with good results in indoor ambient lighting. Minolta has always been one of those curious systems that invites opposing viewpoints. Yet this lens and the MC 50mm Rokkor-X 50mm F1.4 are both interesting examples of Minolta’s unique position in the camera community, not to mention the highly coveted 58mm F1.2. As one that now shoots with a lot of other lenses from Nikon etc., I still keep a place in my heart for Minolta gear like this. Cheers!
am considering the minolta 55/1.7 myself so i cant wait for that comparison video
...if this helps at all, here are a few of my photos taken with 55mm f1.7:
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307423083
And photos from the 58mm f1.4:
www.flickr.com/photos/95859572@N06/albums/72177720307497529
Owning a MC Rokkor-PG 58mm f/1.2, The experience wide open and stopped down is pretty much the same but "a bit more" for wide open shots !
Thank you. But this doesn't help my addictions.
@@Simonsutak I feel you, buying it didn't helped mine !
Although At one point, if you wish to review one without having to buy a copy, I can lend you mine for a couple of weeks !
@@MysterDaftGame That's very kind of you. I might take you up on that offer in the summer. I'm still trying to work out what to do next with my channel. One of my videos (discussing how good old lenses are on digital cameras) has over 500,000 views. And my earlier bokeh video has nearly 400K views. On the other hand, my lens reviews have far fewer views, averaging around 10,000 views per video. So it make more sense to focus on general topics.
I enjoyed this video ALMOST as much as I love shooting my version of this lens (at F2, of course ;) )
Thank you, as always. Your work is appreciated.
Yes... f2 is where this lens should be used!
I have the MCii version and honestly can't fault it. You're absolutely right about it, i don't see its flaws as flaws at all but character that can be utilised. Out of around a dozen vintage lenses in my collection it is easily my favourite! Best £30 i've ever spent photographically!
Great to see your review. My Minolta 58 1.2 is my first vintage lens that I have adapted to my Sigma fp L. and I LOVE it. I was lucky enough to find one at a camera shop which had been overlooked and discounted. I look forward to seeing your review of the f1.2 when you inevitably get your hands on one. Mine has a little dust (as is expected of a lens this old) inside. I have wondered if this ads to the glow when shooting wide open? I am curious if it would be worth getting it professionally cleaned, or maybe getting the tools and cleaning it myself.
Personally, I don't mind a little dust, or even diffracted glow wide open. But what really bugs me is where the dust particles in the lens or on the sensor are big enough to show up in the sky etc., when the lens is stopped down.
When I've tried to clean lenses myself I fear I've contributed more/new dust or smears than I removed (except when I'm dealing with fungus, and then it's essential to get rid of it...). Some lenses are far easier to open up than others, so I only open up lenses where there's a good UA-cam video on how to open and reassemble exactly the same lens. Don't know about the f1.2!
I have been here before and will help you from going through all the mounts. For vintage lenses you will either end up with Zeiss Contax/Yashica or Leica R. Leica R is going to cost you a lot more, but you will have to determine if paying that much for older designs is worth it. Zeiss Contax/Yashica will be the best compromise between vintage, price, and performance. With Minolta you should also try the latest MD versions that you can. Those were the best optically.
Another great review. I do highly recommend the Yashica Yashinon-ds 50mm f1.4 M42 mount it's cheap, very sharp, nice flares and very nice colour renditions.
I use MC II 58/1.4 more as an art lens and MD III 50/1.4 as the general (my perfect vintage) lens
I like mine a lot! I think the softness wide open is actually really good for portraits, and the super smooth bokeh is just great.
I have been using this lens now with my Sony A7iv… not only for my personal shots but also when I am shooting with pro models . And I did not regret buying it. I use it more often now than my 35 GM lens. It’s all on my IG. ❤
High praise indeed!
I have this lens and agree with your analysis regarding the softness and how it sharpens up. You should try the Rokkor 2/45mm pancake lens. One of the sharpest lenses i have ever used.
Another great video Simon. I have the much newer 50mm f1.4 Rokkor-PG, which at one time was "glued" to my Fujis. Can't beat those incredible vintage lenses. In particular, I find the Olympus lenses "in tune" with Fuji X camera.
The 50mm PG is, indeed, a wonderful optic!
My copy is an MC Rokkor-X PG model; apparently if you can find one with all those markings it should have both the all-metal build quality of the older Rokkors but also some of Minolta's most advanced coatings (as evidenced by the late-MC-stage "Rokkor-X" US-market labeling.) Once the MD designation started, more plastic parts started showing up in all of the Rokkors.
I like the rendering so well I splurged and picked up the 58 1.2
Oh my. Let us see what you shot at 1.2
I have an MC Rokkor PG 50 1.4 and it's true that wide open it was often a little soft and odd in terms of rendering on my Sony a6600. I haven't used it in a year since I switched to the Canon 5D line that won't take the minolta mount, but I'd like to try that lens out once again. I'm sure that in the right conditions it can look uniquely beautiful like what you showed in your video. Thanks for making these reviews, as a vintage lens addict I enjoy watching😅 I'd be interested in you trying the Nikon F mount on these old fantastically built pre-ai lenses (hills and valleys focus ring). I have a 105 F2.5 pre-ai and I was really impressed by the images and build.
I have the same Rokkor 50 1.4 and I absolutely love it. Not only for the optical quality, but also for the build quality. It's such a pleasure to use that lens.
I really like it, it looks painterly abstract.
Just got mine and it's an MCii. Can't wait for the weekend.
Lovely review. Thank you.
Have fun!!
Really excited on hearing your opinion on this one, since it's one of the first that I settled on buying. I think your critique is on point, and that "dreamy" and "glowy" nature wide open could be sweet and/or annoying. I settled on it with the same reason: I want a lens with character. And I had a lot of fun! You comparison really gave me many ideas too. I might try f2/2.8 more from now on!
I prefer my Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4
I own both. Much more reliable. May be worth a look for ya.
@@pbft.j That is also a great lens I'm always looking for! Until I get a good bargain, I guess ;)
So interesting that I just picked up one of these at a barnsale super cheap. I've only tried it wide open but I'll try it again stopped down a bit.
Thank you for the review, I just bought this lens recently but still getting to know its characteristics, and this video helped a lot. Brilliant work!
That's the thing with Minolta lenses, they are full of character and are an acquired taste. I love my MD II 35mm f/1.8 and MD I 85mm f/1.7 !
I haven't tried any MC lense yet, that will eventually happen 😊
Rich guy 😂
Another excellent lens review - presenting the case, for and against with supporting evidence. I enjoyed the evidence - being your wonderful selection of images.
I also very much enjoy you command of the English language. I guess that I was one of the ‘compellingly vociferous advocates’. I own this same lens, and at the moment it is my only Rokkor lens. Though I recall from years ago that Minolta was very popular amongst the amateur enthusiasts. They manufactured a wide range of high quality lenses, similar to Pentax or some of the other Japanese brands you listed. They have a few ‘halo’ lenses that you already have an eye on.
It’s an lovely lens to use and no qualms about shooting wide open. Has some wonderful flares, Bokeh and glowing highlights that are the hallmarks of character filled vintage lenses.
I stumbled apond this absolutely gem of a lense sometime ago. Not realizing what I had.I didn't pay it much attention. Until one day I used it for some end of a shoot portraits. Best pics of the shoot, and many Oh my goodnesses later. I now have two copies 😊
Many old double gauss/planars have that hard edged bokeh wide-open that goes away with a little stopping down.
I won a bid on a minolta 50mm 1.2 and the 1.4 as well. I have yet to try them out because they have yet to arrive. I also suggest trying out the Zeiss planar 50mm 1.4
I bought one off the internet, and was only mildly impressed. I then took it apart and cleaned the optics (there are videos on the internet) and things improved markedly. I generally shoot at f2. For me, ay least, that seems to be the magic number. Reasonably sharp, but still with the interesting bokeh
Bokeh is related to the ratio of the distance between the subject and the background from the lens. When the background is far enough to be blurred, but not far enough to be obliterated, then it can be jittery and busy. I think the examples you gave were demonstrations of this.
Yes, you describe this very well/better than me! I used "composition" but that's not descriptive enough.
As a regular Minolta SR system shooter, I’m excited to see your reviews!
Hey Simon i got my 58mm f1.4 Rokkor today. I do like it but not as much as the smc 50mm f1.4, the Pentax has a way better focus, more precise, the Minolta is a little stiff and not as buttery smooth as the Pentax IMO. Now as far as bokeh, i prefer the Pentax again, but over all sharpness goes to the Minolta, but there both good lenses.
this reminds me of my Oreston. I really love some of the shots I get with it. Stopped down it gets quite sharp.
The bokeh and highlights are another story. Sometimes the bokeh is magical. Sometimes it's a mess.
The problem with the Oreston is that once you stop down by just one stop, highlights turn into stopsign shaped bokeh balls, similar to this Minolta. Wide open I capture some amazing images sometimes. But the hit ratio is something like 15%. Certain compositions that would work on a Helios or Takumar simply end up a mess on the Oreston. So it really only works for particular portraits and such where I can control the distance between subject and background better.
Great video, I have always enjoyed the image quality and affordability of Minolta glass.I gave away my MC 58mm because the rear element collided with my speedbooster, but now that I shoot adapted full-frame I miss it quite a bit! When going for sharpness I usually grab an MD 45mm f2, but if I want to shoot portrait or have nice bokeh I'll reach for the MD 50mm f1.2. It's my go-to lens but unfortunately my copy sometimes exhibits Petzval swirl, I'm not too sure if that's a flaw or a feature but it's definitely not for everyone.
Yaaaaaaaaaaaay!!!!!!
Really wonderful to see this lens getting some love and attention! And of all of my many vintage lenses, it really has a special place in my heart.
Good also to see such a measured and balanced case for what is after all a 50 year old analogue tool with a combination of flaws and strengths, and I’d agree with all your points for both sides.
Especially the point about the aperture blades being curved enough to mitigate the shape of the bokeh bubbles once stopped down a little… I actually really admire the bulbous hexagonal shapes when they do appear, although such reactions are subjective.
For me once one has weighed up the pros and cons, it’s the emotional response that you’re left with in the experience of using a lens and also crucially with the results that make a lens become a favourite or just a ‘meh!’.
And whilst there are certainly results such as the once you’ve shown here that end up on the cutting room floor, the keepers for me just have ‘something’ that make my mouth water.
I’m also left to reflect that in any creative process that I’m often looking for ‘happy accidents’ where something happens that I don’t expect, some dose of imperfection that sprinkles magic dust instead of disaster on an image.
Of course such imperfections can look wrong or just plain ‘bad’ but when they work… ooh-lala!
One tip I’ll give to people to maximise the joy factor of the 58mm f1.4 (and other fast lenses too) is not to forget that if you like the softest, largest bokeh it can produce but are not impressed enough by the wide open sharpness, then there’s always the choice of taking a rapid second shot of the same composition at of f2 or f2.8 to combine in a stacked image to achieve the best of both worlds.
I’d also stress that for portraits, the wide open softness really is a flattering advantage to most of us gnarled and wrinkly subjects :) and also wanted to flag up that although it is called a 58mm, it has a focal length closer to 61mm. This may explain that when compared to my Minolta 58mm f1.2 version, a scene is rendered a little larger but also the bokeh bubbles are not rendered so very much smaller than the larger aperture lens.
For those interested in exploring the more expensive f1.2 version, I would say that it’s another beautiful old tool with its’ own kind of magic and qualities (as well as flaws thank heavens) but don’t expect it to be sharp wide open either and it’s a fair bit larger and heavier. The MCIII version has better coatings too (I had an MCII on that did render quite flat) but this is another area where technical improvements can lead to less interesting ‘character’.
I’ve heard many suggest that it’s a better lens shot at f2 as seems to be one conclusion here for the f1.4 version, and bokeh on both lenses does become smoother when stopped down a bit with sharper focus detail.
But for me, part of the magic of fast glass is in the way that mid-frame and corners ‘fall apart’ ever so slightly when shot wide open and the way that the slightly contorted details in the outer image frame the central focussed area… it’s almost as if one is teetering on the edge of the lenses optical limits, with the lens just about holding everything together :)
Anyway, clearly I’m in the advocate camp for the Minolta 58mm f1.4, proudly biased in its’ favour of its many qualities despite not being blind to its’ shortcomings too.
And at current values, it’s an absolute Billy-bargain, so much so I’ve bought a second back-up copy… just in case!
Keep up the great work Simon and hit me up whenever you’re ready to try the legendary Hawk-eye!!!
Hi Henry,
Thank you so much for your kind words and for pushing me to get this lens. I've absolutely no regrets at all - a great value buy, and such an interesting lens.
And thank you also for your comments and observations here - I agree with them all. I'll be trying your stacking suggestion.
I'll be in touch in the second week of July about your offer (can't wait!).
Kind regards,
Simon
Thank you so much I choose this lense with the film camera.
Definitely try the Olympus 50mm f1.4. I think the sharpness will surprise you. My copy truly amazed me, and was on my camera for months. Lot's of fun with that lens.
Thanks for your review! I have a Minolta MC Rokkor PG f1.4 50mm. Presently it’s mounted to my SRT-201. I also adapt it to my Sony a6000. In both cases, to me, the lens produces wonderful results. Love to use it.
I love mine at F2… thanks for another great review
Great review! Way back in my Minolta SRT-201 days I had the 50mm f/1.7 (or was it an f/1.8?); a high-school freshman couldn't afford the f/1.4! I'd love to see you review of the Olympus Zuiko 55mm f/1.2. It's one of my favorite vintage lenses. Zenography (I believe) described it as 'perfectly flawed'. Best wishes from shadowphoto!
Many thanks. I would like to try the Olympus Zuiko f1.2 at some point! (But I hope to try the Minolta f1.2 first...).
I have two of these. One I've gotten with a "junk" camera and another I bought outright. I haven't watched yet but am curious to see what you have to say.
I had this lens until very recently. I bought it for peanuts since it required repairs. A completely stuck, oiled up aperture and a heavily bent front filter thread. I repaired it and proceeded to try it out but it was too soft wide open compared to my other f/1.4 standard lenses, so I sold it. If I need to shoot at f/2 for usable images, there's little point in keeping this.
Hello Simon! I'm now subscribed.
I have been a fan for a number of years as we share an admiration - and collector mania - for M42 and now even Minoltas.
My practice is shooting Video with a Black Magic 4k, thus this review has guided me to stop down and dedicate this lens for longer shots.. Thank You.
Note... This Minolta design has been used by new Chinese makers of the Zhongyi Mitakon 0.95 lenses.
They combine this glass design with Lens Turbo Speed booster design as one!
On another note, what is your call on the, Jena Tessar 50mm 2.8?
I have an old silver one, it seems kind of cool here on the first outing.
Once again from a long time fan and new subscriber, Thank You.
Many thanks for subscribing and this interesting information. The Tessar is a good lens stopped down. Wide-open (and I'm sure the lens was not optimised or designed for a lot of wide open photography), I've not so keen on Tessar bokeh. I've recently been trying a Schneider-Kreuznach Edixa-Xenar 50mm f2.8. This is a West German Tessar design lens, and it's a class above the Carl Zeiss Jena Tessar.
I like the slight hexagonal bokeh on f2 and f2.8 personally. I prefer Konica Hexanon lenses because their aperture blades maintain a curvature on the edges of the bokeh.
I have the MC 58 1.2 PG along with the matching MC 50 1.4 PG. I absolutely love them. The 58 isn’t super sharp at 1.2. But, I love the bokeh wide open. However, stopping down to 2 or 2.8 it gets incredibly sharp.
The lens definitely has character. I wonder how it performs compared to the newer MC and MD rokkors? I personally only have the Plain (non rokkor) MD Minolta 50mm f/1.7, though plasticy in build design, it performs well for a lens I got for $15. It is a sleeper. Hopefully prices don’t skyrocket due to this video. Great review.
I also got an MD 50/1.7 aside from my PF 58/1.4. Haven't used that a lot, but I think it is very light and comparative to its heavier brothers, good for an all-around walk-around. Also another blogger had a review on a set of different 50s, and in which the MD is the best in contrast and color in my eyes. At the rise of a boom of old lenses, these 1.7s really are hidden gems, cost-to-performance wise.
I have the Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58mm f1.4 AND the MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4
I prefer my MD every time - although it is 50mm and not 58mm (so keep that in mind). It's a sharper, much more reliable lens. I prefer the look of it also? Almost to the point that I feel guilty never using the PF. It's just a smoother experience.
THAT BEING SAID, the PF does have a lot more character. Almost too much. The MD is unique and the bokeh is incredible, but if I had to film a dream-sequence I'd use the PF.
It's like the 58 PF is closer to the Helios-44 in unique look than the MD is. I hope that makes sense.
@@pbft.j Yeah, that is what I assumed from this and other posts on the internet. The older Minoltas are the best built and have the most character but lack the sharpness, and flare/CA control of the MD rokkors.
@@rh9909 The Minolta MD 50mm f1.7, though some UA-camrs have made videos, still seems to be a really cheap. It’s build quality seems to steer people away but the optics are great. As you said a hidden gem.
the 50mm 1:1.7 Rokkors used to be so ubiquitous that there are still 1000's available. I got my MC Rokkor for $10 only last december.
Thank you for making this video! I've been thinking about getting this lens for a few weeks, but now I'm not so sure. I recently got a Minolta 55mm f1.8 with 8 aperture blades that I use with film. I haven't seen the results yet, but I'm now thinking I won't gain much by getting the 58mm f1.4. Looking forward to your comparison with the 55mm f1.7!
I hope you got the 58. You realize on apsc it's an 85mm 1.4. Try buying something like that.
I also own one of these! I rarely use it. I prefer my Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50mm f/1.4 over it every time.
I'm a professional videographer, in which I can usually use unique film-like lenses. I NEVER take this lens on even the most creative of jobs.
However, I like to have it in my collection because sometimes I just LOVE the dreamy 58. It's like my preferred alternative to the Helios-44. The bokeh is messy and delicious. It's one of my favorites to have on my camera when I'm shooting for myself and the shot isn't critical.
It's about trust. I don't trust this lens. I love it, it just takes a little extra care to get everything out of it.
---
ALSO, there's something to be said about this model. I read somewhere that the manufacture country of origin is incredibly important. Like many lenses of this time period, the differences in soviet manufacturing standards result in essentially 2 different models of this lens (although they're the same model on paper)
I don't remember how to tell.. I think it's something to do with serial numbers. I believe that the more rare soviet version is leagues beyond in quality. Take this with a grain of salt. I only own this version so I cannot speak for both. That's why I bought mine in the first place.
- also I feel like the lens coating is radioactive? -
It's been a while since I did a deep dive on this model.
Most online sellers do not know that this matters so they both go for the same cheap price.
I'd love to have a comparison between the two in the style of your video! You should look into it.
MD's are fine, but the build quality doesn't compare to MC's
@@StanleyKubick1 I'm not sure why people keep saying that. Mine is all metal. So it's not a material thing, right?
I know that newer models of MD had plastic housing. but I have the first generation of the MD 50 1.4 which is an all metal build and incredibly solid. I don't see how it could be any better in build quality.
That being said, I've never had one of the plastic ones in my hands so it's difficult for me reference my MD.
It's absolutely the same tank of a metal lens housing as my older PF. Same in build quality, anyway.
An interesting and well-made vlog as usual, Simon, but after seeing the list of lenses you considered before getting the Minolta, I'm thinking you might have made a better choice. Are you familiar with Schneider Kreuznach? Though I've been taking pictures and collecting gear for fifty years, it's only recently that I've tried the SK lenses, a 38mm Xenar (Tessar design) and a 45mm Radionar (a triplet) and have been very impressed with both though the triplet does often require more image processing. I've just purchased a set of three SK lenses in DKL mount, a 50mm Xenon f1.9, a 35mm Curtagon f2.8 and a 135mm Tele-Xenar f4 with the Instammatic body for a nice price. The Xenon is what particularly interests me, though the Curtagon also might see some use. Cheers!
Ha. You tease. It wasn't an easy choice, but I'm very happy with my choice. (And "it's not over yet" with other lenses). The Minolta 58mm f1.4 is the kind of imperfect lens I like, and it was rather cheap. Have fun with your Schneider lenses - I'll be very interested to see what you make of them. I know them reasonably well, but don't own any. However, I've not come across the Radionar 45mm. Right now I'm playing with a new triplet lens and enjoying the experience! All the best, Simon
Have a bunch of Minolta stuff and it's the colours that I appreciate. They look "expensive" for some reason - think glossy Sunday supplement. Even extends into the AF series range from the 80's.
I do own this lens, although not perfect I think it's a great lens. Also the price, very affordable lens ... maybe they've gone up in price in the last 2 years but I remember when purchasing it 2 years ago, it was quite affordable
Beautiful review Simon! I'm just wondering if this lens is radioactive? I can't seem to find any information on it, thank you in advance! :)
Hi, many thanks. No, my version is not radioactive.
@@Simonsutak thank you so much for the quick response Simon, cheers! :)
Great review and video! I’ve owned this lens for a few years and have always loved its character wide open. I had a hard time articulating why though. Your video finally made sense to the areas where the lens excels and has weaknesses. Keep up the great work!
¡Gran episodio! Gracias por todo el trabajo duro que pones en estos videos. El contenido informativo y entretenido es la razón principal por la que veo y disfruto de UA-cam. Viva El Rokkor!
The softness should be used for appropriate types of shot. I see a lot of 'dreamy' flower photography on Instagram, and the really good ones are VERY rarely sharp in any area. They just employ a kind of relative sharpness where the principal subject is vaguely in focus compared to the bokeh soaked whole. Dreamy photos really don't work so well with any absolute sharp areas. Cheers, good review as always. I'll probably stick with my 44-2 though. I love that lens.
Hey Simon, lovely video, as always. I can't seem to find the follow-up video you mentioned, between this lens and the f1.7 50mm, but I take it that if I have that lens already, it's not worth getting this one too?
Thank you! I still haven't made a video comparing my 55mm f1.7 to this lens. Personally, I don't think it's worth getting both, as I enjoy the f1.4 so much. However, some owners do seem to prefer the bokeh from the 55/1.7, for it's smoothness. I prefer the more chaotic bokeh from the 58/1.4. My copy of the 55/1.7 was so cheap (£25) I bought it anyway, since I'd invested in the adapter for my Sony!
Thank you for the video! Vintage lenses are very popular right now.
I want to purchase this lens for black and white portraits. I think the soft image of this lens is good for this.
Please do a review of the Topcor 58mm f1.4, it would be great if you compare these two also! Cheers
Before watching the video I gotta say I LOVE this lens and its bokeh
and after seeing the video I can completely agree with everything you said. I love it because at 1.4 is barely usable, which works for me since I do portraits and people want to have blurry skin anyway, and if I ever want a more serious sharpness I just stop down to f2 and get good round bokeh and enough depth of field. sadly my copy is a bit scratched so it's even softer.
Another incredible video. Big fan of your content from Brazil. Cheers.
Many thanks!
This was my first vintage lens and i still own it!
I had this lens for my GFX and it fully covers the sensor with no hard vignetting - and I remember using it at f2.0 and beyond but never at f1.4 because of its "glow" - and it yielded very nice results. But it has noticeable field curvature that got even worse on the GFX edges and corners, which is why I sold it in the end.
I wonder if you had the MC I version. I've read that it suffered more from field curvature than the MC II version.
@@Simonsutak I'm pretty sure it was the second version - but just to re-iterate, the curvature was only a real issue on the corners of the GFX sensor, so no real issue for 35mm full frame!
Awesome lens , I will buy it for Minolta DX 7 , the one I use it these days 😉 , thanks for sharing your experience 👏👏👏
I bought it already, amazing lens specially for portrait , I bought as well 135mm f2.8🤗😍
I only use this lens when I think I really need that much light. If I think I can get away with less I use a Helios 44M-4 or other Helios lens. I need to get this one out more, your video makes me think I haven't given it a fair chance.
I have a same lens..but unfortunately there are many scratches on front element and the overall condition of the lens is not good. But I really love your review of vintage lenses... thanks for being a vintage lens reviewer.
It is very rare for a lens of this vintage to be sharp at this aperture, but stop them down a little and they came into their sweet spot. That's where each vintage lens should be compared with others, at their sweet spot. Slower standard lenses in the 2.8 range were also not at their best until stopped down a little, so a 1.4 lens was far better at 2.8 than a 2.8 lens was. That's where lens speed came in. Capture a shot with available light.
I bought my SRT with its 58mm 1.4 in the mid 1960s to replace my SR3 with a 50mm 1.7. I would not say the 1.4 was a big improvement over the 1.7 in any way and If faced with purchasing either of them new again based on my experience I would buy the 1.7. Actually I think I would forgo both and use my 45mm f2. a little secret wonder.
I have the lens and never use it at 1.4 but from f2 and beyond. It is great at f2 , the bokeh is the best out of some 40 or 50 lens I have tested.
you could do this with so many lenses - and i hope you do! as much as i love bokeh, i'm not very interested in it when i go shoot. having said that, i have amassed a collection of fast 50's for the sole purpose of bokeh that i never get around to comparing. it's nice to have someone else - a "bokeh pro" to check it out instead. thank you.
Many thanks for your kind words. I wish I could do more reviews, and produce them faster. I wish I could clone myself and produce all the reviews at the same time; all the reviews I'd like to do. And me and my clones could go out for a walk with multiple cameras and lenses and shoot the same scenes for comparison. (And perhaps you wish this too!!!).
The appeal of the lens is it's impressionistic quality wide open. It's not about detail as it is a feeling, or a mood. If I have to get the center sharper I'll stop down and then combine that with the wide open. The lens gives me ideas.
Is it possible to tell if a lens swirls from a review if it is not something the reviewer looked for? I was looking at a particular lens that exhibited really cats-eye bokeh except for the center. The lens is the 7artisans 25mm f0.95, it was released in 2021 so there wasn't much testing for this effect. I was hoping that in the pursuit of the f0.95 aperture, Chinese lens manufacturers would sacrifice sharpness and maybe allow for bokeh balls to swirl.
There are some new swirly lenses, including Lensbaby. And the Chinese do seem to looking at making a few lenses that try to recreate "old fashioned" bokeh effects. My experience of testing swirly lenses is that the shape of the cat's eyes helps in part to give a sense of swirl. I've looked at this in a number of videos - here's one video that has a section on comparing a swirly lens versus a non swirly lens looking at out of focus highlights. ua-cam.com/video/pvuWIAkV-qI/v-deo.html
Thank you for another stellar review! I like the approach you took with this one! You built a case all the while remaining neutral! The single issue I have with this impeccable review is that know I want this lens! The best part is at least this lens is within my budget! Thank you from The Novice Photographer 😂! Update: I just purchase this lens today!
This was very helpful. I've been looking at Rokkor lenses recently, hoping to add something different to my collection. From your samples I would say the bokeh is a bit too busy for me. It reminds me of my Revuenon 55mm 1.2 so I already have something like that. I was thinking that this might have cleaner bokeh, like the Revuenon toned down a bit. But it doesn't look like it. If you are looking at other lenses to test, I would be interested in the ROKKOR 85mm F1.7.
I love this lens. But addicted to my Konica's at the moment. 😅
I own one of these! I got a lot out of your review!! Thank you!!
Great to hear!
A very interesting review Simon, and I have always found Minolta equipment excellent. Am I right in thinking that it was Minolta who made the Leica CL camera?.
I would have added the Carl Zeiss Jena 'Prakticar' 50mm f1.4 lens, (version 1 or 2), to this lens list.
What do you think about the Nikon AIS 50mm 1.2?
It has been in production for a long time and is arguably a "vintage" lens you can still buy.
Interestingly, I went on a walk last week with a friend who was using a Nikon AIS 50mm f1.2 on his camera. He likes the lens at lot, but wasn't really over-the-top enthusiastic about it. I think he prefers his Contax Carl Zeiss Planar 50mm f1.4 T*.
Nice content! I am wondering what a Leica lens is like now.. I still think old is gold, not nonsense, after all new technology has to grow from acorns, not buttons.
My favourite lens, take a look in FLICKR. It is an AMAZING lens, better than a lot of modern lenses.
Your review was the ‘decider’ on pushing the button on this lens. Got it this evening and it is pristeen - except for a large speck on the inside. One that stared walking round and has legs. Have you ever heard of an insect trapped in a lens 😳
Sorry to read this. I don't have any lenses myself with insects trapped inside, but I occasionally see lenses on ebay where the seller "owns up" to their lens having a dead insect on the glass inside. It makes you wonder - if an insect can crawl inside a lens, just how much dust can also get in over the years.
Hopefully, the insect won't show up in wide open or partially stopped down shots, and stopped right down the silhouette could make for some creative opportunities. (My wife has asked me to see the glass half full, not half empty, for one of my new year's resolutions).
It is a beautifully made lens and looking forward to trying it as soon as the adapter arrives. Any chance of a comparison\exploration review of some helicoid adapters? They look very interesting but not sure on the differences. Happy New Year@@Simonsutak
I wonder if Simon ever used Carl Zeiss Planar 1,4/50?
Funny thing is I kind of like the painterly impressionistic rendering in the messy backgrounds
Me too!!
@@Simonsutak i just bought one for $30 it feeds my addiction for a low price
@@robertbirnbach2312 “That’s the spirit”(And a great price). Enjoy!
Apakah bisa di pakai di nikon dslr D5500? Menggunakan adapter sperti apakah?
Maaf saya tidak tahu karena saya belum pernah menggunakan kamera itu. Anda dapat memeriksa situs ini untuk adaptor:
www.kentfaith.com/lens-mount-adapters
Topaz Labs Sharpen AI and other similar programs can make the wide open sharpness on this lens go up significantly in post. It is like the lens is sharp under the softness and a sharpening program can bring that out. Now, such programs can of course also help many other lenses as well, but I find such programs and especially Sharpen AI to work very well with this lens.
Another matter: There is no MD-mount. The mount is called SR-mount and nothing else. Name comes from the first body, the SR-2 (yeah one can wonder why they didn't start at SR-1 but that model came later) . The SR-2 came in 1958. Auto, MC and MD are lens series. I know that every adapter maker writes wrong and claims their adapter is for MD.
As you already mentioned MC stands for meter coupling which came in 1966 (with the legendary SR-T 101) and when MD came later Minolta introduced aperture control from the body. No adapter can do that so it doesn't make sense to write MD on the adapters from any point. One can compare to Nikon F-mount that came in 1959. They also had different lens series with added on functionality like AI-S etc, but there everyone seems to say correct. This wrong labelling with MD is just like an urban legend now that seems impossible to stop.
Well what about if your chasing flare, what do you recommend
May be not the greatest, but it's sharp and well defined stepping from F2.8. So, for me " more great " than not. Bokeh it's a question of personal feeling... Probably not the best, but surely a GOOD bokeh and a nice blur ! - Nice Review !
i wish u reviewed l39 lenses, since they are rangefinder lenses they are different from slr lenses.
Hello Simon! So, I am a bit confused because you say that the MC2 starts at 5064519 but my copy is 5109*** and it does not have the „waves” on it. It is a flat design. My question is: Is my copy a mc2 with a flat design or a mc1 with a bigger serial number? Thank you
Hi, I'm not an expert on Minolta serial numbers I'm afraid. The serial number information I quoted in the video was taken from internet searches. I've searched on-line for a while and can't find the answer to your question. Hopefully, you will have more luck than me. (I should add that I have a Takumar lens whose serial number and design is out of synch with all published serial numbers/designs, so these things do happen!).
Thank you for giving my question a part of your time. I guess the best comparison I can make is to buy a legit mc2 in the future and test em’ out. Till then, I have a contradiction of a lens! Happy holidays to you and your family! Cheers!
I’ve enjoyed using the 58mm f/1.4 for years. :) Here’s a music video I made in part with it.
ua-cam.com/video/YMr27h-coro/v-deo.html
That’s from around a decade ago where some of the shots were done wide-open with that lens on a GH2.
I worked with Joanna St. Claire on both on the music and the video and that sort of dreamy and soft look wide open was just what we were looking for in those shots and it cut together surprisingly well with the RED Scarlet shots on a much more expensive cinema lens.
Wonderful - a lovely dreamy look to go with the music. Many thanks for sharing this.
I use this lens for 80 percent of my photos. The version with the little arm is a bit sharper, but the arm keeps breaking off. This lens is absolutely amazing.
good review, thank you! hate the lens though, has nothing I'm looking for in a vintage prime.
Excellent work. Thank you.
great balances review! Thank you!
Sounds very promising! Thanks !
Great review. I have had a MC 58mm 1.4 II like yours for several years and also use it on a Sony A7 series body.
I love the vintage rendering and solid sharpness it offers. I usually shoot mine at f/2 or F/2.8. If I do shoot it wide open I usually do so with the intent to convert to black and white.
I also use it on my Minolta XD-11 35mm body and when coupled with film it really shines.
It's actually called the SR mount, not the MD or MC mount 😊
Great information. Thank you. 👍👍