I have several Minolta 135 lenses, the only one missing is the Celtic, despite its weight I have a great affection for the PF, it is very easy to maintain because the elements are easy to disassemble and clean. I use it a lot with an SRT-303 with excellent results and also with a Sony A-6000 and A-7R3 many times for street photography with or without light and I am always very satisfied with the results obtained. Another lens not so well known but with incredible optical performance for being vintage is the MC tele rokkor QD 135mm F3.5 also completely metal mountain-valley weighs 400 gr. It does not have a built-in hood but there is a separate metal one (the 135 PF weighs 550 gr. not 490 gr.) so when there is light I prefer it to the PF. Plus it is shorter and the DMF is the same 1.5 m. When a shorter focal distance to the object is needed, the MD 135 F2.8 is preferred.
I have this lens and I used to use it often when I used it on a Minolta x300/700 cameras but when I changed to Nikon Dslr in 2010 it could not be adapted very well but I have kept it as some day I may get aFuji xt2
@@johnarmstrong5727 I had the Minolta x700 and a centon df 300, which if my memory is correct,was based on the Minolta x 370 ? , still miss the x700 , sorry I sold it, I convinced myself I needed autofocus for wedding photography, ironically I'm shooting mostly in manual focus these days, the Fuji cameras are great, I've got the xt1 ,I'm sure the you'll be pleased with the xt2.
I have the Minolta MC Rokkor 135mm F2.8 lens, which is maybe the next version of the lens being reviewed. The optics are probably close. I found it to be a good lens, but not great. It is much better stopped down, at least somewhat. It has three things going for it: 1.) Minolta lenses produce unique vintage colors. 2.) It was inexpensive (
@@georgesealy4706 couldn't agree more with you, Minolta lenses produce beautiful colours, I've also found the 135 mm focal length useful as a street lens,the version you have is lighter than the older version I've tested here, I've got a few Minolta lenses to test in the future, good to hear from you.
I could not believe how sharp my Celtic Minolta was, and I paid 30 bucks. I probably stopped it down to f 4 for that two year old test, but I keep my Fuji camera settings at 0 and I was getting crazy sharp stuff. When you get this performance at that price, it becomes a favorite.
@@sclogse1you got yourself a bargain, Minolta produced some great optics over the years, love Minolta lenses I have, and always on the lookout for more,my first proper camera was a Minolta x700 wish I hadn't sold it .
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Your video is really refreshing, subscribed!
@@ReflectiveTones that's very kind, thank you.
I have several Minolta 135 lenses, the only one missing is the Celtic, despite its weight I have a great affection for the PF, it is very easy to maintain because the elements are easy to disassemble and clean. I use it a lot with an SRT-303 with excellent results and also with a Sony A-6000 and A-7R3 many times for street photography with or without light and I am always very satisfied with the results obtained. Another lens not so well known but with incredible optical performance for being vintage is the MC tele rokkor QD 135mm F3.5 also completely metal mountain-valley weighs 400 gr. It does not have a built-in hood but there is a separate metal one (the 135 PF weighs 550 gr. not 490 gr.) so when there is light I prefer it to the PF. Plus it is shorter and the DMF is the same 1.5 m. When a shorter focal distance to the object is needed, the MD 135 F2.8 is preferred.
i love mine, same vintage as yours. results have been exceptionally good for the price. no complaints
Just shows , how good these lenses were for the time
Yet another great video, so relaxing to watch
Good to hear from you aqua blue, glad you enjoyed the video 👍
From one vintage lens reviewer to another. Love the presentation and relaxing commentary. Keep up the good work
Thank you, I will check out your channel
Well done
Thank you
I have this lens and I used to use it often when I used it on a Minolta x300/700 cameras but when I changed to Nikon Dslr in 2010 it could not be adapted very well but I have kept it as some day I may get aFuji xt2
@@johnarmstrong5727 I had the Minolta x700 and a centon df 300, which if my memory is correct,was based on the Minolta x 370 ? , still miss the x700 , sorry I sold it, I convinced myself I needed autofocus for wedding photography, ironically I'm shooting mostly in manual focus these days, the Fuji cameras are great, I've got the xt1 ,I'm sure the you'll be pleased with the xt2.
I have the Minolta MC Rokkor 135mm F2.8 lens, which is maybe the next version of the lens being reviewed. The optics are probably close. I found it to be a good lens, but not great. It is much better stopped down, at least somewhat. It has three things going for it: 1.) Minolta lenses produce unique vintage colors. 2.) It was inexpensive (
@@georgesealy4706 couldn't agree more with you, Minolta lenses produce beautiful colours, I've also found the 135 mm focal length useful as a street lens,the version you have is lighter than the older version I've tested here, I've got a few Minolta lenses to test in the future, good to hear from you.
I could not believe how sharp my Celtic Minolta was, and I paid 30 bucks. I probably stopped it down to f 4 for that two year old test, but I keep my Fuji camera settings at 0 and I was getting crazy sharp stuff. When you get this performance at that price, it becomes a favorite.
@@georgesealy4706 great, thanks for the extra information, you clearly know your stuff
@@sclogse1you got yourself a bargain, Minolta produced some great optics over the years, love Minolta lenses I have, and always on the lookout for more,my first proper camera was a Minolta x700 wish I hadn't sold it .