Why Rehouse Companies are Doing it WRONG
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 22 июл 2024
- This is my Ultimate Guide on How to Build a Matched Set of Minolta Rokkor lenses. With the latest trend of rehousing Minolta lenses for cinematography & filmmaking, I would like to shine a light on the reality of the situation.
#minoltafever #facts #vintagelens
MC Rokkors: ebay.us/64ZZVp
MD Rokkors: ebay.us/MNGcYB
RECOMMENDED PAST VIDEOS:
My Complete Minolta Playlist: • Minolta Rokkors
Why I Stopped Using Vintage Stills Lenses for Professional Cinematography Work: • Why Photo Lenses are B...
CHAPTERS:
00:00 - Intro
03:26 - Recap
05:10 - Rehoused Rokkors
05:53 - Rokkor Classification
06:29 - Colorimetry
08:34 - Rare Earth Elements
12:22 - Secret Coatings
14:48 - The Downfall
17:08 - Consistency is Key
22:31 - Kit Lens No-No
25:35 - Still In Denial?
👉🏼 My Full Gear List for Indie Filmmakers: kit.co/jpOnFilm
FOLLOW ME📲
/ kiddtech
/ dogtimesproductions
/ justinphillip
www.justinfilm.com
www.imdb.me/justinphillip
Now offering 1:1 Cinematography Sessions!
Whether you need help creating a look book for a director, building shot designs, tackling a tough location to light, or just want general work feedback!
Check it out: www.justinfilm.com/sessions
Shout out to all of my DogTimes Patreon Supporters!
Special thanks to members of the Patreon Producers Tier:
Mike Skinner
🧠 Become a member of the private DogTimes Discord Chat!
(Incl. tutorials, breakdowns, work feedback, career advice, and MORE!): tinyurl.com/yc5vqmea
Thanks for watching!
🙏🏼 If you're a SUPER FAN of the content and would like to say "Thanks!" then BUY ME A COFFEE :)
www.buymeacoffee.com/dogtimes 🥤
🐶 DogTimes MERCH***
HOODIES! COFFEE MUGS! TEES! STICKERS!:
dogtimes-merch.creator-spring...
Links to a couple films I directed & produced:
You Have Arrived
amzn.to/2oKJJFi
Wolf Game
amzn.to/2n3IEIk
💯 No.1 Way to Support the Channel, plus an exclusive all access pass to behind the scenes on my journey as an indie filmmaker in Los Angeles:
/ justinphillip
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @justinphillip
Props to Pro Tips Member 'Visit VR'!
Music Courtesy of ArtList: artlist.io/artlist-70446/?art...
[Some links found in this description are affiliate links. Which are a great way to support the channel at no extra cost to anyone.]
Check out the DogTimes merch! Best way to support the show: dogtimes-merch.creator-spring.com/
Justin - I'm glad I finished my Minolta Rokkor collection (21 lenses) BEFORE you started covering them in your videos! Prices are going up, up, up!. And I agree with you the MC-X are my favorite set and I also have a full Leica-R and Canon FD sets as well as a full set of Zeiss Classic manual lenses. The Rokkors were my "underdog" lenses for such a long time and were the last true "great" vintage lenses you could get at a reasonable price. Build quality is amazing and the look is magic. Until you came along and spoiled the secret ;) Enjoy your videos - thank you for the awesome content - I LOVE the history and research you do!
Because of film makers like Justin and you going after the Rokkor lenses. Prices are also inflated for us still photography shooters. Prior to all of these videos posted on youtube about the Rokkor lenses prices were very affordable for most of us.
I did a lot of research and bought the minolta lenses I did specifically because they had not been reported as radioactive. Most have not been reported as radioactive, so I wasn't too worried, but I decided to buy a Geiger Counter because of this video. I tested my MCII 2.8/135mm with a yellow color cast, it did not emit a reading on my geiger counter, meaning it is not even slightly radioactive. I tested my MCIII 2.8/135mm that I'd ordered as a replacement, it is not radioactive either. I tested my MCIII W. Rokkor HH 1.8/35mm, it is not radioactive either. Reading that article you posted, thorium is listed as an ingredient they MAY use on some lenses. It doesn't indicate that it is used on every single lens up until 1978, and my personal readings would also suggest the same. I will continue testing lenses as I finish building my set, but I just thought I'd clear this up.
I understand thorium can make lenses sharper, but that's what made minolta lenses so appealing to me as someone who didn't want to deal with the worry of radioactive glass even if it isn't that dangerous. I've been looking into vintage lenses, and every lens I thought looked exceptional ended up using thorium. Minolta makes some of the most beautiful lenses I've seen in my research, and they did it with out needing thorium.
Hey, I read your comment and I like your scientific work. did you maybe test the MCIII 50mm f1.4 for radioactivity? it's my favorite lens and I really wish it didn't have thorium. tnx 🙏
Thanks, you saved me from buying a Geiger counter
Rad stuff man. Thanks for doing all the hard work. Always loved the Rokkors. The build quality of the MCII specifically is enough to love them. They make FDs feel like toys. I have a completed set of MCII all the fastest in each focal length 16mm to 135mm and I’m going to die with them. Truly special lenses from a truly special company.
Justin, you are a master at storytelling. I enjoy the history that you give out with each one of your videos, I am going down the path of putting together a small photography kit with the MC III's
Dude have I told you lately how much I love your channel, almost as much as my Minolta Rokkor-X Lenses and my Minolta XE-7 film cameras. This just makes me happy.
The Minolta booklet presenting an overview of Minolta's methods of fabrication is everything but "historical evidence" of the radioactivity of the majority of Minolta's lenses. In fact, the page shown in the video itself doesn't even say that ("among many ingredients that MAY be added"). :D It is well documented at this point, and I'm a bit baffled that the video presents such misinformation as fact. The quote from the old technical article about radioactive elements being used to improve refraction indexes and dispersion values is a lot more interesting because it is completely true. What this doesn't say is that it is only necessary for lenses that have a very bright aperture relative to their focal length. Early versions of the 58mm f/1.2, for instance, contain radiation from one or more elements (I do not know how many). In contrast, the 50mm f/1.2 in any version, does not contain any known radioactive elements as it was released later, and better, non-radioactive materials had been found capable of achieving the same effect. Much like a modern 1.2 lens from Sony or Canon no longer requires it as well (far stronger contemporary material regulations might also make it impossible in 2023). Putting a radio-active element in a normal lens with a slower aperture such as f/3.5 would be sheer stupidity, as conventional glass can easily satisfy the refraction index and dispersion requirements, even at the time. And "that's not up for debate" :). I honestly wouldn't have commented if it wasn't presented as ultimate truth that nobody can question. Especially when hundreds if not thousands have literally busted the myth already. It is, in your own words, "a not-so-humble opinion". There, we agree :P.
With that out of the way, the sections dealing with video and colour were awesome. Really interesting to see side-by-side shots of various generations of lenses of the same focal length and aperture and the variations that come up. This isn't something that is easy to come by. Very valuable.
Great videos. I have learned a lot watching them. I have been acquiring Rokkors over the past several months. Thanks for your insights. I have kind of gravitated to the MCIIIs and they are doing great across the many cameras that I use. My next Rokkor is the MCIII 58mm F1.2, and then after that the MCIII 85mm F1.7. I like the Rokkors because they have excellent color and they are lighter and smaller than other lenses I use. They have a certain "something" that I can't define, but I sure do like it.
Excellent video! Much appreciated. I only have a few MD i lenses, but I love how they are build like tanks. Funny the series lasted this short, with, indeed the MDii popping up somewhere in 1978. I must admit I love the MD ii f/2 45mm, but mostly (as you stated) because of its humble appearance and fine sharpness (I only shoot pics, btw). With the XD-7, this makes a completely different (and easier to use) combination than when I shoot with the MD i f/1.4 50mm with 55mm filter thread, making the combination less agile.
I saw the Ancient Optics post on IG too and looking at the chart I was a bit puzzled by the list of available lenses because they are a bit too mixed up. It would have been more logical to choose one or two 'generations' and work on two dedicated and above all separate sets; it isn't an operation that excites me because, as you say, this will lead, among other things, to an excessive increase in the prices of the various Minolta Mc or MDs.
Anyway, nice content and a nice channel that, out-of-context, made me want to get my hands on a Sigma Fp, but that's another story.
Really well researched ❤ ….lots of work went into this and it has been very helpful Thank you
Thank you for making this video. Assists to understand minolta primes a little better with your help. I love your original minolta lens collection video and rewatched it multiple times. This one will be added to my quality video collection on Minolta, as video number 2! Thanks again! 👍♥️📷
The only thing is, I'm missing all of the expensive lenses, they're like $400+ each now. prices are crazy
Thank you for this interesting and thorough review. As the first camera I ever owned was a Minolta SRT-101, Minolta's have a special place in my heart. I've heard/read that the yellowing of Thorium containing lenses, and perhaps other radioactive materials, can be reversed by exposing them to uv light, whether daylight or a uv lamp. Thus, it seems at least hypothetically possible that even lenses within the same generation, and even the same batches, might exhibit different degrees of tint depending on the light to which they have been exposed whether through use or "treatment," although it sounds like that has not been your experience. Thanks again!
Appreciate these videos! I've started putting together my own MCiii kit based on some of your recommendations and really enjoying the results. A few quick questions:
- I haven't seen you mention the MCiii SI 28mm f/2.5 lens. You had a chance to test this one out, and is this a Leica copy as well like the 24mm?
- One series of lenses I haven't seen discussed for video are the M-Rokkor 28mm f/2.8, 40mm f/2 and 90mm f/4 lenses made for the Leica M system during the partnership era. For photography these seem to have a pretty good rep - anyone had a chance to test these out for video and have you got any thoughts on these?
I have been doing my own deep dive into Nikkor lenses for years but recently started investing in Rokkors because I got turned onto the brand when I inherited a film camera and a batch of lenses. On the Nikon side, There is a shift in coatings and a bit in glass manufacturing that has happened over the years (you can see it often by just taking a flashlight to the front glass elements and seeing the color difference. They also have a "kit version" which they labeled E-Series. There are far fewer coating differences, though there are differences. But overall it is built quality, max aperture and compatibility that differentiate them. I've been really enjoyed doing tests because I have the 1970's, 1980's and 1990's sets (currently 79 F-mount lenses, 38 being specifically Nikkor brand), and I appreciate your deeper dive style of research. I have noticed a distinct look and strong evolution. What has shifted and/or stayed the same over time is pretty interesting. There are some parallels between the brands. Nikon had far more "series" and naming conventions. It gets kind of excessive actually. I do love how you cover the historic aspect of how these lenses were manufactured because it tells its own story. The ebb and flow of the business, the market and the artistry.
This is epic stuff, I'm not an indie film-maker so much as being a lover of Minolta Rokkor and this is fascinating stuff, well done on your passionate investigations! :)
Wow, a lot of good info right here came from real experience 👏, you are right about the rehousing company's effect on what is supposed to be a budget friendly way for budget cinematographers or photographers,I think they should've provid the rehouse service instead of buying the hole stock of good shape vintage lenses and in the end you will have to pay ridiculously out of your budget amount of money to get your hand on a set,which I find it not fair for a lot of creative people out there.
Nicely done. Appreciate your hard work.
Love your channel Justin, but I think I’m moving on from the MC rokkors (waffle grip). I’ve tried several and the ghosting and veiling is terrible and really difficult to control even with a matte box and side flags. On an overcast day they are beautiful, but If I want to backlight my subjects and work with the golden hour sunlight, I find it incredibly difficult to get a good shot because I’m dodging the sun so much with these mc rokkors. Do you know if later leica r lenses (‘1980+), Contax zeiess or Canon FDs perform better in these situations? Only other thing I can think of is trying another adapter, but don’t think that will fix the terrible ghosting patterns I get. Flair and character is great, I love it, but the rokkors have been a bit too much in this area.
i do agree, sadly
I have been using Rokkors for 30 years. I have 15 of them mostly mcs. Faves include 24 2.8, 50 1.4, 24-50 zoom, 35-70macro zoom. 16 fish and 17f4. I also have the 35, 85 f2, 1.7, 200f3.5, 135 2.8, rf250 and 500f8. All of them are really unique.
Thanks for the video. This really saved me a lot of time and money. I was getting into the vintage lens world and was testing different lenses to find a set I can go with. After almost 2 months I revisited this video, did a little research and in terms of availability and cost the MCiii or Rokkor-X line really is the best choice in terms of accessibility. A lot cheaper right now than Contax Zeiss and easier to find mint copies versus the Russian vintage lenses. I'm going to Japan next winter so quite excited to hit the vintage camera stores and find my own set of MCiii lenses.
What adapter do you recomend to EF user , i´m a blackmagic owner
I know you've already done a video on the 24mm SI but I'd specifically love to know how you use it during the day or with a Mattebox. I love the lens, but the rotating front element pisses me off to no end.
"That's why we don't see too many guys mixing Zeiss Contax with Zeiss Milvus" 🤣☠
So question .. I se you previously praised the MD 21mm 2.8 but see that in your kit your rocking the Mciii version .. did you switch up on that one ?
Your Minolta Rokkor reviews have been fantastic! Almost done building our set of mc mk lll's, just the a 35mm and 135mm to go, loving the images so far. Probably going for the md mk 1 35mm 1.8 but noticed that there is an MC W 35mm 2.8-hg, it seems to have similar coatings to the other mc mk lll's, any thoughts on which would match better?
Thanks! It's gonna be tricky for either. The MD's have a fair amount more micro contrast.
Love your videos Justin! Both TLS and Zero use the late 80s/early 90s Minolta AF (autofocus) 35mm F1.4 lens (Sony A mount), not the older Rokkors. I have this Lens + the 24, 55 and 85 FD ssc asphericals and they are a perfect match. In fact, the Minolta is one of my favorite lenses! Just wanted to clarify it’s not the Rokkor.
Thanks Jonathan!
@@JustinPhillip Hello from Edinburgh Scotland, there are 2 fantastic apps that give the Super 8 look, I actually have them on my channel, they are 8mm Vintage Camera and Super 16, that Kodak Super 8 overlay with the Kodak film on it, can you upload it for others to use as an overlay.
I own 4 MCIII lenses as per your recomendation - 28mm f2.5, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and the 100mm f3.5 (I see you reently found a new 100mm) - looking at your rough test I think that the coating on the MD II looks way nicer, less magenta. I didn't notice the difference right away but still see it.
Man, this is amazing! I'm also a huge Rokkor fan and it all started with my parents, they were amateur photographers and also used Minolta, specially my mom. So when I started in photography in the early 00's my first camera was a Minolta X700 with a 50mm Rokkor 1.4 PG. When I bought my first mirrorless camera in 2008 (a Lumix G1) I had already a good Rokkor set and started using them on digital. I thought I was the only crazy guy in the world that was doing this! Where is the love for Minolta? The photographers only cared for Canon and Nikon, so boring.
I got my first Minolta camera last year and started shooting film (stills) again after being fully digital for many long years. The Minolta Rokor lenses are excellent. I've been adapting them to my digital bodies, and I love them very much.
Point taken. Thnx for the rundown'
This is so cool!! I always felt like Minolta glass didn't get the love it deserves.
Hi Justin! What's your opinion about Pentax K and Pentax A? Cheers from Argentina!
The original owner of Minolta died in 1978, a lot of changes took place after his death. I started with Minolta gear in 1978 and also had their Enlarging lenses as well.
Agree 100% with everything you said. Building a set is time consuming and should be hand crafter for every focal length. Literally the only complaint I have is with the 28mm f/2 front element rotating with the focus which makes matte boxes and polarizes difficult but besides that early 70s MC Mk 1's are hands down onethe most underrated lenses of the last 50 years .. I'm starting to see that they are no gaining momentum especially with the adaptability to FF Leica mounts with simple adapters (Lumix S5 Mii) makes this combo one of the best all around kit nowadays.
i love your work ! it is educational and funny, thanks mate
Glad someone gets it!
Justin, thank you for the explanations. All of that has been very helpful. And, thank you for your passion regarding Minolta Lenses. That is to say, your love of those old Minolta lenses. The title of this video does not do justice to all that you explain. I would suggest that this video is more of an explanation about the generations of lenses that you so successfully use in your videos. Again thanks for this video. I will subscribe. I encourage others to also subscribe. My channel is a little over 41k so I know it takes a lot of work. Take care Justin and I look forward to learning more from you.
I'm a still photographer using Minolta boxes and glass. Found your presentation entertaing and very informaive. Thanks for the tour!! BTW, I did subscribe and hope it helps the Algorithms
🙌🏼
Excellent...!!! I have a Minolta SR-T 101 and SR-T 303b... The lens are Rokkor MD 50mm f1,7... MC 50mm f1,7... MC 50mm 1,4 and MD 35mm 2,8… I want the MC 35mm 1,8...!! Thanks!! 🙌🏼
Incredible community resource.
Nikon commenced glass manufacturing trials in 1918 at the Oi Dai-ichi Plant (now Oi Plant) in Shinagawa Tokyo. But it wasn't until 1929 after a number of setbacks that it released its first camera lens called the "Anytar 12cm F4.5.” Minolta came along much later.
DSLR Video Shooter he tried the Chinon lens and he really liked them. I remember Chinon they also made SLR cameras back in the 1980's but they did not last that long. The company was started in 1948.
True professional,. This is just a hobby and i'm just getting into vintage lenses. I always thought you just had to get the latest lens. But now i spend all my free time looking for vintage lenses.
Not a bad hobby 😎
Love it!
Warriors come out to playeyyyyy
Hey Justin. Zero Optik (or TLS) doesn't use a Rokkor 35mm to complete the FD set. They use an early version of the Minolta 35mm AF f1.4.
Excellent video with good information. Coatings actually began well before minolta though. Still, lots of good info.
I'm not a video guy but I totally agree the point you are making here as a videographer. Now for STILLS ONLY do you have a favourite Rokkor series? I've just bought my first Rokkor... a pristine CLA'ed example of the MCII Rokkor PF 58mm f1.4 and can't wait to try it out.
19:15 you speak..... with your heart
I love how Justin drops these pearls of knowledge and history while using the tone of someone who's about to punch me in the face
Amazing !!!
I hate to burst your bubble here but I am a Minolta Rokkor collector; I have most of their lens line lens in almost every collector model classification (Plain ROKKOR (preset), AUTO-ROKKOR(I), AUTO-ROKKOR(II), MCI-ROKKOR, MCII-ROKKOR, MC-X-ROKKOR, MDI-ROKKOR, MDII-ROKKOR and MDIII). The situation is even more difficult than you suggest; Minolta was continuously improving its coatings and even within the _same_ _model_ of the _same_ _collectors_ _model_ _classification_ you may find different coating generations depending on date of manufacture. E.g. The last incarnation of the 58/1.2 (i.e. the MC-X 58mm/1.2) comes in _at_ _least_ 2 different coating configurations with subtle different colour rendering.
Re. the use of radioactive materials; I have that brochure, and it doesn't imply at all that a lot of their lenses had _radioactive_ glass. Most of their lenses indeed used rare-earth elements in the glass-mix, but only a _small_ _few_ of those used rare-earth elements are radioactive. The vast majority of their lenses did not use any radioactive rare-earth elements, but only non-radioactive rare-earth elements. The only (potential) "problem" lenses are the ones containing a significant amount of radioactive thorium in one of the elements, which are the 28mm/2.5, _early_ 58mm/1.2 (both of which were known about for a long time) and the 100mm/2 which was discovered to contain some relatively recently.
Minolta's different construction for some of their MDIII series lenses (the most popular focal lengths produced in the highest numbers, i.e. 28/35/50/135mm) was not primarily one of cost cutting, but rather to keep up with the weight-reduction measures of its competitors on entry-level cameras, notably the removal of the brass components in the helicoid construction, replacement of screw-lens-retainer rings by burnished lens mounts, and replacement of some cosmetic parts by plastic. The plastics used in the optical mounts were high-quality glass-filled polycarbonate precision injection-mouldings, which contrary to popular belief are _not_ cheap to produce.
Cool! Regarding the coatings i have since experienced what you’re talking about first hand. The 21mm f/2.8 MC III is vastly different from all generations. Even after a thorough CLA from a licensed lens tech it is much warmer than all other generations of the Rokkors.
@@JustinPhillip I have 5 different copies of the 21/2.8 and indeed all five of them consistently render with a warmer colour than any other (non-radioactive) ROKKOR lens, to the point that I wonder if this is another lens with a yellowed thorium element in it. I fully service all my own lenses, and if memory serves me right both the cemented triplet just before the aperture as well as the cell behind the aperture have a slight warm rendering so it could be combination of both cells making these 21/2.8 lenses render quite warm.
The other thing to bear in mind is that at the time this first came out it was the fastest 21mm extreme wide-angle available from any make, Minoltas first prime with floating focus in fact; it is possible that for this lens that was clearly pushing the boundaries of what was possible at the time Minolta didn't give consistency of colour rendering quite so much priority. These old 21/2.8 ROKKORs are still quite remarkable performers even today, just requiring a small colour correction for critical rendering.
Incidentally, for Rokkor lenses there are no proper "licensed" lens technicians anymore; only old-timers who still have the know-how from when they once _were_ licensed Minolta technicians. All ROKKOR lenses with floating focus (17/4, 20/2.8, 21/2.8, 24/2.8, 24/2.8 VFC, 28/2, & 35/2.8 SHIFT CA) need a special procedure during collimation in which the float space is temporary locked in a fixed position, in order to ensure field-flatness at infinity and throughout the range of focus. The required locking tool is elusive; but careful measurement of the position of the float space sleeve prior to service can ensure it's correct position. A DIY version of the locking tool can be made from a piece of brass strip with a soldered-on locking pin.
You may find mflenses a useful forum; many experts there on legacy manual focus lenses, incl. myself...
@@maidsandmuses Interesting stuff! I find funny how quickly the MDIII have been discarded in this video. I don't know if you agree with me but some of them have the best optics in regards to contrast, barrel distortion, corner to corner sharpness of all the Minoltas, thinking about the MDIII 24mm f2.8, 35mm f2.8, 50mm f2. 85mm f2.
@@yannickmondoux2435 I shoot with late MD on BMCC6k FF and they are just magical. I also shoot with the A mount for film photography and they are amazing. They way I looked at it when I started my collection is: Minolta improved their tech and coating a lot in the 70s. It made sense to me to harvest the final crop (the creme?) before they moved onto A mount. I may be wrong, but my heart tells me it loves imagery from late MD every time I use them. I currently use 28 f2.8, 35 f2.8, 50 f2. Would like to find more of course.
just realized my dad's camera had a Minolta Rokkor-X 50mm 1.7 its an SRT-201 i think it said...??
I used for my darkroom photography class in college.. never thought anything of it at the time lol
vintage lenses weren't really all that in demand in 2011.. just brought it out though.. maybe ill get an adapter for it : )
Whats about Vivitar licensed by MINOLTA?
Not familiar
Take a look at the MD III 28mm f/2 and you might change your opinion on MD III. I agree about the build quality going downhill, but the optics of this lens are amazing.
Same optical design as the MCiii, i have that one as well. It definitely is a gem 🤙🏼
Same optical design as the MCiii, i have that one as well. It definitely is a gem 🤙🏼
@@JustinPhillip thanks for the reply 😊
Just checked and the designs are definitely different. The MD is a 9/9 design while the MC has a 10/9 configuration. If you get the chance to test the MD III, you definitely should.
Dude, thanks so much!!!!
Hey thanks! I am converted to thee lovely lens. Cheers from Australia
Great Video I have abt 18 Rokkors I love ‘em.
😮 Nice!
I don't think they used thorium on all the lenses. I have a small set from the 70's and I tested them many times with my Geiger Counter... never found any sign of radioctivity on the newer versions.
it seems you are proud of what you have discovered, and, you should..... cheers n thkU
Last time I checked Minolta was still making lens for pro JVC camcorders. I read that Minolta made the glass for the Panasonic Micro Four Thirds 35-100 f2.8 and maybe some other lens. Even on their website today they still say they make lens. They don't seem to be housed lens its just the glass.
Interesting!
That Minolta was good enough for Leica says a lot.
Minoltagang!
I love Minolta (: recently went on a trip to Japan and got to visit lots of camera stores. Scored an xg-e and an sr-t 101 for ¥1100 each. E current exchange rates that’s ab $7.23 per camera. I was ecstatic lol. At another store the guy was enamores by my wife and I, and when it came time to pay for the vintage seconic light meter and a handful of Minolta lens caps, he gave me all the caps for free (‘:
I’ve a small collection of Minolta lenses. In that collection are: 45mm f/2, 135mm f/3.5, 135mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, and a 58mm f/1.4. I really want the 800mm 😅
Nice!
Thanks for review. As a person who serviced many many MD I-II-III lenses, used them on film and digital for decade, tested resolution and contrast, I totally disagree with a statement. I found no tangible difference between MD I vs MD III with the same optical formula. Please SHOW why you think there is difference, with pictures or video, if you do such statement.
I did show the video comparisons, higher contrast in the newer generations
@@JustinPhillip Slight variations in contrast, maybe, otherwise, same resolution, geometry and color. Declining build quality of MD III is one more myth - same metal frame construction, threads, bayonet, optical assemblies. I'd rather say that aperture mechanism is designed better in later lenses. Also, what bankruptcy are you talking about? It was several times when company spent huge money in development had difficulties with money (like when they made X-1 camera). It was a part of their desire for innovation. In the beginning of 80-s a number of lens design breakthroughs - zoom lenses, floating elements and many more. Lenses were not only about coatings and rare earth elements ;)
Thank you for talking down the late model AF Minolta lenses! 😏
🤷🏻♂️
There are great Minolta AF lenses. Especially their fast prime lenses. Great rendering, lower contrast than modern lenses and rich colors.
So i guess that if i want a set for photography, i will have to hurry up.
love this.
I find out 55mm 1.2 minolta at flea baazar to 50$
which serial number ok? which serial numbers are fake? İ dont want to waste my momey?
i
Fake? You dont go by serial numbers with minolta. You go by generation
this is pure knowledge! thanks for sharing !
So, almost all Minolta lenses use thorium in the glass then? Should this be something to worry about for daily shooting?
The first auto focus camera was Konica. Minolta was the first to bring auto focus to SLR cameras. I thought Minolta was the first also with auto focus until I saw the Konica camera video the one that looks like Darth Vader. That's what they call that camera the Darth Vader camera.
god damn I love this nerding about these lenses.. I'll watch that playlist so hard
😆
To the classification there is one mistake I think...there is nothing like the MCIII...it is just Minolta MC-X (version for american market) and updated housing with MCII glass and maybe some improved coatings :) so you can mix between MCII and MC-X (even early MD are matchable in some focal lenghts) just for the record and you forgot to mention the newest MD III series of Minolta
EDIT: my bad about the MDIII you speak about them at the end of the video
Great as usual!
Minolta lenses 4 life! I love mine so much!
💯
Well I don’t understand your arguments about Thorium. It would be nice if you answer me.
First it is very easy to indentify which lens uses a radioactive element. You can mesure the radiations. This is the way to check it.
Second the Thorium gets more yellowish with the time especially if the lens is stored and not exposed to UV light. As a consequence the older the lens the more yellowish it is.
I do believe that the rendition of coulours and the contrast is very consistent in each generation. I possess some MC I MCII MD II and MDIII.
I am nevertheless conviced that only few lenses have an element with Thorium. Let’s give you an example.
I have a Rokkor MC 28mm f2.5 and it is one the worse lens I ever had regarding the yellow tint. I never succeeded to remove it and there are people who did it after a very heavy process. This lens is so yellow that I loose more than 1/2 stop. I don’t have this issue with my other MC lens.
The best zoom from Minolta I have is a…MD III, the 75/150 f4. I have some nice MDIII. I don’t believe your theory about the name Rokkor. It is just about marketing and simplifying the branding . Pentax did the same simplifying its name from Asahi Pentax to Pentax and the lens branding from Takumar to Pentax.
It is just a time when the SLR became really popular and a mass product . They just needed to lower the cost to fight. Canon did the same the newFD .
In my opinion the optical quality did not drop , only the quality of construction did.
Great video on a very interesting topic. Not to be contrarian, but the statements you deem as evidence look more like marketing to me. Companies routinely make exaggerated claims to puff up their history of innovation, technologies, R&D and so on. While the dates and time periods you've deduced for Minolta's manufacturing techniques may be largely (or even mostly) factual, it's still rather easy to spin a company's history of innovation by a good amount, and without repercussion. Point being, maybe some of these claims can be taken with a grain of salt.
True on all accounts! I agree! 💯 I tend to get quite passionate at times, but as my wife says, it's never as important as how my passion makes it seem. In other words, inside, i could really care less. 🤣
So are MDs inferior to MCs because of the lack of Thorium? So production precision and calculations went down? Don't they yellow over time?
So, dont buy Mds, because in Germany for example they are still cheap. So it depends?
Its all up to taste.
👍
YOU! Know what you are talking about.....Minoltas are the shydd
Your videos have a diamond value 👏
Jesus, no wonder my hair started to fall out shortly after I switched to using vintage Minolta lenses.
Rare earth doesn't necessarily mean radioactive
Mic drop
Bro, these MC lenses radioactive. WTF? 😂😂😂 I also have a Venus MC superzoom 85-210mm.
👌🏼
Fuck Yess!!
10:29 couldn't you just get a geiger counter and objectively find out? I mean it is possible that the lit from English marketing wasn't exactly accurate and fully re-edited and updated. And if I understand your meaning at 10:35, no, that would probably be wrong. Assuming the same material and amounts were used in, say, lenses made 8 years apart, the older lens would actually be *less* radioactive. How much less, depends on the half life. The older lens would have less would have less fissile material left, because it had more time to decay.
But the yellowing comes from the decay, thats the whole point of what i was talking about.
Ahhhh! Fair point! @@JustinPhillip
Hmmm, as far as I'm aware the statement "Leica got their glass from Minolta" isn't accurate at all. Leica and Minolta had a partnership for quite a while, and they have developed cameras and lenses together - or, rather, the Leica R camera line (until the R8) and *some* R lenses are basically Minolta designs. These specific Leitz lenses were developed by Minolta and use Minolta glass, but you're making it sound like all Leitz lenses used Minolta glass - and it's just not true. It was the exception. Even while Leica and Minolta were working together, most of Leitz lenses were developed in Germany, using their own formulae and their own glass, and produced in Germany or Canada.
Leica use glass for his lens from market, usually glass by Schott.
@@LatentePhoto Thank for the information. :) But, with this, my point stands, it's not accurate to say Leica lenses are made with Minolta glass, except for a few specific lenses.
@@LatentePhoto Oh, and even though Schott produces it (after 1989), Leica still developed their glass. gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2021/11/the-leitz-leica-glass-research.html
Was specifically talking about the years that are written on the slide in the video. But yes, specifically referring to the R lineup, which is all anyone in the cinematogtaphry world seems to care about right now. But also, who here actually worked at Minolta or Leitz during the 70s? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? …😊
@@JustinPhillip Sure. But even in the R lineup, as far as I know, it's only 3 lenses, the 16mm 2,8, the 24mm 2,8 and the 70-210mm 4. No?
Let the Minolta hoarding begin!
😆
Minolta is the shiznitz
This dude is somewhere out in the ozone........
😂😂