[Sam_I_am]

This summer has been busy, and now I am getting back to the camera bench. Today I installed new seals in the srt102, X700, and a Nikon EM. My hopes are to thin the herd a bit, as far as my Minoltas go. I know that the 50 is your general all-purpose, cant take a bad pic, usual kit lens. My plans are...(things can change of course)...to keep my X-700, X-570, (possibly XG-M) and SRT 102. Keep in mind that I hope to add an XD11 to the mix eventually, and when I do, the XG-M will for sure go away.

Here is what I have in MD 50 lenses.

1:1.4 Rokker X....49mm
1:1.7.........49mm
1:2.......49mm
1:1.7 Rokker X.......55mm

So which one(s) do you think I should keep that will work well with the bodies I am keeping....and why...

Thats right, I want to hear your opinions, so bring them on!

[Not a Number]

If it was me I would keep:

1:1.4 Rokker X - well because it is f1.4
if the 1.7 Rokker X 55mm is the MC I version with the metal focusing barrel I'd keep that because the metal rings look and feel great. Otherwise the coatings on 1.7 49mm filter (MD?) are way better and it should have the P mode lock on the aperture ring.

Bodies - X-700 because it has the most advanced features. X-570 because of the needle match manual metering and the SRT-102 - built like a tank and I like how the needle match metering system works.

I've always wanted an XD11, just never got around to acquiring one since I stopped shooting film.

[Astro-Baby]

I cant be positive about which lenses some of those are from that description, especially the 55mm Rokkor X but if you were thinning I would suggest keep the 1.4, ditch the f2 lens with the XGM. i assume that is a 1:2 lens not a 1:1.2 by the way people do get confused with that.

The others I would keep a 1.7 either the one with the aperture lock on or the version immediately before it.

Camerawise I would keep the X700, as it was such a late camera spares are plentiful and most canera techs can repair them. The XGM is a liability. When the run they are sweet but they seem prone to a lot of fails possibly be ause they were quite an early electronics based box.

[Sam_I_am]

If it was me I would keep:

1:1.4 Rokker X - well because it is f1.4
if the 1.7 Rokker X 55mm is the MC I version with the metal focusing barrel I'd keep that because the metal rings look and feel great. Otherwise the coatings on 1.7 49mm filter (MD?) are way better and it should have the P mode lock on the aperture ring.

Bodies - X-700 because it has the most advanced features. X-570 because of the needle match manual metering and the SRT-102 - built like a tank and I like how the needle match metering system works.

I've always wanted an XD11, just never got around to acquiring one since I stopped shooting film.

My thoughts as well on the bodies.

I cant be positive about which lenses some of those are from that description, especially the 55mm Rokkor X but if you were thinning I would suggest keep the 1.4, ditch the f2 lens with the XGM. i assume that is a 1:2 lens not a 1:1.2 by the way people do get confused with that.

The others I would keep a 1.7 either the one with the aperture lock on or the version immediately before it.

Camerawise I would keep the X700, as it was such a late camera spares are plentiful and most canera techs can repair them. The XGM is a liability. When the run they are sweet but they seem prone to a lot of fails possibly be ause they were quite an early electronics based box.

Sorry about the confusion. The 49 and 55 are the filter sizes, they are all 50mm lenses.

I new you would say that about the XG-M. lol

Glad to see there is a consensus on the 1.4. I will get a picture up in a bit to help clarify.

[Sam_I_am]

Here you go...

ooops, disregard the MC.

[Benz3ne]

I’ve seen a huge regard for the 50mm f/2 lately, especially as a more budget, sharp option.

[reh321]

This summer has been busy, and now I am getting back to the camera bench. Today I installed new seals in the srt102, X700, and a Nikon EM. My hopes are to thin the herd a bit, as far as my Minoltas go. I know that the 50 is your general all-purpose, cant take a bad pic, usual kit lens. My plans are...(things can change of course)...to keep my X-700, X-570, (possibly XG-M) and SRT 102. Keep in mind that I hope to add an XD11 to the mix eventually, and when I do, the XG-M will for sure go away.

Here is what I have in MD 50 lenses.

1:1.4 Rokker X....49mm
1:1.7.........49mm
1:2.......49mm
1:1.7 Rokker X.......55mm

So which one(s) do you think I should keep that will work well with the bodies I am keeping....and why...

Thats right, I want to hear your opinions, so bring them on!

I have something like five K-mount 50mm lenses.
I use them very little any more, but I still plan to keep them - for "historical" reasons {they take up very little space and would yield very little if I would resale them}.

[Sam_I_am]

I am not adverse to having multiple 50mm lenses, and I know that each lens technically has a different impact on the photo. I also understand that the Rokker lens has better optics than a comparable non Rokker. What I haven't researched is if there is any actual superiority of one lens over another between 1.4, 1.7, or the 2, or does it come down to personal preference on which one you would use as your go to 50mm. That is why I included the bodies I plan on keeping.

[ChristianRock]

Back when I had an XG-M (which I thought was a very nice camera, I loved that thing) I had the Rokkor 50 1.4 and the Minolta MD 50 1.7 (post-Rokkor I guess, but still pre-AF days). I loved the 50 1.4 and did not care much for the 50 1.7.
I haven't had the others but the 55mm f/1.7 looks interesting. If I were you I'd at least try to shoot a roll of film with it...

[Astro-Baby]

Id keep the Rokkor X and the PF. The X ones are rarer and the PF is beautifully made and sits well with any SRT series. The others are disposable and easily reacquired if needs be.

[Not a Number]

I don't know about the Rokkors being optically better than the non-Rokkor MD lenses. Certainly better than the Celtic lenses. On Minolta site had tests between a few of the non-Rokkor MD vs Rokker MD and MC lenses. Generally the MD had better corner sharpness and overall contrast. The conclusion was the better contrast was due to improvements in coatings. The thing is Minolta was constantly improving their coatings even within series runs so later productions runs of the same series might have better coatings.

I thought it was the Rokkor Files site that had the reviews but I don't see any links there and they aren't in my bookmarks. Probably another Minolta fan site that went dark.

The advantage of keeping the 49mm filter lenses is you only need one set of filters. You can always use a step-up ring but those are usually more trouble than they are worth.

Many people prefer the older lenses because of the build - less plastic. The Rokkor MD lenses started using plastic for the aperture rings while the last MD series (with the aperture lock tab) started using glass filled resins for the parts of the body as well. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Sam_I_am]

Honestly, this is what I wanted to hear. When I look back through the posts, I see overlapping comments. This is very helpful to helping me choose.

Now wait until I pull out the rest of the lenses. lol

[Sam_I_am]

Ok, more lens questions. Is the MD 28mm 2.8 better than the MD Celtics 28mm 2.8, or the other way around, or no difference?

[Sam_I_am]

....also, MD Celtic 28mm 2.8, or MD 28mm 2.8?

[Not a Number]

The regular MD lenses have better coatings than the Celtic line.