Personal View site logo
md or fd lenses for gh2
  • 52 Replies sorted by
  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    I own several fd primes. The 35mm f.2, the 50mm 1.4, the 85mm 1.8 and the 200mm f.4. Especially the first 3 lenses are wonderful.

    @ralph_b what do you mean by flat and liveless? I think they do a very good job compensating a bit for certain videoish touches of the gh2. Especially the 35mm is one of my favourite lenses due to its good allround character.

    Has anybody here experience with the lomo oct-18 35mm? From the footage i have seen, this would be a lense i would buy for its character and livelieness.

  • JanHJanH

    For some added lens resolution test info. on old Minolta lenses, I found this to be quite interesting:

    http://www.paulfvs.dds.nl/lenstest.html

    I have Minolta 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.8 MD lenses and a 20mm f2.8 FD lens. The FD seems to be about a stop brighter wide open than the two Minoltas.

    OT, but I love my Nikkor pre AI-S 35mm f2.0 and the Helios 44m-6 58mm f2.0 - other than the focus direction of the Nikon, that is!

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @Mirrorkisser

    FD lenses are indeed good. I was only speaking of them in comparison to the Rokkors. In that context they appear a bit flat. Notice that I said "a bit". It's not a night and day difference, but there is a difference.

  • nomadnomad

    I'm currently selling a 28mm 1:2.8 Rokkor in mint condition, since I found a 28mm 1:2.0 for me. Don't need both, since the faster one is as good at 2.8. Send me a PM if interested.

  • L1N3ARXL1N3ARX

    After using both, the MD was the clear winner on the GH2. It's still my favorite 28mm vintage lens after having used the FD and a host of others from Takumars to Nikkors and a bunch of other off-brands. The MD stands out as providing the best "neutral" image imo.

    @SightfulProd Where did you find the 21mm? That's definitely one of the few lenses that make me jealous haha. One of these days I will have one... one of these days.

  • SightfulProdSightfulProd

    @L1N3ARX

    I bought one off ebay in mint condition, it was expensive but I wanted something wider than the excellent 24mm I keep hearing about. I have used both the 24mm and 35mm Nikkors and many times feel 'if only it was wider.' So I have chosen to standardise my kit by pulling back a few mm's from the traditional focal lengths. 21mm = my 35mm Equiv FoV and 28 = my '50'.

    The 21mm 2.8 has a lower contrast, I think this may be due to it having less advanced coatings. It flares quite easily with the sun out of the frame so I need to invest in a good rubber lens hood :) This lens has two variations from the searches I have seen - NL Rokkor and MC. W Rokkor. Both have the same lens design but the former has a metal knurled focus barrel and the latter has a standard flat rubber barrel which I prefer.

    I will try to get some footage up, no promises :)

  • kavadnikavadni

    Guys, I have just created another topic, my intention being to compile info, resource and test specifically for Minolta MD/MC lenses

    http://personal-view.com/talks/discussion/4780/minolta-md-and-mc-lenses

  • kazuokazuo

    Have tried Contax Zeiss, MD and FD 50mm /1.4.
    MDs tend to glow wide open, and aren't stupendously sharp at that aperture. FDs are good, still sharp. But I like Contax Zeiss the best, rich, sharp details even when wide open. I have both 50mm f1.4 and 1.7

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @kazuo I tended to find that the Zeiss lenses were often sharper but the MD lenses had more pleasing (flattering, round, diffuse) bokeh, especially in the online head to head comparisons I saw (though I only saw a handful). What was your experience on that front?

  • kazuokazuo

    @thepalalias

    Yeah, the MDs would often yield diffused bokeh, or at least the copies i had, but wide open, they also tended to give glowy imagery. Having said that, MDs are very good for certain types of shoot, for instance, if you need to bring out bright sunny colours, as in the old Benetton ads. The reds are happy, and the overall feel is not warm, but cheerful.

    Contax Zeiss are sharp, and are very good for dramatic stuff. Depending on how you light your subject, Contax glass is versatile, you can tone down the coldness, to make things less clinical, or you could make things even more contrasty. I tried the MDs, FDs, and Zeiss on different shoots, but having considered everything, i kept and grew my Zeiss collection.

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    Hey kazuo,

    Could you possibly post some frame grabs with your Zeiss 50mm at 1.4?

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @kazuo Very much agreed about the glow - I tend to use it as an effect, not when I need more detail.

    Sounds like the Contax Zeiss glass is a good match for your shooting style and I'm glad to hear your thoughts on it.

    My favorite thing to use Rokkor lenses on is female subjects - there's just this feeling that they do a good job of making the most of the softer aspects of the talent's personality (though with a slight sacrifice in detail that I tend to feel is well offset by the natural detail tendencies of the GH2).

    I like that description "the overall feel is not warm, but cheerful". Good way of putting it. :)

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @Ralph_B Not exactly what you are looking for (it's from an MF forum) but you can see examples of the bokeh from both Rokkor and Contax Zeiss lenses on the same subject here.

    http://forum.mflenses.com/viewtopic.php?t=3782&view=previous

  • kazuokazuo

    @thepalalias

    Totally agreed, the Minoltas make women look very alluring and sexy. I used to drool over the models I shot with the MDs. There's that soft focus appeal, and if you grade the footage well, wowowow!!!

  • nomadnomad

    My opinion too, I use old Arri/Zeiss' professionally on the RED. Their look is more clinical or analytic, and like all very sharp glass (with mild over-correction of spherical aberration) they tend to have a harsher and sometimes busier bokeh.

    BTW, you can study this with the Minolta Varisoft, which is over corrected at zero, giving typical harsh bokeh rings and has some of the most painterly bokeh ever seen when you go to 0.5 or more on the softness.

    In general, Minolta went for a cautious correction, giving a good balance between sharpness and bokeh. BTW, head to head a Minolta Rokkor PG 50mm 1.4 (one of the sharpest they ever built) has less glow wide open than a Nikkor 50mm 1.4 from the same era.

    If you can afford only one set of lenses, it's Minolta for me, since they balance very well with the obsession for detail in the GH2. But if you can afford some Zeiss Contax glass, go for it, you can use it just fine if a project goes for the darker side of life. Hard to get any FF gear on them, though.

    Horses for courses: if you ask experienced DOPs they will choose the lenses they rent according to the style of the project.

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    Hmm i just compared the minolta 50 1.4 and canon fd 1.4. I liked the bokeh of the canon a lot better. Granted, the colors of the minolta were slightly better. There is also a minolta 50mm 1.2, but those are always too expensive imo.

    You should also toss the canon fd ssc into the pot. They have a radioactive element in the coating (thats why i did not buy them) which makes the color slightly warmer than with the canon FDn.

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @Mirrorkisser Do you mean the 55mm FD SSC? I liked the look of the bokeh - quite similar to the 58mm Rokkor 1.4 (though I have never tried the Rokkor 58mm 1.2). Both a lot softer wide open than for instance a Nokton 25mm f/0.95 (but both much cheaper too, unless you get a particularly pricey seller :)

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @thepalalias: i was referring to the 50mm fd 1.4 ssc. Imo it adds a bit of warmth to the color.

    @ralph_b: please dont get me wrong, i am not a canon glass defendant or anything. I always take, what suits me best. Regarding the flatness: Isnt that what most people are after, since it offers more options for grading and has a more filmic feel?

  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @Mirrorkisser Never tried that one. Will have to give it a look. :)

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @thepalalias: the 55mm costs more than double. Maybe it has slightly better characteristics, but i could never convince myself to pay the extra money :)

    Has ever anybody tried the canon fd 17mm? It should be a fullframe 35mm equivalent, almost. Its not very fast though. Or maybe the fd20mm?

  • katigkatig

    Canon fd 20mm is excellent lens, not too soft wide open, and very sharp a stop down. I don't have Canon 17mm but Tokina rmc 17mm fd mount, didn't expect much when I purchased it, and now is one of my favorite lenses.

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @katig: cheers for the info. May i ask, how much you paid for it? So i know if my offer is good..thanks

  • katigkatig

    approx 220€ for 20mm. Tokina is cheaper (approx 170€), and if you don't mind it's F3.5, it is good alternative to 20mm

  • MirrorkisserMirrorkisser

    @katig: thanks a lot! I would get mine for around 150€. So it seems it is a fair offer. The Tokina i just checked on ebay, there are just some auctions, that have not ended yet. Ebay is a rather expensive place though these days. Commercial Sellers ask for astronomic figures, while private sellers often state wrong facts on the condition of the lenses. Shot myself there quite an amount of "mint"-fungus recently...

  • kodakmomentkodakmoment

    I have owned a Canon FD 2.8/28 and a FDn 2.0/24 and have sold them again. The image was good but I didn't like the mechanical quality of the lenses. The Minolta MD and especially MC Rokkors are much smoother and solid. I also own several MC and MD lenses of which I am planning to sell some (21, 35, 85 and 135mm) since I also have some Leica glass. Though the increase in quality does not justify the higher price of the Leicas. The Minoltas are smaller and lighter, too. Unfortunately I have a problem with perfectionism... So for all non-perfectionists, Rokkor lenses are a great way to go.

Add a Comment