Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 W – MC II – review
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 W vintage manual lens review (Minolta MC W Rokkor-HG 1:2.8 f=35mm)
- Official classification: MC
- Collector’s classification: MC II, Hills &Valleys, Knurled
This is the first lens that has been acquired after I decided to test every prime lens from Hills&Valleys generation. I have got the copy in “near mint”, or even maybe “like new” condition – almost no signs of use. My interest is enough big because one of the best ever among any other in the whole world (my most favorite too) lens is New-MD 35/2.8, and I was very curious about the IQ of the predecessor from MC-era. But something went wrong and my first “like new” copy is showed a strange result – the huge lack of resolution in middles and corners. But right after that sad day, I was lucky to get another copy. The second one has a lot of signs of use, signs of disassembling, and removed aperture clicker-ball, even one of the screws has been lost. But after CLA it displays the really nice sharpness.
I still don’t know what is the reason for the difference in IQ between these two copies – a quality deviation, or damage of the first lens but without signs of an impact. This article is based on test results from the second good copy, but photos of the exterior were made with both.
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 specifications
minolta.eazypix.de index | 72 |
Name engraved on lens | MC W.ROKKOR-HG |
f[mm] | 35 |
A max [1/f] | 2.8 |
A min[1/f] | 16 |
Lens design [el.] | 7 |
Lens design [gr.] | 6 |
Filter thread Ø front(rear)[mm] | 52 |
Lens Shade | screw-in |
closefocus[m/ft] | 0.4/1.25 |
Dimension Ø x length [mm] | 63×45 |
Weight[g] | 210 |
Year | 1970 |
Style | MC II |
Code No. (ROKKOR-X) or Order No. | 619-118 |
Notes |
More data
Floating elements | NO |
Aperture blades number | 6 |
Confidence in the test results of reviewed copies | Average |
Reviewed Lens SN: | copy #1 – 4548671
copy #2 – 4589362 |
SLR lenses with parameters 35mm 1:2.8 were in the production during the whole Minolta-SR lifecycle from the start of the in 1958 till the end in 80′. These lenses have been presented in every possible design reincarnation – AR I, AR II, AR C, MC I, MC II, MC X, MC CE, MD CE, MD I, MD II, MD III. Some collector’s records contain more than 20 modifications exclude known prototypes.
It seems, that the difference of this reviewed MC II with the previous one – MC I (“long grip” of “flat grip”) – is just in the shape of a focusing ring, but one notice: that period was a time of experiments and changes, so it is better to keep in mind that IQ and performance can be different even inside one group of products.
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 lens exterior
Copy #1
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 accessories
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 mounted on Minolta SR-T 101 camera
It’s a suitable set – both are from one era of design
Copy #2
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 sharpness
Сlose-distance resolution test, minimal distance
Testing methods description
- Target: 10-15 cm picture, printed on glossy photo paper
- Distance: 1.7m
- Camera: Sony A7II (24mpx, full-frame, tripod, remote control). M-mode, ISO fixed, WB fixed, SteadyShot – OFF.
- The test was repeated for every F-stop on every focus position with manual focus adjustment for each shot. That is to avoid the effect of field curvature.
- RAW processing: Capture One, default settings. All quality settings – 100%. Crops – 300×200 px
Original target image (printed in horizontal orientation on 10cm X 15cm glossy photo paper)
Scene preview
Test results
Long-distance resolution test
Testing methods description
- Target: cityscape
- Distance: > 200 meters to center focus point
- Camera: Sony A7II (24mpx, full-frame, tripod, remote control). M-mode, ISO fixed, WB fixed, SteadyShot – OFF. The focus point is on the center only.
- RAW processing: Capture One, default settings. All quality settings – 100%. Crops – 300×200 px
Scene preview
Test results
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 aberrations
Vignetting
Geometric distortion
Coma aberrations
Chromatic aberrations
Long-distance bokeh
Test#1
Test conditions: the lens was focused on 0.4m, buildings are on “infinity”-distance
Test#2
Test conditions: lens was focused on 1m
Light bubbles bokeh – infinity
Test #1
The lens is on the minimal focusing distance 0.4m, lights are on infinity (cityscape)
Test #2
Test conditions: lens was focused on 2m
Minolta MC Rokkor HG 35mm 1:2.8 final conclusion
Advantages
Standard (most of Hills&Valleys styled Minolta lenses have these specialties):
- Small
- Lightweight
- Inexpensive
- Gives “Steel and Glass” feelings
- Easy to fix and CLA with using of minimum skills and tools
Bokeh
The lens has a hidden power side – the bokeh. 35mm focal distance can be named as “moderately wide” and suitable for any styles of photography, but of course, a wide lens with F2.8 isn’t able to provide deep DOF on average and long distances, on the other hand, it is greatly suitable for short distances – you know, all that flowers/herbs, home stuff, elements of the interior, decorations on Christmas trees, toys/statuettes, etc. It’s strictly art lens – perspective distortion because of “short” 35mm in sum with smooth bokeh and amazing light-bubbles may help you to create a lot of beautiful shots. And for such tasks, the sharpness of the lens is more than enough.
Disadvantages
The previous sentence helps me turn to disadvantages. Lens has a lack of sharpness in the middle and corner positions. Far or short distances – it doesn’t matter. It isn’t a good behavior for wide lenses because it drives us to close the aperture more and more. It seems to me that landscapes will require more than F8 for this Rokkor.
As a result
I can’t recommend it for the role of an everyday lens, but it seems to me as a quite suitable tool for art.
2 Comments
Egor · 2019-12-11 at 17:41
It’s a truly controversial lens! While it provides great look and feel, optically not so good, but on digital! Those vintage coatings on last (I mean back element) are more suitable for matte film, than glancing reflecting digital sensor! Try it on film, the results will be different. Also, lens is prone to back element separation. Several lens, that I’ve seen, had such problem.
Anonymous · 2020-01-06 at 22:13
I fully support your findings. The construction of the lens is to blame for the corner unsharpness as it is a Tessar type lens with a wide-angle converter in front of the Tessar. Also other brands used this lens construction for their first 35mm reflex lenses, with similar lack of sharpness in corners.
Later designs were more sophisticated and real wide angle designs, which explains the differences between the md and earlier mc versions.