Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 – MC II – review
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 vintage manual lens review (Minolta MC Tele Rokkor-PF 1:1.4 f=58mm)
- Official classification: MC
- Collector’s classification: MC II, Hills &Valleys, Knurled
This is the well known, enough cheap, and very popular ‘near fifty’ lens, which can be an easy find in auctions or flea-markets around the whole world. I’ve read a lot of different opinions from skeptical to over-positive and this review is another one try to sort out with this lens.
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 specifications:
| minolta.eazypix.de index | 135 |
| Name engraved on lens | MC ROKKOR-PF |
| f[mm] | 58 |
| A max [1/f] | 1.4 |
| A min[1/f] | 16 |
| Lens design [el.] | 6 |
| Lens design [gr.] | 5 |
| Filter thread Ø front(rear)[mm] | 55 |
| Lens Shade | D55NA |
| closefocus[m/ft] | 0.6/2 |
| Dimension Ø x length [mm] | 65×41 |
| Weight[g] | 275 |
| Year | 1969 |
| Style | MC II |
| Code No. (ROKKOR-X) or Order No. | 639 |
| Notes | revised optical construction |
More data
| Floating elements | NO |
| Aperture blades number | 6 |
| Confidence in the test results of reviewed copies | Very High |
| Reviewed lens SN: | 5511719 |
Two copies have been used for this review. At first, I’ve bought cheap one sn.5721556 with the oiled diaphragm (15 mins for cleaning) but later was lucky to get the truly boxed kit of Minolta SRT-101 and lens sn.5511719 – I even published the dedicated article about that ‘incident’. ‘Lens-Romantic’ test showed that the behavior of these copies are similar, so I decided to review the second one – boxed copy.
Historical note
Opposite to other lenses from the ‘Hills&Valleys’ generation which is often were the first in the product lines of Minolta lenses this MC PF 58mm F1.4 is the last version in the row with three predecessors (58/1.4 AR-II, AR-C, MC-I by collectors classification). Later Minolta stopped to produce 58mm lenses and switched to 50mm only.
That was the period of experiments, and lenses have changes in design during the production period. Advanced collectors say about dozens of inventions, my two copies also not similar and it can be seen without disassembling. Does it mean that the optical performance of different copies is noticeable? These two sn5511719 and sn5721556 works like twins. What about the earliest and latest models – I don’t know.
“If you want to know how many optical versions there are… 1.Early AR-II, SNs: 11xxxxx, 2,Late AR-II, SNs: 12xxxxx and 20xxxxx, 3.AR-C, 4.MC-I and 5.MC-II. The difference between MC-I and MC-II is extremely slight. I think it has more to do with the glass used than with physical dimensions, although the rear element is slightly thinner in the MC-II version. Someday I will get my detailed analysis of the version ready for publishing.”
Maury Jacks
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 lens exterior:
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 mounted on Minolta SR-T 101 camera. Both camera and lens, are from one kit:
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 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 PF 58mm 1:1.4 aberrations
Vignetting
Geometric distortion
Coma aberrations
Chromatic aberrations
Long-distance bokeh
Test#1
Test conditions: the lens was focused on 0.45m, buildings are on “infinity”-distance
Test#2
Test conditions: lens was focused on 2m
Light bubbles bokeh
Test #1
The lens is on the minimal focusing distance 0.45m, lights are on infinity (cityscape)
Test #2
Test conditions: lens was focused on 2m
Other resources with reviews:
Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm 1:1.4 final conclusion
Everything depends on the photographer’s taste and camera, but from my point of view, it needs to avoid a wide-open aperture. The next F2 can be OK for some portraits, but better to start from F2.8. The good news is that from F5.6 it is ready for any tasks including landscapes, not a bad result by the way, even for some modern fifties.
“One day I shot portraits of a girl with this lens on a7rII. Initially I used f2 and when I took a shot and checked the result, I found the lens was too sharp for the girl’s not so good skin condition so I immediately changed to f1.4 and got very good result. I just love these vintage lenses because you buy and carry only one lens but get the results of two lenses, unlike those expensive modern lenses so called designed for digital imaging that are stupidly sharp even wide open, honestly showing each every tiny hill and valley on girls’ faces.”
Feng Xu
I don’t see other disadvantages except the softness F1.4-2.0, so, let’s turn to powerful sides. Great rendering is in the first place. Bubbles of light with contrast borders over the smooth background can impress anyone. Historically, this lens stays in the shadow of bokeh-monster Minolta MC 58/1.2, but it seems wrong for me – both lenses are absolutely different by rendering, and both can be recommended for portraiture or art-of-bokeh styles… Strongly recommend.
The other side of the beautiful bokeh is a stack of aberrations and here I can see the usual case for Minolta lenses – the level of aberrations is not so big as it can be expected for the lens with such rendering abilities. Even a softness on the wide-open aperture can be partly fixed with just a simple contrast slider in the RAW-editors.
Other standard goodies that belong to most of Hills&Valleys Minolta lenses: steel&glass design for the fans of the feeling of heavy metal, it can be fully disassembled, fixed, cleaned and reassembled with a kitchen knife.
And about the focal distance: 58mm is a nice for portraiture. Not for a “full face” of course but for “half-body” at least. Anyway, it is a little bit more preferable than 50mm.
After getting of test results, I don’t realize the one: why the prices of this lens are so low on auctions? Let me add it to the list of the most underrated lenses. It has a nice design and feels, low aberrations, enough good sharpness, stunning bokeh, portraiture-ready but not too long focal distance. In other words – the absolutely universal near-fifty lens with a nice IQ. Grab it if you meet it – it’s a good chance to get a favorite tool in a photographer bag.
Battles with this lens:
13 Comments
David Jenkins · 2019-09-28 at 22:31
Another awesome review, I love this website, thanks for all this hard work! I agree with your review, this lens and the 58mm 1.2 are very different in rendering. It has such a distinct look and with so many aberrations, it’s very unique but I could never get used to it. I’ve found that the 55mm 1.7 (MC-II hill-valley) better compares to the 58mm 1.2 in terms of rendering, a proper “little sister” or a “poor mans 58mm 1.2”.
Tony · 2019-09-29 at 13:56
Thank you. Next reviews about near-fifties Rokkors 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 are in the queue
Al · 2022-08-11 at 01:03
Awesome work, very useful. Thank you!
Kinemabohya · 2025-01-08 at 14:39
Auto Rokkor 58mm/f1.4 and MC Rokkor-PF 58mm/f1.4, both are obtained at hand, judging from the outside peeping in the lens construction, both are the same in coating and rens designing. Also, the pics are same compared on LCD. How do you think about the similarity between them? GFX50S-2 is the format I invited. I’ll be happy if I can discern your opinions, my brothers!
Tony · 2025-01-08 at 18:21
Hi Kinemabohya! My opinion is that both lenses will produce approximately the same image. But you can’t eliminate the factor of deviations during production (which are extremely rare for Minolta, but nevertheless), and the age factor. Therefore, without tests with comparison at 100% scale – it is impossible to say anything. Or take both )
Kinemabohya · 2025-01-21 at 02:30
Thank for replying on my tiny opinion. I would like to agree with your opinion about constructive error on the product line. Telling my experience when disassembling Schneider lens for 4-5, I had some difficulty to grass piece on the original position of the case because of too tight space between them. But, Minolta, at the same situation, lensed were reinserted relatively easily, What I wanna say here is the importance of the centricity of every element when assembled, this factor has much to do with the production’s uniformity, just an opinion of myself. Regards:
J · 2025-01-16 at 15:39
Excellent review! I shoot a Minolta 58mm F1.4 PF on the GFX 50SII and honestly get some really good results.
I believe there are several versions of the PF; some of them will completely cover the GFX sensor and I’m guessing others won’t based on what I’ve heard from people’s experiences.
My copy covers the sensor, albeit with some bizarre field curvature and lots of bokeh. This lens is also surprisingly sharp on the GFX, which is nice.
The only annoying thing I can think of is manually focusing this lens on the GFX can be difficult. When shooting, the subject may appear as if in focus, but when reviewing on a bigger screen, it actually isn’t. User error? (Probably)
I don’t use the enhanced zoom-focusing option; I find it cumbersome when trying to focus/shoot quickly.
Great lens, would regret selling it.
Tony · 2025-01-18 at 12:53
Thank you! BTW: Maury Jacks has done a global study of this type of lens. Including vignetting, if I’m not mistaken. He has actually checked and disassembled several dozen of them. I don’t think he has published the results in the public domain, but you can find him and ask, he always helps when possible. He is the administrator of the Minolta Collectors group
Kinemabohya · 2025-01-21 at 02:46
Oh, you are my elder brother, sir! Your description is almost the same as I have. But, about focusing procedure is different from you, I feel it a bit difficult to do that on EVF, because of this minus factor, I make it a rule to invite magnifying function for every shot. This is only the difference of shooting style. If an atmospheric reproduction is the first, your style might be correct. I’m inviting another Leitz lens, Macro Elmarit R 60mm/f2.8 as standard one on 33×44 format, just a bit image circle racks. Take it easy on my opinion. Thanks a lot!
Tony · 2025-01-25 at 21:59
Hello Kinemabohya, thank you very much for your informative comments! You have very advanced experience, I will always be glad to read messages from you. Welcome
kinemabohya · 2025-01-21 at 02:12
Hi, Tony! You gave me some indispensable information about M, Jacks. I would like to visit his Website. Thanks a lot! Vignetting is the most nervous point when used 135 lenses on 33-44 format. It’s one of a joke so take it easy, Micro 4/3 Zuiko Digital 9-18mm/f4-5.6 was set on 50S2 as an experimental trial, of course ilis is fully opened and focusing is done on the way of fuselage extension, the result was not fully deniable, extraordinarily interesting pics might be obtained?
B. Walters · 2025-03-27 at 06:03
When I first picked this lens up about 10 years ago, I tried it at 1.4 and thought it was pretty bad. The bokeh was nervous and the subject wasn’t sharp. Then one day I tried it at f2. The results were outstanding. The subject sharpened up nicely and the bokeh was among the nicest I’ve ever seen! There are other really good portrait lenses I own, but none beats this Minolta at f2. And it seems like you and I are the only ones that understand this. The lens is rarely spoken about and the price is dirt cheap. Maybe no one is trying this lens at f2?? …anyway, excellent review!
Tony · 2025-03-27 at 20:41
Thank you! Maybe you are right. Not everyone has the willpower to use a 2.0 lens if they have a 1.4, haha