Minolta MD W. Rokkor-X 20mm f/2.8

[tenzin]

Hi

After reading the rules for posting, I have to say I'm not trying to sell anything in this post. Just a question.

Do you think this 20mm w.rokkor-x lens selling at $100 is cheap, avg or expensive price? The lens is in mint condition. I've read about people selling it for around 200. Thanks!
T

 

[boyd2]

Do you think this 20mm w.rokkor-x lens selling at $100 is cheap,
avg or expensive price? The lens is in mint condition. I've read
about people selling it for around 200. Thanks!

I had one and also sold it for a lot more Nice lens!

The original sunshade is a bit of a problem, easly lost. You can't screw it on (no room because of vignetting) but it fits around the outside and you have to fasten a screw ...

 

[tenzin]

How much did yours sell for?

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Do you think this 20mm w.rokkor-x lens selling at $100 is cheap,
avg or expensive price? The lens is in mint condition. I've read
about people selling it for around 200. Thanks!

I had one and also sold it for a lot more Nice lens!
The original sunshade is a bit of a problem, easly lost. You can't
screw it on (no room because of vignetting) but it fits around the
outside and you have to fasten a screw ...

That's the 21mm surely. The 20mm f2.8 has a smaller filter thread and a normal hood. The clamp-on hood was only for the classic 21mm f2.8 design with 72mm thread - the lens which was fortunately revived in essence for the 20mm f2.8 AF, since the 20mm f2.8 MC/MD series proved to have excessive vignetting and distortion.

David

 

[Olaf Ulrich]

The original sunshade is a bit of a problem,
easily lost. You can't screw it on [...] but it
fits around the outside and you have to
fasten a screw ...

That's the 21 mm surely. The 20 mm f2.8 has a smaller
filter thread and a normal hood. The clamp-on hood was
only for the classic 21 mm f2.8 design with 72 mm thread ...

Sorry to disagree but that's not true. 'boyd2' is right; it's the MD 20 mm that has a simple clamp-on hood with a set-screw. And it does get lost easily indeed. The hood for the MC 21 mm is a screw-in hood---however you must not screw it in fully but only until the blue marks line up and then fasten the hood with a set-screw ... a pretty weird concept. At least the properly mounted hood won't get lost, unlike the 20 mm variety.

... the 20 mm f2.8 MC/MD series proved to have
excessive vignetting and distortion.

Umm ... that's an exaggeration in my opinion. The old huge MC W.Rokkor-NL 21 mm 1:2.8 indeed is the better lens in many regards. But the tiny MD 20 mm is pretty good, too. Distortion und vignetting at full aperture are only slightly worse than in the MC 21 mm. Considering the size, it's a top-class performer. Sure I agree the MC 21 mm is (slightly) better. But the word 'excessive' in the quote above does the MD 20 mm no justice.

Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Germany

 

[David Kilpatrick]

The original sunshade is a bit of a problem,
easily lost. You can't screw it on [...] but it
fits around the outside and you have to
fasten a screw ...

That's the 21 mm surely. The 20 mm f2.8 has a smaller
filter thread and a normal hood. The clamp-on hood was
only for the classic 21 mm f2.8 design with 72 mm thread ...

Sorry to disagree but that's not true. 'boyd2' is right; it's the
MD 20 mm that has a simple clamp-on hood with a set-screw. And it
does get lost easily indeed. The hood for the MC 21 mm is a
screw-in hood---however you must not screw it in fully but only
until the blue marks line up and then fasten the hood with a
set-screw ... a pretty weird concept. At least the properly mounted
hood won't get lost, unlike the 20 mm variety.

I used this lens and can't remember any such arrangement on the hood I had. It was identical to the other rectangular hoods from this era, with a single chrome screw.

Similarly, I can't remember having any such hoods for the later MD lenses - I actually collected older hoods, which I used in place of the supplied ones. I still have the 24mm, 28mm and 35mm hoods but at least was from the old Konica system (by coincidence) as they also had some very good flock-lined 35mm shaped rectangular hoods.

... the 20 mm f2.8 MC/MD series proved to have
excessive vignetting and distortion.

Umm ... that's an exaggeration in my opinion. The old huge MC
W.Rokkor-NL 21 mm 1:2.8 indeed is the better lens in many regards.
But the tiny MD 20 mm is pretty good, too. Distortion und
vignetting at full aperture are only slightly worse than in the MC
21 mm. Considering the size, it's a top-class performer. Sure I
agree the MC 21 mm is (slightly) better. But the word 'excessive'
in the quote above does the MD 20 mm no justice.

At this time I was using the 21mm/20mm for very large prints - 23 x 36 inch from Panatomic-X etc - and there was really quite a substantial difference. The full page repro in one of the early Minolta Mirrors of one of my b/w shots (on Tri-X, but very carefully processed in Microdol-X and downrated) was from the 21mm f2.8 final series black version issued with the XM. Maybe 1976 - article on wide-angles.

David

 

[tenzin]

thanks for the informational history lens..but how does this answer my question???

What is a good price to sell the 20 mm W.Rokkor-X lens?

 

[Olaf Ulrich]

The original sunshade [for the MD 20 mm] [...]
can't screw it on [...] it fits around the outside
and you have to fasten a screw ...

That's the 21 mm surely. [...] The clamp-on hood was
only for the classic 21 mm f2.8 design with 72 mm thread ...

[...] The hood for the MC 21 mm is a screw-in hood---however
you must not screw it in fully but only until the blue marks line
up and then fasten the hood with a set-screw ... a pretty weird
concept.

I used this lens and can't remember any such arrangement on the
hood I had. It was identical to the other rectangular hoods from
this era, with a single chrome screw.

Umm ... maybe you had an older sample of the MC 21 mm lens---or at least an older hood. Maybe the weird screw-in-plus-set-screw hood for the MC 21 mm appeared only later? Mine is a late-MC-era sample with rubber-waffle focusing grip. Have a look at its original hood here:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9408/hoodmc21mmeq5.jpg

I also have a huge rectangular slip-on hood for the 1st seven-element version of the MC W.Rokkor-SG 28 mm 1:3.5 (ø 67 mm) from the late '60s---larger than the lens and almost as heavy ... well, not quite, but it's a monster of a lens hood. The 21 mm's hood however is very different from that, as you can see in the image above.

The full page repro in one of the early Minolta Mirrors of one of
my b/w shots [...] was from the 21 mm f2.8 final series black
version issued with the XM. Maybe 1976 - article on wide-angles.

Yes, I have that article here right before me (MM 1976 indeed). The only full-page image shows a sea-side scene---water, coastline, and sky, in colour. No way to judge distortion here. There are more images (smaller) that do show the near-perfect geometry of the MC 21 mm (and MC 17 mm). By the time that article was written, however, the MD 20 mm did not yet exist, and so, naturally, there don't appear any images that would allow a comparison.

Anyway---I don't deny the fact the MD 20 mm has somewhat more distortion than the MC 21 mm. I just disagree with the term 'excessive.' Virtually any wide-angle zoom lens today has more distortion at the short end.

Regards,
Olaf
--
Olaf Ulrich, Germany

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Umm ... maybe you had an older sample of the MC 21 mm lens---or at
least an older hood. Maybe the weird screw-in-plus-set-screw hood
for the MC 21 mm appeared only later? Mine is a late-MC-era sample
with rubber-waffle focusing grip. Have a look at its original hood
here:

http://img361.imageshack.us/img361/9408/hoodmc21mmeq5.jpg

That really is something strange - I don't recall this hood at all, and you have me wondering whether my 21mm was even supplied with a hood now, as this is so distinctive. Time to dig up ancient photo archives and see, maybe. I could just have forgotten how unusual it was. If anyone is interested, I have some new original Minolta lens cases for the 21mm f2.8 - I think. I also have some for the 35mm PC VFC lens with offset inside foam cut outs and space for the adjustment knob.

Virtually any wide-angle zoom lens today has more
distortion at the short end.

Totally agreed, and most fixed focal length wides as well. The Minolta Mirror article was a bit of a scam, as they insisted on using one of my shots which was not taken with Minolta, but Pentax - and also insisted I changed my Pentax kit for Minolta. Then after the annual appeared, I had a message from Japan joking about the Pentax shot which their optical team spotted straight away and could tell was not Minolta from the flare patch - they had never made a lens with five diaphragm blades and knew exactly which Pentax lens I had used.

They were quite laid back about it, sort of 'it's the picture which matters and you are using Minolta now'.

David