Frankly you don't see much discussion about Minolta. I find the lenses to be great performers and real bargains. Minolta multicoated their optics in the 60s before C&N. Their normal 55mm f/1.7 is outstanding as is the 135mm f/3.5 and 28mm f/3.5. A killer lens is the MC 58mm f/1.2. The image quality is very sharp at f/3.5 with butter smooth out of focus effects. The bokeh is the same as my Rollei 80mm Planer f/2.8. Expect to pay top $$ the fast Minolta glass.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), January 28, 2002

Answers

And your question is?

-- Pete Andrews (p.l.andrews@bham.ac.uk), January 29, 2002.

OK then Richard, maybe I'm not sure quite what sort of discussion you wanted to kick off, but I'll join in with a quick wallow in nostalgia, follow on with a few random dogmatic assertions, and end with a question or two. Let's see where that gets us. :-)

First, nostalgia. The MC 58mm f/1.2. That was the epitome of cool back in about 1970. The 1960s had seen the Pentax Spotmatic dominate the amateur 35mm market, while the Nikon F was the only game in town for anyone who needed interchangeable viewfinders and screens.

Then came the Minolta SRT 101.

Every now and then the engineers at Minolta do this. They bring out something that completely changes the expectations of the market. They did it again later in 1985 with the first practical autofocus camera, and there's a case for saying that the Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9 does it too. Somehow they have never managed to convert being first with engineering into being market leader in sales. Maybe that's one of my questions.

The SRT 101 used its two CdS meter cells to measure different parts of the scene, so that the camera would know the overall brightness plus the level of contrast. I guess that makes this CLC (Contrast Light Compensation) system the very first matrix metering. The other new feature was full-aperture light metering. Nikon had had this for two or three years using the "Nikon twist" -- spinning the aperture ring first one way and then the other to index the lens. But the MC lenses indexed automatically as they were mounted, speeding up lens changes.

Because of these advances, some professionals (including the influential Victor Blackman, press photographer for the "Daily Express" and columnist for "Amateur Photographer") to change from Nikon. But all to soon, Canon came out with the new FD mount, the FTb and the F-1 ... and Canon became the de facto competitor to Nikon.

The good reputation of the MC 58mm f/1.2 and the huge expanse of its front element on an SRT 101 made it much admired. (I fear that, at the time, I might well have called it "fab". :-)) I could never have afforded it though: in 1970 it cost 225 pounds and 19 shillings.

(This useful piece of information comes from a 1970-71 Blue Book, which I happen to have on my desk. Stop sniggering at the back: this makes me well informed -- it does not make me sad.)

Dogmatic assertion number one. If you really think that 35mm pictures taken with an MC 58mm f/1.2 are as good as 6x6 pictures taken with an 80mm f/2.8 Planar on a Rolleiflex ... then you're viewing the Minolta pictures through a rose-tinted loupe.

Dogmatic assertion number two. You're right the the best Minolta glass is expensive. One of the things that makes it expensive is being in third place in terms of market share. This increases horridly Minolta's unit cost of development. There seems to be nothing to choose between Minolta G glass and Canon L glass in terms of optical or build quality; but 50% of sports photographers will ultimately buy Canon's new 80-200mm f/2.8 IS -- a user base Minolta can only dream of.

And the final question. I don't think Minolta was multicoating optics in the 1960s; the 1970-71 Blue Book doesn't mention multicoating for any manufacturer. I thought it was Pentax that was the first to use multicoating with the SMC Takumars of the very early 1970s, closely followed by Zeiss with T*. Does anyone have documentary evidence of the arrival of multicoating to the 35mm market?

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), January 30, 2002.

Pete

You have a point there...

Richard,

In the mid sixties I get 12 Rollie 2.8D's from Willowby-Peerless in NY. 6 with Planars and six with Xenotars. The Schnieder glass was universally better than any of the Planars. My studio was next door to Minolta and at home my next door neighbor was Walter Voss the #2 man at Nikon. I had access to the best of both. You are very correct about the quality of the 58mm 1.2 but it's big brothers the 100mm 2.0 and the 85mm 1.7 were better. The 85mm was the best lens Minolta made, as is the 85mm 1.4 today. And all of the 3 were as good or better than the Rollie. The 120 film was better, and the image size goes without saying.

I shot for Life Magazine (as did others such as Harry Benson) for 25 years using Minoltas and Leicas mostly. (The lenses focused in the same direction which was a big advantage)I shot the first published photograph with a Maxxum for life, Tina Turner and Mick Jagger at Live Aid concert June '85.

All this to say, Minolta really did not take a back seat to anybody. I have little use for the features of the current Maxxum bodies, I still use the 9000 series, and the older XD-11 manual cameras, but all the lenses are simply great.

-- Fred De Van (fdv@mindspring.com), January 31, 2002.

John,

I bought my SRT 101 in 1968 because of the advanced through-the-lens exposure metering system (unavailable on C&N and nearly everyone else at the time) Unlike the Pentax Spotmatic, Minolta's bayonet lens mount was fully automatic. The TTL metering system allowed viewing and exposure readings with the lens wide open when automatic meter coupled (MC) Rokkor lenses were used. For the money, Minolta's SRT was a better buy than the Nikon F and Spotmatic.

Minolta lens image quality was equal to any manufacturer in Japan during the early 70s. Minolta was one of two companies in Japan and one of the few in the world that manufactured its own optical glass for their lenses. My 1968 instruction booklet mentions their lenses superior resolving power was the result of the combination of rare earths, achromatic coating and computer design. A quote from their 1968 literature: "Achromatic coating is patented and available exclusively on Minolta Rokkor lenses. It consists of a double coating of fluorides plus other special ingredients to provide for warmer and more vibrant colors and increased light transmission."

Minolta advertised the use of special glass for their Macro 50mm f/3.5. Perhaps someone can confirm if Minolta used Lanthanum type glass similar to Leica for this lens and others. By 1966, Lanthanum glass had been used by Leica for 10 years.

Popular Photography/May 1978 issue reviewed 32 Normal lenses. All the Minolta lenses were near the top and exceptional, but the MC 58mm f/1.2 jumps out as the average top performer in percent of contrast, center to edge, @ 50 line pairs from f/2 through f/5.6. Minolta's f/1.2 had better aberration values than Nikon, and Leica. Minolta's fast 58mm had better overall test numbers than Leica's Noctilux, Nikkor 55mm f/1.2, and Canons FD 55mm f/1.2 SSC. C/N/L did have better light transmittance values and lower flare by 2 - 6%.

A small film negative can not compete with the tonal quality achieved from a 6x6 negative. However, I maintain the butter smooth bohkeh of Minolta's PG 58mm f/1.2 is similar to my 80mm Zeiss Planer. Highly corrected modern lenses have a plated look caused by the sharp transition in tonality and high contrast. Minolta MC and MD lenses balance sharpness and smooth tonal transitions.

Minolta matched Nikon close focusing technology in one 28mm f/2.0 mount and 2 specialty lenses. In the late 70s, Minolta may have decided to put their resources into marketing the first auto focus camera rather than developing expensive lens technology which offered advantages primaily in limited operational situations.

Over the last three years I bought 3 used lenses in 9+ condition for a total cost of $80.00. Minolta's equipment is capable of producing great pictures at a bargin price. For enthusiasts, Minolta used equipment continues to offer great value just like the SRT 101 did in 1968.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 01, 2002.

Hear Hear!

I've got 2 x570's, an sr-1s, and an SRT 101. My favorite lenses are my 50 1.7, my 300 4.5, and my 100 3.5 macro.

I actually gave up my Maxxum gear to switch to manual focus. I could never afford the equipment I've got now if I had stayed with ANY autofocus system.

My pics still win contests, and sell prints. It's all in how you use your gear. :-)

-- Don Tuleja (don@calimages.com), February 01, 2002.

Hi Richard,

Thanks for your response. I'm not sure I'm disagreeing with you that much. I certainly accept that secondhand manual-focus Minolta kit is available remarkably cheaply, particularly for kit built so well as the SRT 101. I realized after posting last time that GBP 225 in 1970 must be the equivalent of GBP 2000 or more in to-day's money -- no wonder so few modern cameras are handfitted to a die-stamped metal chassis as the SRT 101 was then.

Thanks for digging out that old reference to Minolta's multicoating of lenses in the 1960s. Even if it was only two coats (to eliminate flaring at two wavelengths and so reduce it across the spectrum) it was quite an step, which pre-dated the big advance that came in the very early 1970s. I too had gone away to my Nikon library and I found a reference to multicoating -- which too would have beem rudimentary -- in 1965. Ironically this was on Nikon's first 55mm f/1.2, which was, I understand, leapfrogged by the newer Minolta design a few years later. I guess that both of them have been leapfrogged again by newer designs still, with better resolution and contrast ... though, as you say, at some risk to their bokeh.

Later,

Dr Owl

-- John Owlett (owl@postmaster.co.uk), February 02, 2002.

Minolta may have used Lanthanum in at least one of the MF lenses, the 50mm Macro. What is Lanthanum's purpose in the manufacture of lenses? The Manual of Photography, ISBN 0 240 51574 9, mentions that alternative types of optical glass with higher refractive index and lower dispersions as well as lower weight per unit contain chemical elements such as lanthanum and tantalum. These materials are required for chromatic correction extending into the ultraviolet and infrared regions.

Minolta was conservative in their lens designs. They avoided production of wide aperture lenses in all focal lengths. Large apertures and wide/long telephoto lenses benefit the most from technology such as floating elements and aspheric surfaces. Minolta balanced performance and cost. Minolta lenses used in their correct operating range are first class yet dirt cheap on the used market.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 03, 2002.

I ran into some additional info about multi-coating. The Complete Nikon System by Peter Braczko, ISBN 1-883403-85-5 does mention the 55mm f/1.2 issued in 1965 as Nikon's first multi lens coating. I don't know if that means several coats on one lens or several lenses coated with one layer. Nikon's C coating was marketed in the early 70s. At that time the coating hue may be green, amber, blue, yellow or red depending on the type lens. I reviewed several years of late 60s ads in Pop Photo and did not see Nikon advertising coatings. They did discuss the size of their system. The Canon SSC and Nikon's NIC coatings are multi layer and designed to affect more of the light spectrum than previous coatings.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 06, 2002.

To keep your SRT-101 enjoyable, change the screen to a modern bright screen. I did and combined with its longer eye relief vs. the XD- 11/X700, MLU and match needle metering the 101 is fun to use. The 101 and the XK were the only Minolta MLU bodies. MLU offers opportunity to get the most from Minolta's great lenses when used with a tripod. It is nice to have this option. Without it, a $1000 lens can produce very diminished results.

-- Richard Jepsen (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 07, 2002.

While I agree with the statements about the focus screen and the quality of the lenses, you're incorrect about the MLU.

The very old SR series bodies had MLU in most incarnations. My SR-1s has it, and the SR-2 I used to have has it.

Of course, it was added to those bodies to accomodate early wide angle lenses that had elements sticking too far into the body to allow mirror movement. ;-)

-- Don Tuleja (durocshark@photo.net), February 08, 2002.

Thanks Don for correcting my admission of MLU on the SR-1. I found my late 70's booklet titled Guide To The Minolta SLR System. The two paragraphs below are lifted from the publication.

The basic materials are silica, boric acid, barium carbonate, zinc oxide, calcium carbonate, tantaium oxide, germanium dioxide, postassium nitrate and so on. Special property glass contains thorium, zirconium and rare earth elements such as lanthanum. Plantinum crucibles are used for melting special property glass. The glass sections are hand picked to ensure quality and reheated into blanks. A annealing-oven adjusts the refractive index and relieves internal stresses to make the glass tougher and more optically perfect.

Not satisfied with conventional magnesium-fluride single-layer lens coating, Minolta nearly 20 years ago pioneered in originating special Achromatic Coating with a double layer having special ingredients for higher light transmission and improved color with Minolta lenses. This exclusive process has been continually developed since then incorporating the many technological strides made in the field. It now involves up to several layers per surface of the most advanced ingredients deposited by latest techniques in the exact combinations and microscopic thickness.

It appears all MD mounts employ quarter-wave coating technology similar to SMC, SSC and NIC coatings. BTW, not all of the 7 SMC layers affect optics. The number of layers became a marketing tool. Minolta MF lenses may have a few focal lengths that are better than C&N and others that perform as well at distances of 6 ft to infinity. Minolta marketed a limited number of APO long lenses and Canon is the leader in tele's. All in all, Minolta's MF lenses provide outstanding value.

-- Denmark (rjepsen@mmcable.com), February 11, 2002.