I had not heard of this lens -- my only Minolta 35mm is the relatively
uninspiring f2.8 -- so found the following on Rokkor files. He discusses the MC
versus the MD versions and gives the MD a then-going e-bay price of $170-190
which the "MC" you have would, theoretically, be close to; but keep in mind that
this copy dates back several years and some prices are quite different now
(usually but not always significanly LOWER)than when he was writing. Here's the
url: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/35mm.htm


--- In Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com, "mklw1954" <mklw1954@...> wrote:
>
> I picked up an SRT201 and MC W. Rokkor-X 35mm f1.8 lens locally via Criagslist
for $45.  The lens is in beautiful condition and is a Late Style, according to
minman data.  The camera is in very good condition with no marks and everything
functioning (initially the shutter stuck occasionally but has worked
consistently after excercising at all speeds).
>
> Question on the lens: I cannot find any at KEH or ebay to see what they sell
for these days, so was this a rare lens?  It is supposed to be an excellent lens
according to minman.  What did the camera and lens sell for back in 1975?
>
> This is my first SRT and I'm impressed with the solid build compared to my
X-700 and X-370 bodies.
>

In a message dated 10/11/09 5:52:50 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
passaro.vince@... writes:

I had  not heard of this lens -- my only Minolta 35mm is the relatively
uninspiring  f2.8 -- so found the following on Rokkor files. He discusses the
MC versus the  MD versions and gives the MD a then-going e-bay price of
$170-190 which the  "MC" you have would, theoretically, be close to; but keep in
mind that this  copy dates back several years and some prices are quite
different now (usually  but not always significanly LOWER)than when he was
writing.


>>

This is more evidence that the ROKKOR FILES is just another lame website.
You see it all the time. Websites often only "report" on equipment that the
website owner happens to have, and readers end up assuming that this is all
the  available equipment. Not so with MINMAN (see below). It has
information on ALL  of Minolta's manual-focus SLR lenses. There were, in fact,
several
versions of  the 35mm f1.8 lens, and well as 35mm f4.0, and others -- that
ROKKOR FILES never  mentions.

They have the same problem with pricing. You should be able to get a great
35mm f2.8 Rokkor-X for about $20. I did. The f1.8 costs more, but often
sells  for under $100 -- much less than they say.

If a website can't list all of the gear and can't get pricing right, why
would anyone pay any attention to anything else that the website says? "Fool
me  once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The MINMAN site is the best for learning about Minolta manual focus equipment. 
I learned what version lenses and bodies I have.
 
-- On Sun, 10/11/09, xkaes@... <xkaes@...> wrote:


From: xkaes@... <xkaes@...>
Subject: Re: [MinMan] Re: MC W. Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8
To: Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, October 11, 2009, 12:53 PM



In a message dated 10/11/09 5:52:50 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 
passaro.vince@... writes:

I had  not heard of this lens -- my only Minolta 35mm is the relatively
uninspiring  f2.8 -- so found the following on Rokkor files. He discusses the
MC versus the  MD versions and gives the MD a then-going e-bay price of
$170-190 which the  "MC" you have would, theoretically, be close to; but keep in
mind that this  copy dates back several years and some prices are quite
different now (usually  but not always significanly LOWER)than when he was 
writing.


>>

This is more evidence that the ROKKOR FILES is just another lame website. 
You see it all the time. Websites often only "report" on equipment that the 
website owner happens to have, and readers end up assuming that this is all
the  available equipment. Not so with MINMAN (see below). It has
information on ALL  of Minolta's manual-focus SLR lenses. There were, in fact,
several
versions of  the 35mm f1.8 lens, and well as 35mm f4.0, and others -- that
ROKKOR FILES never  mentions.

They have the same problem with pricing. You should be able to get a great 
35mm f2.8 Rokkor-X for about $20. I did. The f1.8 costs more, but often
sells  for under $100 -- much less than they say.

If a website can't list all of the gear and can't get pricing right, why 
would anyone pay any attention to anything else that the website says? "Fool
me  once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.
B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET
C. Rude, crude, or sarcastic messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like
they are friends and we will treat you the same way.

DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  The messages and authors are
automatically removed.  Send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to
group activity to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group. 









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Mary, I will. the camera and lens appear to be just fine.


--- On Fri, 10/9/09, Mary Pinkerton <mpink2002@...> wrote:


From: Mary Pinkerton <mpink2002@...>
Subject: Re: [MinMan] MC W. Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8
To: Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 5:07 PM


Roll some film through it and enjoy that fine camera and lens.

--- On Fri, 10/9/09, xkaes@... <xkaes@...> wrote:

From: xkaes@... <xkaes@...>
Subject: Re: [MinMan] MC W. Rokkor-X 35mm f/1.8
To: Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Friday, October 9, 2009, 6:36 AM













 




   
                   

In a message dated 10/8/09 8:44:47 P.M. Mountain Daylight Time, 

mklw1954@yahoo. com writes:



Question  on the lens: I cannot find any at KEH or ebay to see what they

sell for these  days, so was this a rare lens?  It is supposed to be an

excellent lens  according to minman.  What did the camera and lens sell for back

in  1975?



>>



The lens is not rare. The camera and lens were selling back before 1975. I 

got my first SRT102 about 1974 and my 35mm f1.8 the following year. If I 

were forced to use only one lens, that one would probably be the one. You

made a  good deal. The lens typically sells alone for 2-3 times what you  paid.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]






     

   
   
   
     
   
   




   




   
   


   
   
   




     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------------------

MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.
B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET
C. Rude, crude, or sarcastic messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like
they are friends and we will treat you the same way.

DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  The messages and authors are
automatically removed.  Send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to
group activity to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group. 









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 10/11/09 11:44:26 A.M. Mountain Daylight Time,
mklw1954@... writes:

The  MINMAN site is the best for learning about Minolta manual focus
equipment.  I learned what version lenses and bodies I  have.


>>

Apparently not all agree. I have shut down MINMAN. It costs me  money each
day, and more importantly, I get too many complaints from people that  think
I should be providing more information at a lower cost -- even though it
is free. Even worst, they think I should allow people -- like ROKKOR FILES --
to  steal my stuff. From now on, I'll just set up the files for myself --
sorry  everyone, but you didn't support me when I needed you. I hope you have
learned a  lesson.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hello from the Manual Minolta YAHOO group -- MINMAN.

This message is automatically sent to every member of the YAHOO group once a
month as a reminder. It is NOT in response to any specific activity conducted by
you or any another member of the list. It is simply a reminder of the list rules
and is intended to keep the Manual Minolta YAHOO group a fun place to visit.

MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):

A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.  For
example, it's fine to ask any question about using a Vivitar flash on a
manual-focus, Minolta camera.  It's also fine to discuss darkroom techniques --
even digital darkroom -- as long as the image was exposed on film in a Minolta
camera or clone.  It's not OK to discuss Minolta's digital or autofocus cameras.

B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET.

C. Rude, crude, or spam messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like they
are friends and we will treat you the same way.  Messages from new members are
moderated to avoid these problems.

DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  Let the moderator do his job.  Keep
your "two cents" to yourself.  The inappropriate messages and irresponsible
authors are automatically removed.  If there's anything you're not happy about,
contact me personally (XKAES@...) or contact the offending person PRIVATELY.
If someone contacts you personally for any reason, do not copy this information
to the list -- unless the person agrees to it.  Private mail should stay
private.

Feel free to send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to group activity
to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group.

Here are a few tips to help other list members understand your point.  These are
not rules, but you'll find them helpful:

1. If you are responding to a message, and if your email system allows quotes,
please do so intelligently.  It is standard netiquette to quote messages to
which you are replying so that people understand the context of your response. 
There is usually never a need to quote the entire message -- which can be
confusing.  Quote only those parts of the original message that are relevant to
your response.  NEVER quote more than one message.

2. Send messages in PLAIN TEXT. If you can choose a font, add color, etc.
remember that some e-mail software does not support these messages.  Other
people will not be able to read what you are saying.

3. Stay on topic.  Most poeple don't read all messages on the list and just
follow discussions that pertain to their interests -- by their title.  When
writing a new message, make sure the topic says enough to identify the message. 
When replying to a message, make sure the title is still valid and if it isn't,
change it. If you are in "digest" mode, make sure you copy the subject of the
specific message you're replying to.

4. Don't send attachments to the list.  People in digest mode cannot read the
images and it makes the file transfers MUCH slower.  For these, and other
reasons, attachments are automatically removed.  If you have files or images
that you would like the group to see, post these to the web and provide a link. 
This group has a FILES and PHOTOS section that you are welcome to use for this
purpose.

5. Please take the time to understand these rules and suggestions before posting
anything to the list.

6. To change your membership status in this group visit:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ManualMinolta

The Management

A while back, we were talking about the relative quality of results that
can be obtained from a 16mm camera vs larger formats. You can see some
results  from a resolution chart at:

_www.subclub.org/minman/16vs45.jpg_
(http://www.subclub.org/minman/16vs45.jpg)

The one on the left is from a Minolta 16 MG-s. The one on the right is with
  a Toko 4x5 with a Fujinon 150mm lens. The chart is only a tiny image on
the 4x5  negative and is substantially enlarged. The chart on the 16mm
negative is much  smaller and has to be enlarged about 10 times to make a print
the
same size. In  large magnifications, such as this, you can clearly see the
difference, but the  tiny 16mm negative still does an amazing job
considering it all. In a 3x5" or  5x7" print of the entire scene, you would be
hard
pressed to tell the  difference.

A 35mm image would, of course, be in between, but it would be much  closer
to the 16mm results than the 4x5 results. Consequently, it would be
difficult to tell the difference between 16mm results and 35mm results in an 
8x10.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

>A while back, we were talking about the relative quality of results that
>can be obtained from a 16mm camera vs larger formats. You can see some
>results  from a resolution chart at:
>
>_www.subclub.org/minman/16vs45.jpg_
>(http://www.subclub.org/minman/16vs45.jpg)
>
>The one on the left is from a Minolta 16 MG-s. The one on the right is with
> a Toko 4x5 with a Fujinon 150mm lens. The chart is only a tiny image on
>the 4x5  negative and is substantially enlarged. The chart on the 16mm
>negative is much  smaller and has to be enlarged about 10 times to make a print
the
>same size. In  large magnifications, such as this, you can clearly see the
>difference, but the  tiny 16mm negative still does an amazing job
>considering it all. In a 3x5" or  5x7" print of the entire scene, you would be
hard
>pressed to tell the  difference.
>
>A 35mm image would, of course, be in between, but it would be much  closer
>to the 16mm results than the 4x5 results. Consequently, it would be
>difficult to tell the difference between 16mm results and 35mm results in an 
8x10.
>
>
I recall the original message, quite illuminating!

It makes me wonder if the higher-grade focussing lens in the MG-S has
some bearing on the resultant image quality; for instance, is it
possible that the 16P might not give such a level of performance?

By the way, I have tried the new URL for the minman site but always got
the dreaded 404; any idea?

Best,

Sam.

In a message dated 11/1/09 6:50:47 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

It makes  me wonder if the higher-grade focussing lens in the MG-S has
some bearing  on the resultant image quality; for instance, is it
possible that the 16P  might not give such a level of performance?

By the way, I have tried  the new URL for the minman site but always got
the dreaded 404; any  idea?


>>

The lens on the MG-s is fixed focus with a slide-in close-up lens. It is
four elements as opposed to the three element of the P, but the P is a super
performer. You can see comparisons between many of the 16mm Minolta models
in  the SUBCLUB at:

_http://www.subclub.org/gallery/gallery.htm_
(http://www.subclub.org/gallery/gallery.htm)

As to MINMAN, it is shut down because too many people have been stealing
the material and using it to set up their own websites without attribution --
  and sometimes making money at it.
  (http://www.subclub.org/gallery/)


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

> <>The lens on the MG-s is fixed focus with a slide-in close-up lens.
> It is
> four elements as opposed to the three element of the P, but the P is a
> super
> performer. You can see comparisons between many of the 16mm Minolta
> models
> in the SUBCLUB at:
>
> _http://www.subclub.org/gallery/gallery.htm_
> (http://www.subclub.org/gallery/gallery.htm)
>
> As to MINMAN, it is shut down because too many people have been stealing
> the material and using it to set up their own websites without
> attribution --
> and sometimes making money at it.
> (http://www.subclub.org/gallery/)


Thanks for the tip; I might just be enticed to load up some cassettes,
better look into film splitters: only if they make a splitter for
cutting 120 films, which would give a better yield!

It's sad that there are those who pinch other people's materials; would
you be able to take that link from your signature?

Sam.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:01:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

Thanks  for the tip; I might just be enticed to load up some cassettes,
better  look into film splitters: only if they make a splitter for
cutting 120  films, which would give a better yield!


>>

You can get great film slitters from GOATHILL at:

_www.subclub.org/sponsors/goathil2.htm_
(http://www.subclub.org/sponsors/goathil2.htm)

They carry a lot of 120 slitters.

As to film comparisons, first chance I get, I'm going to compare 16mm, 35mm
  and 4x5 resolution charts using APX 25 and then Delta 100.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:01:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

It's sad  that there are those who pinch other people's materials; would
you be able  to take that link from your signature?


>>

I'm not sure what you mean here.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

>
>In a message dated 11/1/09 8:01:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>samuel_tang@... writes:
>
>It's sad  that there are those who pinch other people's materials; would
>you be able  to take that link from your signature?
>
>
>
>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
>A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.
>B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET
>C. Rude, crude, or sarcastic messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like
they are friends and we will treat you the same way.
>
>DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  The messages and authors are
automatically removed.  Send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to
group activity to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group.
>
>
>
>
>
>
I mean the bit I highlighted in bold.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:24:40 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

I mean  the bit I highlighted in bold.



>>

There wasn't anything highlighted on my  computer.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

>
>In a message dated 11/1/09 8:01:14 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>samuel_tang@... writes:
>
>It's sad  that there are those who pinch other people's materials; would
>you be able  to take that link from your signature?
>
>
>
>
>
>I'm not sure what you mean here.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
>A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.
>B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET
>C. Rude, crude, or sarcastic messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like
they are friends and we will treat you the same way.
>
>DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  The messages and authors are
automatically removed.  Send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to
group activity to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group.
>
>
>
>
>

Hmm... does not seem to work,  but it says:


>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:26:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

Hmm...  does not seem to work,  but it says:


>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been  removed]





>>

This is all I see -- nothing.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

>
>In a message dated 11/1/09 8:26:44 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>samuel_tang@... writes:
>
>Hmm...  does not seem to work,  but it says:
>
>
>
>
>> <>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>This is all I see -- nothing.
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>------------------------------------
>
>MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
>A. Any message (or response) must pertain to manual-focus, Minolta-type
equipment -- or the techniques and accessories involved in using this gear.
>B. Buying, selling, trading, and auctioning are not allowed, but are available
for free at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MinMan-SWAPMEET
>C. Rude, crude, or sarcastic messages are prohibited.  Treat other people like
they are friends and we will treat you the same way.
>
>DO NOT respond to inappropriate messages.  The messages and authors are
automatically removed.  Send comments, problems, or questions pertaining to
group activity to XKAES@....  DO NOT post these to the group.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Let's try this again:

Under each message there is a block of text, starting with:

MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):

After the rules you have this:

<+> To visit the MINMAN website, go to:
http://www.subclub.org/minman/index.htm

Yahoo! Group Links

etc.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 8:46:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

Let's  try this again:

Under each message there is a block of text, starting  with:

MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):

After the rules you  have this:

<+> To visit the MINMAN website, go  to:
http://www.subclub.org/minman/index.htm

Yahoo! Group  Links

etc.


>>

OK. I see that now, but I still don't see your  point.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

xkaes@... wrote:

>
>In a message dated 11/1/09 8:46:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
>samuel_tang@... writes:
>
>Let's  try this again:
>
>Under each message there is a block of text, starting  with:
>
>MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
>
>After the rules you  have this:
>
><+> To visit the MINMAN website, go  to:
>http://www.subclub.org/minman/index.htm
>
>Yahoo! Group  Links
>
>etc.
>
>
>
>
>
>OK. I see that now, but I still don't see your  point.
>
>
>
If the MINMAN site is no longer there, I don't think there is a need to
include its URL.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 9:09:09 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
samuel_tang@... writes:

If the  MINMAN site is no longer there, I don't think there is a need to
include  its URL.


>>

You are right and I'll take care of that ASAP.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Joe,

There is a link to Minman in the group signature.

_

When a person clicks on this it is a broken link since you took minman
down.  Do you really want folks to go to a site that is no longer there?


On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 10:02 AM, Samuel Tang <samuel_tang@...>wrote:

>
>
>
>
> xkaes@... <xkaes%40aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >In a message dated 11/1/09 8:46:55 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
> >samuel_tang@... <samuel_tang%40optusnet.com.au> writes:
> >
> >Let's try this again:
> >
> >Under each message there is a block of text, starting with:
> >
> >MINMAN rules (Pretty darn simple):
> >
> >After the rules you have this:
> >
> ><+> To visit the MINMAN website, go to:
> >http://www.subclub.org/minman/index.htm
> >
> >Yahoo! Group Links
> >
> >etc.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >OK. I see that now, but I still don't see your point.
> >
> >
> >
> If the MINMAN site is no longer there, I don't think there is a need to
> include its URL.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 11/1/09 9:20:34 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,
DavidChicago@... writes:

Joe,

There is a link to Minman in the group  signature.

_

When a person clicks on this it is a broken link  since you took minman
down.  Do you really want folks to go to a site  that is no longer there?


>>

I'm going to remove that, but there are hundreds of websites around the
world that link to MINMAN that are not under my control, so surfers will still
  have to deal with it one way or another.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hey, just got to get on here and brag a bit. Got an old Nikon F SLR from a
local pawnbroker a few days ago who had a priced at $20 thinking it was
broken.  I thought it was too until I read the manual (which he hadn't). The
camera's  rewind feature involves turning something on the shutter button ring
to get the  film back into the cassette. If you try and snap pictures with
the ring in the  rewind position, the camera acts exactly like it has a
broken spring or  something! I turned the knob to the shoot position and I'm now
the proud owner  of a WORKING Nikon F ... oh yeah, this machine came with
three lenses and some  hoods. Looked like a pro was using it prior to me
getting it. Years ago I pawned  one of  those camera for like $50 bucks and have
kicked myself ever  since!!!! NO WAY I'M PAWNING THIS!!!!!  NICE deal ....

Lynn Magnuson WB7PTR
New Orleans, LA.

P.S. Brag brag brag ....


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It looks like to me that what you are interpreting as a scratch is a cord or
cable hanging from the lamp (bell?). There is a shadow associated with this
cord/cable.

--- In Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com, Mary Pinkerton <mpink2002@...>
wrote:
>
> As I look at the images . They share the same scratch marks on the white door.
Look above the door on the right. The scratch mark goes right through the
pictures. I do not see it on the 4x5. 
> Is there something in your darkroom that is slidding along the film and leaves
the same mark? Perhaps your holder or something else along the side? 
> If I am wrong please correct me. I am not trying to be rude or start a
flame.Have not tested my Minolta IIs. Also, I do have a problem with my vision.
Difficulty with focusing.Best regards,
> Mary Ann
>   
>
> --- On Sun, 11/8/09, xkaes@... <xkaes@...> wrote:
>
> From: xkaes@... <xkaes@...>
> Subject: [MinMan] for all you skeptics
> To: Minolta-Manual-Focus@yahoogroups.com, SUBMINI-L@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Sunday, November 8, 2009, 8:14 PM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> For all you skeptics, I've got some interesting results.  Check
> out:
>  
> http://www.subclub. org/minman/ page2.html
>  
> What I've done here is compare several results from several different film
> formats -- Minox, Minolta 16, 35mm and 4x5. I've used the best gear available
--
> in the camera and in the darkroom -- as well as the best techniques. I've done
> all of the processing and enlarging myself and kept everything as consistent
as
> possible.
>  
> I used Agfapan APX 25 for all formats and comparisons. Other details are
> posted in the table. Processing was D-76 (1+1) for 6.5 minutes. Enlargements
> were on Ilford Multigrade RC IV developed in Dektol (1+2).
>  
> The first set of tests looks at the resolution of the different cameras by
> creating a 2x2mm image on the film in each camera. I did this by changing the
> camera to subject distance, using comparable normal lenses for each format.
> I then made 50X enlargements of each to create 4x4" prints of the resolution
> charts. If all cameras are equal I should not be able to tell them apart since
I
> used the same enlarging lens for each 2x2mm image. I expected the Minox to be
> the winner, and in fact, the Minox is the winner and the 4x5 is the "loser",
but
> they all did a good job.
>  
> The next set of tests looks at the other extreme by comparing a full
> negative from each format. I did this by keeping the cameras at the same
> distance from the subject, using comparable normal lenses for each format. I
> then made enlargements of each to create 4x4" prints of the complete scene.
> Since I was enlarging the full frame, I had to use different enlarging lenses
> for each format. I expected the 4x5 to be the winner -- since it is 142 times
> bigger than a Minox negative --  and it is, but not by much. A casual
> observer would not be able to tell the difference in the 4" prints, and I have
> to look very close to notice the difference between the 4x5 and the Minox
> prints. I cannot notice any difference between the Minox and the 35mm 4"
prints.
> Of course as the prints are enlarged, the larger formats will eventually win
> out. That's why I shoot 4x5, but for the average shutterbug, a Minox will
> provide results that are indistinguishable from 35mm up to 5x7, and a Minolta
> 16mm will provide results that are indistinguishable from 35mm up to 8x10 --
and
> perhaps larger.
>  
> No, I won't be giving up my 4x5 or 35mm gear, because I love LARGE prints,
> but I know that I can get great results from cameras that are very small, very
> light and very inexpensive -- despite what some people say. I just picked up
> another black Minolta MGs 16mm on EBAY for under $25. I encourage anyone who
is
> not already into submini work to explore it.
>

Hi All,

I recently added to the lens collection for my SRT-303 with an "MD
ZOOM 35-70mm 1:3.5 MACRO.  This is the last version before the
variable aperture one - it has a small button to select macro mode.

The glass is clean and the two rings move smoothly.  However, the
focus ring and it's glass rock slightly.  The pivot axis seems to be
off-centre (center in US).  It's as if the front section of the lens
is mounted on three cams spaced equally around inside the barrel, two
of which have no play in them but the third one is loose.  If I hold
the camera and lens in landscape mode the lens front section "falls"
to the right, but if I hold it in portrait orientation the lens front
section "falls" the other way.  Careful measurements from the lens
mount flange to the filter mount at the front of the lens show that
the perfect position is mid-way between the two ends of this "rocking"
movement.  The position of the "loose cam" is 180 degrees opposite to
the red alignment dot whatever the position of either ring.

Is this anything to worry about?  If it's a loose screw will it get
worse as the lens is used, and then one day fail as the screw falls
out?  Optically I guess the main effect will be to move the plane of
focus roughly equivalent to the swing or tilt movements on a large
format camera.  Is it safe to just ignore it?

Is it worth trying to fix it?  I'm reasonably competent at fixing
watches, tape recorders, etc.  I've already taken the two circular
plates at the rear of the lens out (yes I did recover the aperture
ident tiny ball!) but I cannot see the cams which I guess run in three
spirals on the inside of the barrel.

Is there a document available on the internet which details how to
strip down and re-build this particular lens?  Would I need
impossible-to-get special tools?  Has anyone here done this?

Your guidance would be appreciated, Thanks.

Regards, Eddy [UK]

Good morning, People of Minolta-Manual-Focus;

      While it is a peculiarly America Holiday, I do what to share it
with you.  Happy Thanksgiving.

      I am slowly still adding models to the Minoltas here.  The SR-1
series is now complete; SR-1, SR-1a, SR-1b, SR-1v, and SR-1s.  I came
remarkably close to getting an original SR-2.  I am still looking for
an SR-3.

           Enjoy;

           Ralph
           Latte Land, Washington