90/4 Rokkor M

infrequent

infrequent

Well-known
Local time
10:58 AM
Joined
Sep 22, 2007
Messages
864
well how does it stack up say to the Hex or the Elmarit? its hard to find photos with this puppy...google and flickr are both coming up bare. is it suitable for portraiture -- meaning not big on sharpness but pleasing bokeh? or just pay that bit more and get the Hex?
 
I wouldn't call this a very good portrait lens - the one I owned was VERY sharp, and with a maximum aperture of f/4 you're going to have a hard time throwing the background out of focus. The bokeh is okay. A better choice would be one of the 90mm Elmarits (first version) - they are pretty inexpensive.

Here's an example from the 90mm M-Rokkor - check out the "Made in China" label on the chair:
328126760_2368c5e755_o.jpg
 
There were 2 Minolta 90mm Rokkors. One with identical optics to the Elmar-C as it was made by Leitz for the Leitz Minolta CL and the other made by Minolta for the CLE. They share a similar optical formula but they are different.
 
Hi Joe,

I really like how kind it is to mid-contrast color neg films.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that it has low contrast? (I ask because it's possible that there's a Rokkor-90 in my future). Do you have any idea how it compares, contrast-wise, to a Summicron-C/Rokkor 40?
 
To respond to the OP -- for portraiture, a wider aperture and more selective focus would be an advantage. Maybe you should add the 90/2 Summicron to the list. Among the lenses mentioned, I don't think there's a lot of difference in contrast and resolution -- not as big a gap as there is in price, certainly.

oscroft said:
Hi Joe,


Are you saying that it has low contrast? (I ask because it's possible that there's a Rokkor-90 in my future). Do you have any idea how it compares, contrast-wise, to a Summicron-C/Rokkor 40?
Click to expand...

The M-Rokkors work very well with all sorts of film -- mine is the later CLE version and it matches the high resolution and accurate color rendition of my M-Rokkor 40/2. I have no experience with the earlier Summicron-C lenses but lots of people here do. I guess I'd say the M-Rokkor poses no impediment to good photos.

Soapbox on: My personal feeling is that the fondlers and people who live and die by the spec sheets horribly overplay the idea of high- and low-contrast lenses, and probably don't know how to control contrast with film selection, lighting and filtration. We hear a lot of this silliness about the Voigtlander lenses, which are also very nice and usable. Maybe a little less nice than the M-Rokkors, but very close.

Yes, there are high- and low-contrast lenses, just as there are sharp and soft ones. But it's rarely so dominant as to be a limitation. A well-designed lens plays it down the middle.
 
Last edited:
Hi Joe,

The M-Rokkors work very well with all sorts of film -- mine is the later CLE version and it matches the high resolution and accurate color rendition of my M-Rokkor 40/2. I have no experience with the earlier Summicron-C lenses but lots of people here do. I guess I'd say the M-Rokkor poses no impediment to good photos.
Click to expand...
Great, thanks. From what I've read, I think there is little difference contrast/color-wise between the Summicron-C 40 and the later CLE Rokkor 40, so I'm sure a Rokkor 90 would be a good partner for my Summicron 40.

My personal feeling is that the fondlers and people who live and die by the spec sheets horribly overplay the idea of high- and low-contrast lenses, and probably don't know how to control contrast with film selection, lighting and filtration
Click to expand...
I think that's partly true, but when I'm out for a day's shooting and my cameras are loaded I don't really have the possibility of changing films when the light changes, and there's not much filtration I can do with colour films.

Also, if I'm out with, say, one camera and a couple of lenses, and a film chosen to suit the conditions, it really helps if the two lenses are similar in contrast rendition (eg a Summicron/Rokkor 40/90 combination).

Yes, there are high- and low-contrast lenses, just as there are sharp and soft ones. But it's rarely so dominant as to be a limitation.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree with that, I think, because I've found huge differences in the contrast of different lenses - only recently I did some comparisons of several 50s (I must get round to posting the results here), and the difference in contrast between my three main ones really is very significant.

A well-designed lens plays it down the middle.
Click to expand...
Again, I think I disagree. I don't think there's anything about the designation "well designed" that implies middling contrast - I have lenses that have high overall contrast, and I have lenses with low overall contrast but beautiful mid-tone rendition, and I think it is simply wrong to suggest that is "bad design".
 
Last edited:
The results from the 50s would be an interesting thread. Raid Amin did one a while back but there's always something to add.

We're not much in disagreement -- my experience is with Pentax, Nikon and rangefinder gear from the late '60s forward, so there is a lot of stuff I haven't tried. There are a lot of "outliers" on the data charts.

As far as film stock, I usually have a couple bodies along, and pared my film down to only two or three types, so swapping film isn't a big deal. If I'm not quite to the end of a roll, it makes no difference on the 'process only' price anyway. We try not to shoot them short too often
 
The results from the 50s would be an interesting thread. Raid Amin did one a while back but there's always something to add.
Click to expand...
Yes, Raid has done some excellent lens comparisons. Mine aren't anywhere near as detailed or comprehensive - all I really do is shoot the same scenes on the same film stock (usually Tri-X or Sensia, because I'm only really interested in what the results look like on films that I actually use). But I will post them - the results can be quite interesting (well, I think so :))

I've done a 35mm comparison too, but that was less interesting - I found much less of a difference.

Talking of Raid, I'm in the process of buying a Canon 85/1.9 from him, so I feel a longer lens comparison coming on - CV 75, Canon, Jupiter-9.

As far as film stock, I usually have a couple bodies along, and pared my film down to only two or three types, so swapping film isn't a big deal.
Click to expand...
If I have more than one body with me I tend to have Tri-X in one and Sensia in the other, so there isn't much scope to vary films - I really should experiment with some other black and white emulsions.
 
I am taking out my 90mm Rokkor out tomorrow that I purchased from an Ebay seller. It came with a hood and cap on the hood. Does anyone know what size the front is to put a cap on the front? It is a German Rokkor from Leitz and a previous message said it was different from the Elmar C? I can post the pictures on my Flicker account.
Joe G
 
Last edited:
I got back the first pictures with my Rokkor 90f4.0 Made in Leitz and I am very impressed with the quality. The Brokeh is not very good as f4.0 is the lowest I can go but not too bad. I guess if I use the 50f2.0 then I could get more Brokeh if that is what I want. It is lighter than the Canon 85f2.0 for sure to carry around.
 
tennis-joe said:
I got back the first pictures with my Rokkor 90f4.0 Made in Leitz and I am very impressed with the quality. The Brokeh is not very good as f4.0 is the lowest I can go but not too bad. I guess if I use the 50f2.0 then I could get more Brokeh if that is what I want. It is lighter than the Canon 85f2.0 for sure to carry around.
Click to expand...


Just a quick note that a 90/4 lens has the same DOF as a 50/1.4. :eek: :)

Around 3cm at 1m on film.

Cheers,

Roland.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top