Review: Minolta MC Rokkor 1:1.7 55mm on Sony a7

Minolta MC 1.7/55 Sony a7

The Minolta MC 1:1.7 55mm is 50 years old but none the less it is one of my favorite normal lenses to use on the Sony a7. In this review I will tell you why.

Sample Images

Sony a7 | Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7
Sony a7 | Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7


Diameter 63 mm
Length 37 mm
Filter Diameter 52 mm
Weight 230g
Max. Magnification ~0.13
Close Focusing Distance from the sensor 55 cm
Number of aperture blades 6
Elements/ Groups 6 / 5

The Minolta MC 1.7/55 usually sells for around $30-40 at | | (affiliate links)


Minolta made two very similar versions of the MC 1.7/55.

  • The first version was introduced in 1966 and it has a flat focusing ring.
  •  The second version was introduced in 1970, it has a focusing ring of the hill/valley type but otherwise it is very similar to the first version. My copy is of this type.

Both versions are available with and without stop down lever.

Minolta also made quite a few other 55mm lenses with f-stops of 1.8, 1.9 and 2 about which I can’t really tell you anything.

Data according to the Minolta manual lenses list.


Minolta MC 1.7/55 Sony a7 You can use the lens on a wide range of old Minolta SR film-cameras like the Minolta XD-7 or X-700.

Because of the flange-focal-distance of Minolta SR lenses all adapters for DSLR cameras either contain an optical element which will reduce image quality a lot or you lose infinity focus. I wouldn’t bother to use one of those adapters.

Mirrorless cameras have a much shorter flange focal distance and  you can buy adapters for Fuji-X, Sony-E, Micro Four Thirds and Samsung NX which work very well.

I usually recommend Sony Alpha 7 cameras for the use with older manual lenses because they are the only ones with a fullframe sensor and in my experience most lenses work best on the larger sensor. But I got nice results with this lens on the Nex-5n as well.

Here are links to adapters for Minolta SR to Sony E mount cameras: | (affiliate links). Also check out my Minolta SR-mount adapter guide.

Built Quality

Typically for Minolta MC lenses the lens is made to the highest standards from nothing but glass and metal with very low tolerances. All the numbers are engraved and even tough I have used the lens quite a bit it shows very little signs of wear. It doesn’t get any better than this, the $1000 FE 1.8/55 is not built as well.

Size, Weight and Handling

Minolta MC 1.7/55 on my Sony Alpha 7

The lens is small and light and so it feels very well balanced on my rather light Alpha 7, as well as on my small Nex-5n.

The focusing ring travels about 80° from 55cm to 1m and a further 45° to infinity.

The focus throw is just right for portraits and also landscape images.

The short focusing distance of 55 cm is a bit high, most normal lenses have a short focusing distance of 45 cm but this is partially compensated by the longer focal length.

Minolta MC 1.7/55 Sony a7
Minolta MC 1.7/55 focused at infinity

The metal made aperture  ring of the has a perfect resistance and distinctive stops.

There is no  stop between f/1.7 and f/2.8 which is a bit annoying because it is a bit hard to set an aperture between both stops.

From f/2.8 it stops down half steps to f/16. The filter thread does not rotate when the lens is focused which makes the usage of  polarizers easier but the diameter of 52mm is quite unusual for a Minolta lens, from about 1968 nearly all Minolta lenses had a standard 55m filter thread.
The lens extends by about 6mm when focused to 1.2 meters.

Lens Hood

I don’t own the original lens hood, so I can’t provide you with a picture. It’s Minolta code name was D52ND and it is 26mm deep. Search for the original hood on | (affiliate links)

Optical Performance

Flare Resistance

Flare resistance is not a strength of this lens, veiling flare and ghosting will appear in more critical situations, the old coatings take their toll here. See my comparison of the MC 1.7/55 against the Sony FE 1.8/55 for a rather dramatic demonstration of this.Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/2.8

But this doesn’t mean that  all back-lit scenes are problematic, here is an example of a backlit scene without significant contrast loss.Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7



You should stop down to f/16 but then sunstars are quite nice.


Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/8
a7 | f/8 |   LR default settings, no CA correction

A very very small amount of barrel distortion, not relevant for any application.


There is some vignetting at f/1.7 which is reduced a lot by f/2.8 and gone by f/4. This is much better than most f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses which have a lot more vignetting at their fastest aperture.

Chromatic Aberations

Lateral CA are very very well corrected and barely visible.

LoCA  are visible in critical situation but not too obtrusive.



Bokeh is a subjective and complex so allow me a few images to discuss it.

There is a defined edge around oof highlight blur discs and a somewhat nervous transition zone:

 The foreground is very smooth:


Sony a7 | Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7
This about the worst case scenario you could encounter and the bokeh is quite nervous

When you background has less contrast bokeh can be very smooth:

Minolta MC Rokkor 55mm 1:1.7 bokeh
close subject
Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7
medium distance
longer distance

Stopped down to f/2.8 the shape of the 6 aperture blades becomes a bit distracting but at least the blades are somewhat rounded.

Sony a7 | Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/2.8

But when you have a background with lower contrast the bokeh can be very smooth at f/2.8:

So bokeh depends a lot on the circumstances but that’s the case for any classic normal lens I have used so far and I would rank the 1.7/55 among the better normal lenses in this regard. It isn’t quite as smooth at the Minolta MC 1.2/58 but it comes rather close.


Sharpness Test Infinity click for full resolution

f/1.7: The center shows good sharpness and there is only a little falloff towards the mid frame are. The corners are soft with lots of coma. I don’t hesitate to use this aperture for portraits.

f/2.8: The center improves quite a bit to very good levels as does the midframe area which improves to good levels, the corners remain soft.

f/4: The lens is very sharp across most of the frame.

f/5.6: Now even the corners are very good and only the far  corner is still soft.

f/8: Sharpness extends a little more, towards the far corners but there are still a few pixels which are a bit soft.

f/11: Very good across the whole frame with a small loss in the center.

A solid  performance, f/1.7 is good enough for portraits with less spherical aberration than Minoltas f/1.4 or f/1.2 lenses have at their fastest aperture but the f/1.7 has less resolution.
Stopped down to f/8 the last few pixels in the corners aren’t very sharp, on most other normal lenses they are but this hardly matters as 99% of the image are very very sharp.

Compared to other lenses

  • The Minolta MC 1.2/58 is much more expensive, much bigger and more than twice as heavy. At f/1.2 is has a lot more spherical aberration (lower contrast) than the 55 at f/1.7 which reduces the sharpness impression but it actually has a higher resolution. At f/2 and f/2.8 it is a bit sharper, by f/8 the difference is small. I think the 1.7/55 is a good low price alternative to it, you get 95% of the performance for 105 of the price.
    sample images | 478g | about $350 used | at (affiliate link)
  • The Minolta MD 2/50 is even smaller, lighter and sharper,  but it hasn’t as nice bokeh and feels much cheaper. Together they are a great kit, the 2/50 is great for landscapes and the 1.7/55 for portraits.
     sample images | 150g | about $15 used | at (affiliate link
  • The Sony FE 1.8/55 costs about 30 times as much and it is sharp to the corners from f/1.8 with very smooth bokeh. Bokeh is also exceptionally smooth. Built quality is not as good as that of 1.7/55 and the manual focusing experience is certainly inferior.
    direct comparisonsample images | 281g | about $700 used | at (affiliate link
  • The Canon nFD 1.4/50 is sharper and faster but I don’t like the bokeh as much and built quality is inferior as well.
     sample images | 235g | about $50 used | at (affiliate link)



  • built quality
  • size and weight
  • price
  • bokeh (compared to other normal lenses)
  • low CA and Distortion

  • vignetting
  • you need to stop down to f/8 for sharp corners
  • sharpness
not good

  • flare resistance

When I decided to use just one lens for a whole month I picked the Minolta MC 1.7/55 because it is the most enjoyable normal lens I own.

Optically there some limitations: While I never hesitate to use it wide open it is a little less sharp than than most other normal lenses at f/2 and f/2.8 and the flare resistance is below average as well. Stopped down to f/8 it is excellent and can compete with a FE 1.8/55 (at least on the a7).

The MC 1.7/55 is rather small and beautifully built so handling it is a joy. Bokeh depends a lot on the scenario but I usually like it. I think it is a steal for the $30-40 it usually sells for.

All in all the Minolta MC 1.7/55 is what I would call a very good compromise. It does not excel at anything but it also lacks the limitations of many other lenses and it is small and affordable.

You can buy the Minolta MC 1.7/55 at | |  (affiliate links). For tips on how to get a good copy read my article Lens defects and buying advice.

The right adapter to use this lens on a Alpha 7 series camera can be found on | (affiliate links).

Thanks for showing your support buy using one of the above links 🙂

Sample Images Minolta MC 1.7/55

All Images are processed in Lightroom from Raw. You can find images in full resolution in my Minolta MC Rokkor 55mm 1:1.7 flickr album.


Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/1.7
Sony a7 | f/1.7 | good sharpness in the center
Sony a7 | f/1.7
Minolta MC 1.7/55 | f/8
Sony a7 | f/8

Other Articles

This site contains affiliate links. If you make a purchase using any of the links marked as affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. This helps support the creation of future content.

The following two tabs change content below.
I have two hobbies: Photography and photographic gear. Both are related only to a small degree.

Latest posts by Phillip Reeve (see all)

77 thoughts on “Review: Minolta MC Rokkor 1:1.7 55mm on Sony a7”

  1. I’ve got a minolta 50 1.7. I’ve bit been able to find any info online about it, only the 55 1.7. Do you know why this would be? I can barely prove it exists!

  2. Hello. I greatly appreciate your objectivity, as that can make wise choices. Regarding this “55”, I completely agree with all your comments. With regard to the lack of the half-stop between f1,7 and f2,8, it is possible to correct with a simple removal of the f-stop ring, which is very easy to perform. You can easily engrave a small groove between f1,7 and f2,8. We gain a little more contrast and sharpness, without affecting the quality of bokeh. We can make this change to other lenses of MC / MD series, which are later than this “55”.

    I would like to point out that Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 50mm f1,7 is still a little better performer, than this very good MC Rokkor-PF 55mm f1,7. Its overall quality is very high, but the quality of the bokeh is really superbe. In contrast, I’m a little disappointed with the 50mm f1,7 MD (MD III). This lens is not bad, but both PF are much better.

    I think, that a lot of Minolta lenses are simply underestimated, while many others are simply overestimated. In short, I do not trust to popular belief. I test, then I make my own opinion.

    In the 100 mm focal length, my secret weapon on the NEX 5n and 7 is the small and very compact Minolta AUTO TELE ROKKOR-QE 100mm f3,5 (AR II). Underestimated by ignorance, therefore very cheap, this lens does wonders right from the wide open.

    1. Thanks for the tip, took me 15 minutes to add the additional stop!

      I will keep my eyes open for the 3.5/100 they are indeed very affordable (but not very common) and I could use a very small tele lens.

      1. Yes, this trick can take about 15 minutes. This idea came to mind by observing the behavior of the diaphragm between open wide and f2.8.
        I found that this variation is very huge, and sometimes useless. In short, I wanted to improve the rendering of the image, without any time to get at f2,8.

        Concerning Rokkor QE-100mm, calorimetric rendering is a bit cold, but it is easily adjusted in the camera or in post-processing. Its behavior is similar to Minolta MC Rokkor 200mm f4. Great wide open, and f5.6 is already perfect. The resolution is very high, but I do not know how this lens will behave on the full frame sensor. Construction is worthy of a Leica.

        1. Minoltista or Phillip – I would also like to hear more about the mod to the aperture ring!
          Minoltista – Do you know if your AUTO TELE ROKKOR-QE 100mm f3,5 is optically the same as the MC TELE ROKKOR-QE 100mm f3,5? (Difference in the “auto” vs “MC”)? The MC is approximately 70 grams lighter and a bit shorter. I believe it would be one of the most compact 100mm lenses available. Thanks!

          1. Jordan, filter thread on AR II is 55mm, while MC is 52mm, but theoretically there should not be a difference between AR II and MC, because the optical design is the same. In practice, I do not know, because I have only the second version (1962).

      2. Could Philip or Minoltista post a quick “how to” guide on adding a stop between f1.7 and 2.8? I think the bokeh also improves slightly stopped down (specular highlights have less defined rings) and I often shoot at f2, but it would be great to have the stop. And I am hesitant to take apart my lens without knowing what do do!
        Great insights Philip, I think the 55/1.7 and 50/2 are the strongest and most underrated of Minolta’s nifty fifties, for the reasons you outline.

          1. Perfect, great guide, thanks much minoltista! Without it, I would have started with the wrong screws and wouldn’t have thought to set it at f16 … Will try to get to it this weekend.

          2. Thanks for this. Mine is terrible open. But becomes useable in between, maybe f2.2. I have the PF 1.8 and it is very easy to focus and has nice colours.

        1. I had the 55 1.7, and also the 55 1.9. I kept the 1.9 because it is a little bit smaller and was much more usable at 1.9 than the 1.7 was wide open in my opinion. I believe they are the same optical formula. This lens is on my camera a lot; almost always, especially when driving. If I see something I want a shot of, it’s incredibly small size and consistency sets it apart.

          1. I can fully second your opinion. The 55 1.9 is definitely sharper wide open than the 1.7… I own both along with many other Minolta lenses.

  3. Phillip – you probably already noticed this, but today’s lightroom CC update included lens profiles for a number of legacy minolta lenses! Interested to hear your take on your collection…

  4. Hi
    after seeing your review ,last week i got one in mint condition,i don’t have any adapter for my canon so i modified the mount to EF mount successfully to focus up to infinitive also.
    already i converted some minolta lenses before like 100mm f4 ,vivitar varie focus 35-85 2.8,45mm f2,50mm 1.7 like that .So i will try my copy soon and post some pictures

  5. Hallo Phillip,
    super Test, danke.
    Ich habe auch ein Minolta MC 1.7/55 an der A7.
    Ist eins meiner Lieblings 50er (55).
    Immer wenn ich mir Bilder anschaue die mit dem 55 Rokkor
    gemacht wurden bin ich immer wieder begeistert wie gut das Ding ist.
    Wunderschönes Bokeh. Abgeblendet auch für Landschaften Klasse.
    Aus diesen Gründen habe ich mir auch den Vorgänger, das Auto Rokkor 55/1,8
    Das Teil ist in der Verarbeitung noch mal wesentlich besser als das mc 55/1,7.
    Ca 330 Grad Fokusweg.
    Schärfer in der Bildmitte bei F 1.8.
    Farbe, Kontrast Bokeh kann ich noch nicht abschließend beurteilen da das Wetter
    im Augenblick nicht ganz so toll ist für schöne Fotos.
    Aber es besteht die Möglichkeit, dass mir das alte Auto Rokkor noch besser
    als mein geliebtes Mc 55 gefällt.

    Grüße Jörg

  6. Phillip, It is really exciting to see you reviewed this lens, and I just bought one from Ebay for my A7, But I could’t use the MF after I attached it with a cheap adapter, the system couldn’t recognize the lens, Does this normal for these Minolta vintage lenses?


  7. I just got one of these with a camera from eBay. Fungus on the lens. It was only $30 so I will throw it away and not be so cheap next time. So annoying after reading this review before it arrived.

  8. So if you had to choose the best lens for portraits in the 50mm range which would you pick?

  9. Hey Phillip, my name is Emily and I am interested in purchasing a manual lens for my sony a6000 for the purpose of portraits, candids, and other close up, detailed photography. I’ve been reading through your reviews, but was wondering if you had any specific suggestions for my camera/desired type of photography.

    Thanks so much, I really appreciate your help and all the great information you provide on your blog!



    1. Emily, the Voigtlander Ultron 40mm/2.0 SL II would be a “long normal” in effective focal length on your crop sensor A6000, and a pretty fast one, too, as required… plus the accompanying dedicated close up lens attachment gets you down to a 1:4 magnification ratio with excellent results (see close focus image comparisons at the ‘f-stoppers’ web site). A simple Nikon-F adapter for the A6000 won’t cramp the compact style of the Ultron 40mm too much, though it will no longer be ‘pancake-y’.

      I personally prefer having two go-to lenses as “normals” to the usual single 50-52mm FF equivalent — a “long normal” (58mm-64mm equiv.) and a “wide normal” (36mm-45mm equiv.). This gives you more control over perspective and can give your portraits two quite different looks (at least). I think this extreme bokeh business on the internet has been way overdone: really good photographers know a variety of other ways to “make subjects pop”.

      So then, you could look at these MF lenses as complementary: the Olympus OM 24mm/2.8 MC or the OM 28mm/2.0 MC (relatively compact adapted to the A6000)… or the larger and often underappreciated Nikkor Ai/Ai-s 28mm/2.0. The latter, I know, has front-of-lens close range correction with floating elements… which may work more reliably with digicam sensors than the usual rear CRC group; it’s also sharper at infinity than the f.2.8 Ai-s. BTW, Emily, finding all around good performers among vintage 24mm lenses, by modern standards, is tough compared to what you can find in 28’s. The well-balanced IQ of the compact Olympus 24mm therefore makes it a popular choice today.

      For more money, if you can find a smooth working example at a good price, the Samyang/Rokinon 50mm/1.2 (yes, f.1.2) for Sony E mount at around 13-ounces in weight should not be overlooked, IMO. Now you’re up to a short telephoto in field of view on your crop sensor Sony: it’s difficult to think of another really ‘modern rendering’ option with crisp sharpness at the widest apertures, nice bokeh, and such a mini form factor for a truly fast lens. Right off the top of my head, I don’t know how this one behaves at its closest focusing distance. It is said to also work pretty well full frame (!), which would make it a unique option, with all of that preceding… and then even more so. Finally, FYI, I have purchased all of the above lenses in clean used condition for myself. Good luck.

  10. I got this 55/1.7 lens, then I got a Fotodiox adapter from Amazon, but I found I cannot change aperture by the ring on lens unless I push the lever stick on the back of lens. Is my adapter not correct or is there a special way to change aperture?

  11. This was the review I was looking for – I find these reviews immensely informative, but I haven’t had any overlap between the lenses you’ve reviewed and the lenses I have until I found this one. Now I that I have a point of reference between your observations and my own, I can put some of my other lenses in context of your reviews when I’m trying to decide whether I should upgrade a given lens.

    Before my new A7II, I’ve been collecting (and receiving as presents from well-intentioned friends) manual lenses for years that I’ve been able to use on my old AE-1 or with my IR NEX-3, but they were only a novelty on my Sony A700 without focus aids and with infinity focus issues. Now things are entirely different and I’m trying to fill out a complimentary prime set. I’m starting with:

    Canon FD 135mm f/2.5 S.C.
    Canon FD 35mm f/2 S.S.C. concave (thorium!)
    Canon FD 50mm f/1.8
    Minolta MC Rokkor 55mm f/1.7 (really rough shape but optically fine)
    Pentax Takumar SMC 55mm f/1.8 (also thoriated I believe)
    Minolta MC Macro Rokkor QF 50mm f/3.5

    The canon 35mm is my favorite, an old shopkeeper who was a former Navy photographer sold his copy to me, so the kit starts there.

    I haven’t picked out a favorite among the 50/55 set yet to carry. I love the tiny size and bulid quality of the Takumar 55/1.8, but I suspect it’s outclassed by the Minolta 55/1.7. The bokeh on the Takumar is a little less smooth. I haven’t been able to shoot the exact same scene yet, but I think the Minolta 55/1.7 is sharper in the corners at f/2.8.

    Some day I’ll find something wider than 35mm and something around 90mm, and your reviews will be my primary source to help decide!

  12. Another excellent review.
    I just ordered a PF 55 1.7, and MC Rokkor-X 50mm 1.7. Will be interesting to compare them to the FE55 1.8. It’s amazing how well some of these legacy lenses stack up to modern variants.
    You’re reviews are addictive…

    1. Very curious, have you been able to test the rokkor-x 50 vs the rokkor-pf 55? I have the rokkor-x 50mm 1.7 and can’t find any comparisons anywhere.

        1. I can second this.

          I was lucky enough to borrow the lens in this article and the MC Rokkor-X 50mm F1.7 and did my own side by side comparison on a tripod at various apertures.

          Wide open, the 55 is sharper with significantly less “glow.” At all other apertures, the 50 is a touch (almost identical, it’s so close) sharper in the center but softer through the rest of the frame.

          Bokeh has some differences in rendering but both are pleasant enough.

          I would choose the 55 in this article over the Rokkor-X 50mm f1.7. The only advantage to the 50 may be the recessed lens element within the body possibly acting as a bit of a hood.

      1. Alexander, you can find head-to-head image comparisons of Minolta SR, MC, & MD lenses at, including interesting comparison features using Sony FF bodies. Hint: the f.1.4 and f.1.2 options come off better, generally, than the f.1.7’s do. Pay careful attention to the particular versions and iterations of the Minolta 50’s and learn the identifying physical characteristics. It’s all there.

        FWIW, I’ll tell you that I have the late MD 50mm/2.0 that Phillip likes and a late MD 50mm/1.4 (instead of the MC 50mm/1.4 PF, 1970’s version, which typically, is slightly favored among some lens hounds — compare ’em for yourself — because the MD is lighter weight, and I got it with another lens, in great shape, for a paltry $10 or so). I hope this helps.

  13. I got one of these a long time ago attached to an SRT 101 that in turn was attached to an Ikelite housing, which at the time was what I actually wanted. It’s now becoming one of my favourite short portrait lenses on APS-C where the extra length benefits it over my SMC 50/1.4 and 50/1.2 alternatives, despite their speed (and the 1.4 being sharper).

    It’s a lovely lens on an X-Pro for portraits, and also a nice option on a Ricoh GXR with the M12 mount as a ‘short tele’ when I’m walking around and want the best weight to quality ratio I can carry. On APS-C the slight corner softness is cropped off, of course.

    This is the lens that got me interested in Minolta options among ‘old’ glass, and I’ve since added a couple of others.

  14. When choosing a used lens off an affiliate link how careful should one be about dust, haze, and, fungus? Seems like a lot of lenses say there is something, but that it doesn’t affect the image? I’m nervous to pick a lens with any noted defect, but I get the feeling a mint lens is harder to find and more expensive, maybe for little real benifit.

  15. hi phillip,
    can you comment how is the sharpness and contrast of 58mm from f1.7 compared to 55mm f/1.7.
    I have a chance to get either of this two lens of similar price. Im wondering which one shall I pick ?

    I would also pack Fuji 60mm f.2.4 into the comparison. How are the Minoltas compared when stepped down to F2.4 and F2.8 ?

  16. I bought a whole bunch of Rokkor glass from 24mm to 135mm… this and the 45/2 are the ones I’m keeping. I did some testing between this and the 58/1.4 and this is much sharper wide open. The lack of a half stop between 1.7 and 2.8 is a little annoying, but it’s good enough at 1.7 that it’s not that big of a deal.

  17. Thanks for the review, been looking for a 50-ish lens that has good bokeh. After getting a good copy of this one (took two tries), I like it more than the MD 50mm f/2 for general use. The bokeh is so nice… The f/2 is still around for times when flaring needs to be toned down.

  18. Hi Phillip,

    thank you very much for the review. I am from China, and here is liitle review about old lenses. So I am very excited when I see your review!

    And can you help me to choose some afforable portrait lenses? Is Minolta 55mm 1:1.7 ‘s center sharp enough?And I also considering Minolta 100mm 1:2.5,Tokina 2/90, Jupiter-9 and Samyang 85? Can you give me some suggestion? Waiting for your answer, thanks!



      1. Actually on a crop sensor this is an awesome portrait lens. The bokeh is gorgeous and the center sharpness is decent enough even for a 24Mp aps-c crop sensor.

  19. I have an f1.8 version of this lens: it looks identical apart from the max aperture. My copy is defective, in that it gives infinity focus at 2m on the lens markings. However, it is a superbly sharp lens, sharp across the frame at f5.6 and pretty good corner sharpness at f2/8. It’s also good for infrared. It’s one of my favourite lenses. I don’t know if the fact that my copy is defective has anything to do with how good it is, but I am not complaining!

    Since buying this lens my Pentax smc-A 50mm f1.4 gets used less often, though this is also a great lens. With the Helios 44-2 I am a bit spoilt for choice around this focal length 🙂

  20. To add my own on the Minolta 55 and 50’s, following the Rokkor pages, your takes, other takes, and my own…there is one consistent theme and much of it is splitting hairs or bokeh preferences as far as IQ or IP (image preferences)go….

    The MC-X versions with the Brass and Aluminum helicoids

    Compare apples and oranges, split micro hairs into micro hairs, and use charted specs or real world results to reach your final conclusions…..

    When your in the viewfinder next time? Tell me, how does that lens feel in your fingertips? Are you in complete command or is there some little tick tack quirk thing going on you have to be aware of?

    Tell me this, is your lens perfect and precise, not only can you nail focus you don’t even second guess that thought because your tool at your control is just that……in your control?

    If it ain’t got alumibrass helicoid operation I don’t care which lens is a little sharper, the confidence and ability to nail focus each and every time should far outweigh that little petty difference anytime…

  21. If anyone is interested in how corner and center sharpness of this lens compares to the Takumar SMC 55mm F/1.8, Takumar S-M-C 50mm F/1.4, and Canon FD 50mm F/1.8, here is my comparison:

    The short summary: the Minolta holds it’s own against all three. I was surprised how well it compared to the Takumar S-M-C 50/1.4, if you account for the fact that F1.7 is somewhere between the Takumar’s F1.4 and F2.0. Although I don’t show it in the test, the amount of bokeh is nearly the same, as the Minolta’s higher focal length balances out the Takumar’s aperture size advantage.

  22. Hello, could you please tell me if this lens has radioactive elements in the glass (thorium)?
    I’ve read and some guys say is radioactive and some say it isn’t.
    I think this is an important aspect people should know.

  23. Excellent – amazing and thorough – review. However you note that “all adapters for DSLR cameras either contain an optical element which will reduce image quality a lot or you lose infinity focus. I wouldn’t bother to use one of those adapters.”

    I acquired a Fotodiox MD to SN(a) adapter for my copy of this lens on my Sony A77 II SLT. I have also used the lens on my Minolta X-70.

    I am in love with the results – extra optical element or not. Bear in mind that the lens does its magic and then the image passes through the extra optical element. It may “degrade” the image but I cannot see this. The images are still very much Rokkor images and I really cannot discern the differences.

    Here is a sample of the Rokkor on my DSLR with the Fotodiox adapter:

    Here is a sample of the Rokkor on my Minolta X-70:

    Cheers – please keep writing!

  24. I once had this 55/1.7 version, now 55/2.0 and it seems that it is a little sharper and more practical to use. There is a thought to try another version of 55/1.8 . Any idea who dealt with all three ?

  25. I recently acquired the 50mm 1.7 MD version. I am not using it often as I have the SMC Pentaxt-M 50mm 1.4, but when I decided to compare my 2 nifties, I am beginning to love the color rendering of Minolta than Pentax, or it’s just me though. My heart is with Pentax but I kinda lean to Minolta’s SOOC colors, so I am still keeping it.

  26. I have all your articles on the Manual lenses for Sony A7 this night, all : mindblowing. I can’t decide. Help me : suggest me one lens, the very best for you. I wanted 1.4 lens when i discovered your site : i need the most largest bokeh possible, i want to isolate epic portrait from nature backgrounds. But by reading all other articles i don’t know wich to buy between Revuenon 1.4 or Minolta MC Rokkor PF 50mm 1,7. Very very confused. I need help. The contrast and image quality on the Minolta MC Rokkor PF 50mm 1,7 is unbelievable, the bokeh on Revuenon is irresistible. Help me decide please.

  27. I just picked on up for $10 and it has already become my favorite lens. Thanks for the review which set me searching.

  28. I enjoy your reviews and often take up your suggestions on lenses such as this Minolta 55mm f1.7 as I had already come across the venerable MCII 58mm f1.4 and adored it except for its’ wide open softness, and indeed the 55mm f1.7 does improve greatly in this respect, but for some reason it lost out in other areas and never really dis-lodged the 58mm from my affections.

    Recently on the ‘Bay’ I noticed a rather odd halfway-house of a lens, that seems to span the MCII era and the MCIII in the form of the 55mm f1.9 made using the earlier aperture ring style of the earlier range and the focusing barrel of the latter, and which I gather was only produced for a couple of years as a standard ‘kit’ lens, and also I gather something of an experimentation optically-speaking.

    I grabbed it for a measly amount and out of mere curiosity and I’m very impressed with it.

    It comes up sharper at all apertures over the earlier f1.7 version with greater contrast presumably from improved coatings, and so much sharper wide open than my beloved 58mm f1.4 except after f4 where the 58mm gets crackers-sharp (technical term!).

    Anyway, if you’d like me to send you some raw test comparison shots just say the word.

    Again, I’m not sure it’s likely to displace my 58mm – Love the lens with!

    Thanks again for all your words, they’re fascinating even if my own emotional response is a little different to some of your favourite lenses (I really didn’t get on with an MCII 58mm f1.2 for example) … but thankfully it’s all very subjective and we all have to find what works for us 🙂

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *