Skip to content

Review: Minolta MC Tele Rokkor QF 200mm 1:3.5

Minolta MC Tele Rokkor QF 200mm F3.5 lens review (‘Hills & Valleys’ or ‘MC II’ style by collectors classification)

The first impression – it’s solid and heavy. It would be strange to recommend this lens today for photographers because many other much lighter options on 200mm focal distance are available, but for guys who like to take portraits with the feeling of a big piece of steel and glass in the hand – that’s the paradise. And it has a good IQ by the way.

After getting a new lens, I always take a few technical shots to understand its strengths and weaknesses – usually, it helps me a lot to start using an unknown lens with much less of doubt. One day I decided that my data might be interesting for someone else and this site has been made.

MCC20035__exterior_698.jpg

Minolta MC Tele Rokkor QF 200mm 1:3.5 (MC-II) parameters:

minolta.eazypix.de index 207
Name engraved on lens MC TELE ROKKOR-QF
f 200
A max 3.5
A min 22
Elements 6
Groups 4
Filter thread 62
Lens Shade built-in
close 2.5/8
Dimension 76×138
Weight 775
Year 1970
Style MC II
Code No. 663-008

Floating elements NO
Aperture blades number 6
Average international price (sold items) 2019: USD 25-75
Reviewed Lens SN: 5519793

 


Lens exterior:

(Please, forgive me the dust, I never have the patience to clean objects for close-up photo sessions)

 

On Minolta SR-T 101 camera:

 


Lens code name – Holo:

Holo (ホロ) is a female deity and the protagonist of the light novel, manga and anime series Spice & Wolf.

 


Sharpness – close distance:

Test description: target is a 10×15 cm picture (printed, glossy photo paper), fixed on the wall by scotch. Distance – 3m. Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. All groups of shots were repeated 3 times for every target position on all apertures from fully opened up to F16, ISO-200, WB – same for all shots. SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot. After all needed shots have been taken for one target position – I moved the target to the next place. Main idea – to exclude the field curvature affect on so close distance. Of course, I can’t be absolutely accurate, but test results looks correct.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (Some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cropped for 300×200 px elements, combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files

Original target image (printed in horizontal orientation on 10cm X 15cm glossy photo paper)

Holo 10 2print.png

Scene preview:

MCC20035__b_res_close_previewNEW.jpg

Test results:

MCC20035__c_res_close.jpg


Sharpness – long distance:

Test description: Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. Targets (buildings) were fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters. All shots have been taken with apertures from fully opened up to F16. ISO-100. Shutter Speed – depends on light (camera A-mode), WB – fixed and the same for all shots. SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot to exclude focus-shift affect.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (Some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then were cropped for 300×200 px elements, combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.

Scene preview:

MCC20035__e_far_preview.jpg

Test results:

MCC20035__e_res_far.jpg


Vignetting:

(frames scaled – 300×200)

MCC20035__f_vignettingNEW.png


Geometric distortion:

(frame scaled 1200×800)

MCC20035_geometry_84.jpg


Coma aberrations:

(100% crops – 300×200)

MCC20035__h_coma_aberr_.jpg


Chromatic aberrations:

(100% crops – 300×200)

MCC20035__i_chrome_aberrNEW_.png


Long distance bokeh:

Test#1:

Test conditions: lens was focused on minimal distance 2.5m, houses were fixed in infinity distance on the ground.

Such scenes can’t be meet often, so this is a demonstration of extreme conditions. In most cases of real-life photography, the blur level will be less, see the next Test#2.

(frame scaled 1200×800)

MCC20035__k_bokeh_far_min_2_5m_NEW.png

Test#2:

Test conditions: lens was focused on 4m – ‘portrait distance’, houses were fixed in infinity distance on the ground.

(frame scaled 1200×800)

MCC20035__k_bokeh_far_mid_4_0m_NEW.png


Light dots long distance bokeh:

Test #1

Test conditions: lens was focused on minimal distance 2.5m, lights were fixed in more than 200m.

Such scenes can’t be meet often, so this is a demonstration of extreme conditions. In most cases of real-life photography the blur level will be less – see Test #2.

(frame scaled 1200×800)

MCC20035__m_dots_far_min_2_5m_NEW.png

Test #2

Test conditions: lens was focused on 4m – ‘portrait distance’, houses were fixed in infinity distance on the ground.

(frame scaled 1200×800)

MCC20035__m_dots_far_mid_4_0m_NEW.png


Other resources with reviews:

no other reviews were found. Give me shout if you know a one


My overall conclusion about the MINOLTA MC TELE ROKKOR QF 200MM F:3.5:

MCC20035__Avatar.png

As I said above – there is no need to recommend this lens for everyone because of the combination of a couple factors. Firstly – it’s big and heavy. From my point of view of course. There are enough options with this focal distance are presented on the market for photographers, including made by Minolta too – look at the reviews of New-MD generation on this site. The difference with Minolta New-MD 200mm 1:2.8 is just about 10%, not a big, but in real life that 80g can be important. And don’t forget about long zooms, which can provide speeds close to F4. And about modern lightweight lenses too.

Secondly, it is slower (F 3.5) than later modifications (F 2.8), this is not a big difference at all but in sum we have the lens which is a little bit slower and a little bit heavier.

What about the advantages? Definitely, it’s a nice performer. I don’t think that a photographer will feel the lack of IQ if shooting with this lens. Only chromatic aberrations can be called as heavy, all other tests show very nice results. Of course, it draws creamy bokeh and can cut an object from a background on any reasonable distance, it isn’t a surprise for a lens with such focal distance but anyway.

As many other lenses of Minolta MC, it is easy to service and owner can fix most of the possible issues without special skills and expensive tools.

And… It has a build-in lens-shade! Great advantage actually.

The conclusion is predictable – little bit heavy portrait lens but with nice IQ and for a reasonable price.


This lens in battles:
MCC20035_vs_MCC20045_vs_MD20028_Battle__Avatar.png


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: