Full-Frame Vintage 58mm: Helios 44m-4 vs Minolta MC Rokkor PF

[StevenAunan]

Comparing two adapted 58mm lenses on the R5 Mark II. Edit: I manually added lens metadata with the Exif Editor Tool from the Apple App Store, but it isn't showing up here.

Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm f/1.4 (SR mount, $76 from KEH)
Helios 44m-4 58mm f/2 (EF mount, $100 from Ebay / Ukraine)

I like the Minolta colors better, and the bokeh is smoother. The Helios seems to be a bit sharper, or maybe the background separation is just different and it looks sharper to me. (All images exported from Luminar Neo with no editing.)

My research on vintage primes for the Fuji GFX and Canon R has caused me to think I want to acquire a good range of focal lengths (from 20-135mm?). I have a Pentax 135mm f/2.5 in M42 (screw) mount, but I like the Minolta SR mount better. I'll have to get a Minolta 135mm f/2.8 and see how it compares to the Pentax.

Which system looks better to you?

Minolta: https://aperturepedia.com/minolta-sr/
Pentax: https://aperturepedia.com/pentax-m42/

Minolta @ f/1.4

• Join to view EXIF data.

Helios @ f/2

• Join to view EXIF data.

Minolta @ f/2

• Join to view EXIF data.

Helios @ f/16

• Join to view EXIF data.

Minolta @ f/16

• Join to view EXIF data.

 

[THXGEEK]

All are worthy! For me, the Minolta @ f/2 is the best. No reason or rationale, other than it is the most pleasing to my eye.

 

[VanDyck]

Comparing two adapted 58mm lenses on the R5 Mark II

I applaud your investigation into adapted lenses.

Back in the day, a 5D was my first digital camera, resulting in many photos and fond memories of using it. At that time, I had Tamron and Sigma lenses that were used with Nikon film cameras. A web search lead me to acquire two different makes of Nikon to EOS adapters, the names of which of now forgotten. Both lenses worked with the 5D. That was an exciting moment!

 

[Archibald]

The Minolta wins for me. Sharper and better bokeh in the f/2 shots - and no oval out-of-focus shapes. The Helios might be a touch sharper at f/16 though.

 

[Dean Wilson]

I have been giving thought of using a FD to RF mount to try out my FD 50mm f/1.4 SSC and FD 28mm f/2.8 on my R5 and see how the turn out.

EDIT: I just ordered the adapter... no more "thinking about it."

 

[Bryan Conner]

Comparing two adapted 58mm lenses on the R5 Mark II. Edit: I manually added lens metadata with the Exif Editor Tool from the Apple App Store, but it isn't showing up here.

Minolta MC Rokkor PF 58mm f/1.4 (SR mount, $76 from KEH)
Helios 44m-4 58mm f/2 (EF mount, $100 from Ebay / Ukraine)

I like the Minolta colors better, and the bokeh is smoother. The Helios seems to be a bit sharper, or maybe the background separation is just different and it looks sharper to me. (All images exported from Luminar Neo with no editing.)

My research on vintage primes for the Fuji GFX and Canon R has caused me to think I want to acquire a good range of focal lengths (from 20-135mm?). I have a Pentax 135mm f/2.5 in M42 (screw) mount, but I like the Minolta SR mount better. I'll have to get a Minolta 135mm f/2.8 and see how it compares to the Pentax.

Which system looks better to you?

Minolta: https://aperturepedia.com/minolta-sr/
Pentax: https://aperturepedia.com/pentax-m42/

Minolta @ f/1.4
View attachment 45057

Helios @ f/2
View attachment 45058

Minolta @ f/2
View attachment 45059

Helios @ f/16
View attachment 45070

Minolta @ f/16View attachment 45071

In my opinion, the Minolta MC is sharper when both lenses are compared at f2. I also like the bokeh of the Minolta better than of the Helios. I would definitely keep the Minolta based on the shots you provided.

But, I would want to compare them at a mid-range aperture such as f4.0, f5.6 or f8 before making my final choice. That is probably where I would use a lens the most.