MC W. Rokkor 35mm f1.8 HH
Technical data
Angle of view: 63 degrees
Min. focus distance: 0,3m
Filter thread: 55mm
Diaphgram: f1.8 - f16
Weight: 415 g.
My personal experiences
This is one of my oldiest lenses. I have used it mainly three ways: Mostly in family events and other happenings to photograph groups of people, or for a whole portrait in a limited space. I've also used it for the landscapes, typically stopped-down at f8 or f11. Finally, if I've wanted a wideangle shot with limited depth of field, like isolating a plant from its surroundings in a place where longer focal length is not practical, I've used it at large apertures.The people are usually shot at natural light using f1.8-f5.6, or flash at f4 to f8. In my experience the lens performs well in both cases. Of course it is not at its best shot wide open, especially the corners are shoft, but do you use to put your target into corners in these shots?
In landscape pictures, this lens is an excellent performer, as far as you can avoid flare. I've used a square, metal hood, originally made for Konica 35mm f2.8, with this lens and it works exellently even with an UV filter on the lens. In extreme cases I've removed the filter. I don't remember I had lost many pictures due to flare. Later I used the 35-70/3.5 MD Rokkor-X zoom in my nature photography more than this lens - the zoom is lighter. You don't need the f1.8 in this kind of shooting.
I don't recall I had used this lens a lot for architechtural shots,
or at least I don't remember any pictures ruined by distortions - I really
cannot tell about the distortions of this lens now, which surprises myself,
after so many years of using this lens! The picture of the castle is one
of the few, and it seems to have some barrel distortion, but I think the
wall to the left is not quite straight in the nature either!
 |
 |
Left: Castle of Turku Minolta XE-1 MC W.Rokkor 35mm f1.8 HH 1/250 sec. at f5.6 Kodachrome 64 4.8.2000 Turku, Finland Cropped. Right: A feather
|
In close-up photography this lens is not one of the best - it lacks the floating elements, and does not perform very well at close distances and large apertures, but as I don't have the 28/2 (and the DOF of this lens is shorter than my 24/2.8), I have had to use it. Keep the subject off the corners!
Mechanically, there is not much to say. This is a typical MC Rokkor, you cannot find better built quality or smoother operation, no matter where you looked for it. A bit heavy, especially with the light X- and XG-bodies, but not badly so. Excellent int the Sr-T and XE cameras.
Do I recommend this lens? I have shortly tested also the MD W. Rokkor 35mm f1.8, a much lighter lens with totally different optical structure and 49mm thread, and would suppose you get it instead of this, if the filter diameter fits to you. If your other lenses have 55mm filter threads, you don't loose much in optical quality with this older version. If you don't need the f1.8 aperture, then the f2.8 version is both lighter and cheaper, and obviously also optically better. Depending on the setup you are building, the 28/2 might be a better alternative for a fast wideangle, because it has the floating element system, and stayed longer in the production so it is available with MD tab and better coatings. You can also have this focal length in a zoom lens, without sacrificing too much quality, so there are plenty of choises you can make. But I don't think you would have a change to make a bad decision among 35mm Rokkors!
A wooden house in Hamina
Minolta XD-7
MC W. Rokkor 35mm f1.8 HH
Polarizing filter
1/60 sec. at f6.8
Agfachrome RSX 50
27.7.1999 Hamina, Finland