Minolta M-Rokkor 40mm F/2 – Lens Review

I shoot a lot of old cameras, archaic machines that in some cases recall a time when the United States was comprised of only forty-eight such distinct territories, and it’s not unusual to find a lens of similar vintage mated to my Sony a7. So it goes without saying that much of my experience in photography comes with considerable compromise. A slower-than-useful maximum shutter speed, poor optical coatings, or cumbersome weight and size, for example.

With one eye on the past and one firmly fixed on the present, I strive to show the ways these older technologies maintain relevance (or don’t) for today’s photo geek. Oftentimes, a lens or camera simply doesn’t make the cut, as was the case recently with an unnamed Nikkor that, when mounted to my mirror-less camera was simply too large and clumsy for use. That lens did not get featured. But for every oafish piece of glass or burdensome assemblage of metal that fails to impress, I shoot ten machines that are as amazing today as they were at the time of their release.

The lens I’ve been shooting for the past few weeks is just such a creation. A tiny, incredibly well-made and amazingly potent performer that produces consistently perfect images with both digital and film cameras, costs less than the competition, and offers an uncommon perspective, this lens is the kind of lens that real photo geeks dream of. It’s Minolta’s M-Rokkor 40mm F/2, and it displays an unlikely modernity that, while difficult to quantify, is impossible to ignore.

For those who may have missed it, I recently wrote a review of Minolta’s 28mm M-Rokkor, a lens that sprouts from the same bough in the family tree as the lens here featured. But while the 28mm M-Rokkor shares much of the same DNA as the 40mm F/2, there’s no confusion as to which is the more capable, more complete lens.

As with the 28mm, the 40mm lens was made in at least two variations. Early 40mm M-Rokkors were made for the Leitz Minolta CL (as it was called in its home market), are single coated, and sometimes bear the marking “QF” on the nameplate. Contrary to what some online commentators might say (reminding us always to consider the source), this nomenclature has nothing to do with the coating technology used on the lens, nothing to do with internal prototyping, and nothing to do with “Quality Failure” inspections. It’s simply a naming system that Minolta had used for years that denotes the optical formula of the lens. In this case, “Q” denotes that the lens is made of four groups, and “F” denotes these groups are made of six elements. Later lenses in the CL generation of lenses would lose the “QF” marking, but retain the lens’ serial number on the bezel. Again, online sources claim that later CL era lenses gained multi-coating, but nowhere in the Minolta literature is this supported.

When the Minolta CLE made its debut, with it came a new generation of M-Rokkors. These new lenses saw their serial number move from the nameplate to the lens barrel, and though their optical formula remained the same, the lenses now officially enjoyed the boost in contrast and flare resistance granted by multi-coating technology.

Minolta M Rokkor 40mm (1 of 1)

Boring history lesson concluded, what’s the takeaway? Simply this; if you’re in the market for an M-Rokkor, buy the newest version you can. In this case, newer is certainly better.

Construction quality, fit, and finish are simply marvelous. As with the 28mm before it, Minolta created in the M-Rokkor 40mm a product that simply oozes sophistication. Knurling is laser sharp. Markings for aperture and the convenient focus scale are engraved with impeccable precision. Every surface is made of metal. The aperture ring (positioned on the end of the lens) and the focus ring are machined to a stunningly high level of quality. The lens is tight, dense, and weighty, and functionally things are just as nice. The aperture ring yields to an ideal amount of directed force and clicks into its detents with mechanical certainty. The ten-bladed aperture is adjusted in half-stop increments, while focus actuation is precise, smooth, and nicely weighted. It’s a lens that’s easy on the eyes, and heavenly in the hand.

One of the tiniest M mount lenses ever produced, the 40mm M-Rokkor is an excellent choice for everyday carry. It’s super-compact and amazingly lightweight. Mounting the Rokkor to Minolta’s CLE or any other M-mount machine creates a kit that’s smaller than any combination of Leica M paired with any Leica lens, weighs less than sixteen ounces, and is ideal for travelers and street shooters. Mounted on a mirror-less camera such as Sony’s a7 or Fujifilm’s X-series it’s equally effectual (though on Fuji’s crop-sensor machines it’ll shoot as a 60mm lens). The 40mm focal length is among the most versatile primes around, and while this slightly odd standard poses potential problems for certain shooters (I’ll get into this momentarily), it’ll satisfy the needs of anyone who’s open to seeing things just a bit differently.

minolta M rokkor 40mm Review 22

Optical performance is really quite stunning. Images are contrasty, rich, and above all else, sharp. This sharpness, which is among the most impressive of any lens I’ve ever shot, is surprisingly consistent across the entire frame even at F/2. Corners are crisp and clean, even wide open. As we stop down that aperture sharpness become even more exceptional, as expected. Chromatic aberration is completely absent, as is distortion of any kind, and flaring and ghosting are nearly impossible to produce with multi-coated examples unless we’re pointing directly at a brilliant sun. The dedicated, specific-to-this-lens rubber lens hood helps the situation (as does any hood made to fit the 40.5mm filter threads), but this piece is prone to deformation and warping as time marches on. And since time has marched on considerably since the little halo of rubber was new, most are deformed. Light falloff is virtually nonexistent, a time-saver in post-processing.

Bokeh is nothing to boast about, but since this 40mm lens is unlikely to be used as a serious portrait or product photography lens, I’m willing to forgive the somewhat harsh out-of-focus backgrounds that it renders. Highlight bokeh stays pretty round as the aperture closes, but there’s little blending to speak of. It’s safe to say that this is not a bokeh-lover’s lens. Minimum focus distance is not super close, typical of rangefinder lenses.

The relatively quick maximum aperture of F/2 is adequate in most low-light shooting situations. While there are faster prime 40s out there, none have such a strong blend of positive characteristics. For my needs, and I suspect most shooters’ needs, this lens is fast enough.

minolta m rokkor 40mm bokeh

minolta M rokkor 40mm F2 review (7 of 7)

minolta M rokkor 40mm F2 review (2 of 7)

The admittedly terse profile above tells the tale of this lens adequately enough. It’s a lens that defies fluffy hyperbole. It does its job. It works. The little 40mm Rokkor performs more like modern glass than do most legacy lenses, and there’s just not much to say about that. It has a certain clinical perfection to it. It’s precise in a way that old lenses, broadly speaking, are not. It’s a lens that requires little attention and demands little compromise. Mount this lens to your mirror-less camera, focus, shoot, and you’re likely to make a keeper (if your skills are up to snuff). It’s the perfect “F8 and be there” companion. Use the focus scale, set your CLE to aperture-priority, and pay attention to the scene on the street. Your compositions will benefit, and you’ll enjoy easy fun.

If you’ve read my review of the 28mm M-Rokkor you’ll probably recall the sad affliction that besmirches the reputation of that otherwise-excellent glass. Happily, there are no such issues with the 40mm. No white dots cling persistently to the front element, no proclivity for fungus or oil seepage has developed, and no reputation for mechanical breakdowns have presented; these lenses seem, 30 years on, to be very reliable. Buy one today and you’re likely to still love it two decades later.

Potential stumbles come in the form of compatibility issues with certain rangefinder cameras that lack 40mm frame-lines. On the Leica CL and Minolta’s CLE this isn’t an issue, as mounting the lens automatically activates both cameras’ 40mm frame-lines. But with Leica’s M series cameras and on other M mount machines, mounting the 40mm M-Rokkor will activate either the 50mm or 35mm frame lines (depending on the camera). This naturally requires a certain degree of faith and guesswork, and precise framing becomes difficult for some shooters and nearly impossible for others. The solution is, of course, to use this lens on a CLE (which is an upgrade over the M series anyway) or get comfortable guessing. Of course another big stumble will occur if you simply can’t get excited about the 40mm focal length. If you’ve tried 40mm lenses and prefer 35mm or 50mm, there’s nothing about this lens that’s going to change that.

If you’re looking for a no-nonsense, modern M-mount 40mm prime for your CL, CLE, or new mirror-less camera, it’s hard to recommend another over Minolta’s M-Rokkor. It’s undeniably gorgeous, amazingly compact, and creates images that are simply perfect. In the 40mm focal length, this one’s hard to top.

Buy the 40mm M-Rokkor on eBay

Buy the 40mm M-Rokkor on Amazon

Buy the 40mm M-Rokkor on B & H Photo

Casual Photophile is on ElloFacebookInstagram, and Youtube

Advertisements

You Might Also Like

15 Comments

  • Reply
    Ed Worthington
    July 22, 2016 at 11:53 am

    You do love those Rokkor’s don’t you? :p A really nice and concise review, if I had an M mount camera I’d consider getting one myself.

    • Reply
      James
      July 22, 2016 at 11:58 am

      Is it that obvious?

      • Reply
        Josh
        July 22, 2016 at 4:21 pm

        I’d say!

  • Reply
    aprilius20
    July 22, 2016 at 1:09 pm

    Glad to see another Minolta lens review (you’ve got me hooked)!
    I got the 50/1.4 after reading your article on it, and so far I love it to bits.
    I’m even using the photo of your 24/2.8 as my wallpaper at work. 😉

    Back on topic, I’m surprised that this 40mm costs so much on eBay.
    Does this have something to do with it being an M mount lens, or are they just really rare, or both?

    • Reply
      James
      July 22, 2016 at 1:22 pm

      Thanks for the support, my friend. I don’t think they are rare, necessarily. If I had to guess I would say that the price is indicative of quality, reputation, and the fact that people have really taken to shooting these old lenses on their new digital cameras. The market is just stein right now, and this lens is quite exceptional. But keep in mind that the equivalent performers from Leica are much pricier.

  • Reply
    Federico
    July 22, 2016 at 1:51 pm

    Good read, thanks for taking the time to review it!
    I had expectations for softer bokeh based on the (seemingly uncommon at the time?) 10-blade iris, so I was surprised by your findings.
    I own Fuji GW690iii and Canonet QL17Giii rangefinders, and both feature leaf shutters with 5-blade irises for Aperture control, and while the Canonet is just OK fully open, the Fuji MF is better but mostly due to the huge 6×9 film exposure.
    I was hoping the 10-blade iris would’ve meant softer defocusing…
    Thanks again!

    • Reply
      James
      July 22, 2016 at 2:09 pm

      I think highlights stay nice and round, but yes you’re right of course. I see this lens as more of a super sharp street lens than anything else. Thanks for the input! (I’ll be exploring the Fuji 690 soon- stay tuned).

      • Reply
        Federico
        July 22, 2016 at 4:05 pm

        That’s great. Now I fully grasp your references to the “everyday carry (lens)” and “F8 and be there”. I bet it’d be lovely with one of the FF Sony A7 cameras with in-body image stabilization.
        It’s great you’ll explore the 690! You’ll be amazed by its sharpness and down to basics experience. I placed a (Voigtländer) VC Meter II in the hot shoe for a more integrated metering experience and I love it. A Fuji 690 rangefinder forces you to think, plan and execute with calm, but far from being slow and boring, it’s actually involved and exciting. The Fujinon’s 90mm equivalent focal distance (in 35mm terms) is 39mm, so it’ll likely compose very similar to the 40mm M-Rokkor, unless you get one of the slower/wider GSW versions. Look out for the 4cm (!) depth of field at the minimum 1m shooting distance (9cm with a GSW)
        Staying tuned for it!

  • Reply
    Merlin Marquardt
    July 22, 2016 at 4:18 pm

    All very nice. Well done.

  • Reply
    Lukasz Kalinowski
    October 17, 2016 at 12:29 pm

    Hello James and Everyone,

    I recently bought a Minolta CLE set with such a 40mm Rokkor like you describe here. I have hard time assessing it’s mechanical condition, as it’s the only rangefinder lens and camera I’ve ever owned. Can you help me with that?

    I noticed a v.small play between the bayonet fixed gripping ring and focusing ring. I think the space between them is something like 3/8 of a millimeter, and the play moves the internal focusing ring sideways for about 1/8 of a MM. I can hear slight metallic clicking when I try to demonstrate this effect. I hold slightly firmly the front part of the lens (actually filter + step-up ring) and (to move it sideways) I try turning it alternately in both directions, but still with little force. Another way to create this effect is to try refocusing rapidly in both directions.

    What do you think? Is such 1/8 mm difference something normal or abnormal? Besides that, the lens is actually cosmetically and optically mint.

    I will be grateful for any piece of advice.

    • Reply
      SSF
      March 4, 2017 at 2:18 am

      Lukasz, I recently picked up a 40mm m-rokkor and my lens has the same play/clicking you mentioned, so you’re not the only one. I haven’t shot it yet, but will update here if I run into any negative issues.

      • Reply
        LUKASZ KALINOWSKI
        March 5, 2017 at 7:40 pm

        Hi SSF,
        I started thinking that it’s just a very minor mechanical imperfection, which I might just try to get rid of during a cleaning and adjustment service somewhere in the future. No biggie I suppose. For now I am very happy with this lens and camera. Happy enough to consider a second, this time a little longer lens.

  • Reply
    Davivd Appleton
    December 18, 2016 at 6:31 am

    Have you ever compared the 40mm Rokkor to the 45mm zeiss Contax G? ….so far i play with relatively cheap MF glass …but would like to splash out on a compact a standard prime which theirs 2 are with the slim adaptor they have…..just discovered this site i think i will be a regular visitor ,very good …….only complaint is the VERY annoying floating FB and twitter etc icons that cover the text i am reading meaning i have to keep constantly bumping the page up ever few lines to read the covered up text
    Thanks dave

    • Reply
      James - Founder/Editor
      December 18, 2016 at 8:47 am

      Hey Dave. Sorry about the icons. Try widening your browser window a bit to see if that helps.

      As for the Zeiss. I haven’t shot that one but I’ll see if I can find one quickly for a write up.

      Thanks for visiting. I hope you stick around!

    • Reply
      Chris Huang
      March 29, 2017 at 4:25 pm

      DAVIVD,

      I have both Contax G 45mm and Rokkor 40mm. Technically they are different rendering. Although Contax G 45mm is considering one of the best zeiss from that time period, it’s sharp, great coating and bold color rendering, but lacks of actual focus ring by using 3rd party adapter to do the focus; after tried all the auto/manual focus adapters out on the market, G45 is simply a waste. Focus is a hard task and nothing is smooth focus as it should’ve been. Aside from the size! G45 is actually longer than Pentax 43mm Limited (SLR lens). So as compactness goes, M-Rokkor 40/2 is only about half of Contax G45.

      Image quality is different. Contax G45 is pretty much identical rendering as Pentax 43mm Limited. As you can see from my testing shot here https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7415/13236426684_d813a91337_o.jpg . The Contax G45mm is great only at dead center. All G lenses aren’t very good at wide open aperture from corners. However, not that they are bad, they are still way better than a lot of modern lenses. Just that if you apply G45 on A7 series, you can see the degradation of image quality from corners. Pentax 43mm has aspherical elements so the corners are better. But other than that, both are identical in design, color rendering even same coating (Yes! I’ve aware that Contax *T is pretty much the same formula from Pentax SMC).

      Aside from comparing to Pentax, back to Contax G vs M-Rokkor… The contrast level are about the same, but M-Rokkor gives more Leica color rendering. The colors aren’t too crazy contrasty, but well balanced with sharpness and bokeh. However, even with 10 aperture blades, most of Leica-fan would tell you M-Rokkor is NOT REALLY a Leica. Because the bokeh doesn’t and can not compare to any more expensive Leica lenses. In the other words, if you trust what internet tells you, it’s true. M-Rokkor 40 actually renders very similar to old Leica (1970s’). Only!! 1970’s Leica sucks at lens coating, you will see more flare issues on them but not with M-Rokkors.

      Keep in mind, M-Rokkor was designed for Black and White films. The contrast level is there, but it has nice wide gradient color. Since it’s optimized for B&W, the lens tends to give out a bit warmer color. Compare to Contax G is a modern design for color films. They tend to be more blue cast over all. As for sharpness They are about the same. For Bokeh, I would say Contax G45mm wins a little. For control, compactness, and pleasant feeling all over, M-Rokkor does give you a bit more Leica-looks. Especially on portraits.

      You simply can’t go wrong with one or the other. Since bokeh and rendering are hard to describe in words and there is no real science methods to test them. I’ll leave that to you then. I have Leica 50, Pentax 43, Contax 45, and Minolta 40.. I’ll tell you without a heart beat I’ll take Pentax 43 and Minolta 40 over the other two. But that’s just me though.

      M-rokkor is no slouch on flare control. Just not as good as Pentax or Zeiss.
      https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3817/33559920056_4ec99ee462_o.jpg

    Leave a Reply

    Spread the love of cameras and photography.

    Facebook
    Facebook
    Instagram
    Follow by Email
    RSS