Minolta 28-85mm original metal version

[sparaxis]

David,

What you say is so true about Sigma.

I have been around long enough to see how Sigma came from "no-where" as an OEM for a whole range of lenses with other forgettable names on them. Remember the YS interchangeable mount? And that Sigma refused to license the Minolta AF mount and pirated it instead!

Going back to the days of the likes of Panagor, Kiron, Vivitar, Asanuma, Sun and the like it was always a enjoyable game guessing who made what. Cosina figures prominently too. I read somewhere that the lovely little Minolta 7SII was actually a Cosina design. Also sold as a Vivitar.

Really nothing is new. Even KM, supposedly out of the photographic business makes a lots of "lens-units" and "Camera-modules" to sell to other people. They are still patenting glasses as well! A quick look at the KM webpage shows that Konica-Minolta Opto Inc is still very busy, making lenses as well as glass disks and Film for LCDs.

Sigma also made the last Canon-mount Kodak DSLR if I am not mistaken./

Alan

[01af]

My comments on the Elmarit-R 24 mm were based on the writings of Erwin Puts, as available *today* on the Leica website in the document "Puts_Column_19-24_mm_Leica_R_Lenses_en.pdf", the document is dated 2003. [...] They would hardly be inclined to sanction something that is incorrect.

It's not incorrect---but according to what I've read somewhere, Leica abandoned the modified Rokkor 24 mm lens in the 1990s and designed an all-new one. However I just tried to find some information about the 'new' Elmarit-R 24 mm ... and cannot find any. Instead, in 1990 the Elmarit-R 24 mm's production code was changed, and so were the cams at the lens' rear end so from then on, it would only fit the Leica R cameras but not the Leicaflex SL2 anymore. Still the glass (modified 9-element Rokkor) remained unchanged until the production discontinued eventually.

The shorter backfocus is significant only in that the 24 mm and the fisheye could not be used on an older Leicaflex---the mirror would hit the back of the lens.

Still, this has nothing to do with the bayonet mount. The flange distance remained unchanged. Only the mirror's geometry of the newer cameras (Leicaflex SL2 and later) was changed to accomodate the new lenses' shorter backfocus. There were only two models which were unable to use Rokkor-based 16 mm and 24 mm lenses due to their mirrors not clearing the lenses' rear elements: the original Leicaflex, and the Leicaflex SL.

-- Olaf

[sparaxis]

True,

The basic physical mount mount stayed the same. Just as the Nikon F mount has stayed the same. Perhaps it is simply another example of semi-compatible mount evolution. Canon EF-S for example. Or the many semi-compatible incarnations the Nikon or Pentax K mounts have gone through. Being able to fit a lens to a camera does not always make it usable in a practical way if you lose major functionality.

There are way too many examples in the history of the SLR. Fortunately the Minolta AF mount has remained pretty much usable across generations...(Except for SSM on pre Maxxum 7 or modified 9, and Xi lenses on the original and i series cameras. They worked...Sort of. Manual Zoom and no manual focus!)

Alan