Review: MD W.Rokkor 24 mm f/2.8 (MD-II)

The MD W.Rokkor 24 mm f/2.8 is a high resolution, fast wide angle lens from the late 70’s. It features the same design as the earlier MC-X version: 9 lenses in 7 groups. Due to its superior optical performance, this lens was licensed by Leitz and sold under the Leica brand in a different housing. The MD-II version tested here was later followed by an MD-III or “plain MD” version with slightly simplified design (8/8) which is supposed to offer better corner sharpness.

The build quality of the lens is excellent and it feels solid and compact. Focus is smooth and handling on a NEX-5T is very pleasant. The focus throw is rather short at roughly 85°, but precise focusing is not a problem because depth of field is large. At approximately 280 g, the lens has just the right weight – not too heavy, not too light. The effective field of view of 37 mm on APS-C cameras gives you a very versatile tool for reportage style photography.

For further details on the lens, have a look at its entry in the Minolta SR mount lens database.


Condition of my copy

Optics: Excellent. No scratches, no fungus and only the slightest amount of dust in the lens.

Mechanics: Excellent. Uniform and very smooth focus, aperture clean and fast.

Exterior: Very good. Minimal marks on the mount and body.


Optical performance on NEX-5N / 5T

Notice: Astigmatism (horizontal lines are rendered sharper than vertical ones) is visible in the test shots. It mainly affects the left half of the image. The top left corner, which is cropped and shown later on, is affected the most. Chromatic aberration is similarly strongest in the top left corner. This points to the fact that this copy of the lens may not be perfectly centered or aligned. Looking at the average of all four corners, I would expect that a “perfect copy” of the 24 mm performs a bit – but not worlds – better than shown below.

The lens starts out with acceptable to good center sharpness wide open, nearly no visible haze and rather soft corners. Contrast isn’t bad. The center improves at f/4, reaching very good sharpness. The corners equally improve, but stay a bit on the soft side. Their appearance is virtually constant from f/4 to f/11. Stopping down to f/5.6, the central region now shows an absolutely excellent level of sharpness. Diffraction becomes evident as early as f/8, which underlines how sharp the lens is before. Sharpness at f/11 is still good and f/16 is – as always – a bit soft. f/22 is blurred away by diffraction. The corner shots at f/2.8 show that some field curvature is present, but on a surprisingly low level.

A small red and cyan outline is visible at f/2.8, which transforms into sharp, medium-sized CAs by f/4. They grow very slightly up to f/16. Overall not impressive, but certainly a good performance for a vintage wide angle.

Vignetting is about half a stop at f/2.8 and disappears at f/4. The lens exhibits a significant amount of barrel distortion (-1.1%). The effective T-stop at f/2.8 is approximately T3.3 (-0.5 EV), which is okay.

In conclusion, the MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 is a strong contender in your lens basket when looking for a wide angle. The lens performs surprisingly well in the center even wide open and peak sharpness at f/5.6 clearly outperforms the 16 MPix sensor on my NEX-5T, which is equivalent to 36 MPix in full frame. The corner performance is not quite up to modern standards, but will do fine for most applications. And the CAs are prominent but very easy to correct in post processing. Ironically, a Vivitar (Kiron) 24 mm f/2.0 holds up well to the Minolta when only comparing image corners – it’s less contrasty and shows even heavier CA, but the corners are visibly sharper already wide open. In the central region, however, the Vivitar doesn’t stand a chance. Overall, the Minolta MD-II may not be the best vintage 24 mm overall, but it’s a very solid option with a lot of strong points and a few easy to handle weaknesses. Considering that the first version of this design was launched in 1973, it’s quite a remarkable lens.


Test charts

The following images are pixel-level crops from the test chart. They may appear scaled in your browser window. Click on them to view the crops in full size and cycle through them easily. For more info on the test setup, visit the details page.



Test chart overview

(Cropped areas marked in orange)



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/4.0



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/5.6



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/8.0



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/11



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/16



MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/22


Field curvature at f/2.8

Field curvature: MD-II 24 mm f/2.8 @ f/2.8


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

7 thoughts on “Review: MD W.Rokkor 24 mm f/2.8 (MD-II)

  • Gabe

    Indeed as the other commenter mentioned, you sir have here is the Early Version MD-I, NOT MD-II. There is a Later Version MD-I Rokkor-X with just a cosmetic difference. You have the 4 row grip, and the later version is a 6 row grip, just slight cosmetic change.
    The MD-II is the small, 49mm filter thread 24mm, f2.8 Rokkor-X. Either way, this beauty of a lens was definitely meant for film, unfortunately you’re not doing this lens justice on a format it was never meant to be used on, Digital, and even less an APS-C sensor. I do enjoy your reviews nonetheless.

    • Benjamin Post author

      Hi Gabe,

      thanks for bringing this to my attention. I’ve checked again which version (MD-I or II) my lens might be and it appears that you may be right. The eazypix lens index lists two W.Rokkor 24 mm f/2.8 in the same body style and with the exact same weight of 275 g (numbers 28 and 29 in the index). One is an MD-I, the other an MD-II. Both should have the 4 row grip. The other MD-II lens you are referring to is likely the later version with tapered depth of field scale and a weight of 215 g (number 30 in the index). That lens also has the 6 row grip.

      What I would conclude is that the lens I own and which was used for this review could be either an MD-I or an MD-II. I have no way to say for sure which version it is, since they seem to have been produced with identical or nearly identical exterior design for a (presumably short) time. Therefore, you may be right on pointing my labeling out as a mistake. I will leave the page title as is for technical reasons and keep these comments here for reference.


      • Dex

        Hi, AFAICS if it is MD I the front of the lens should read 1:2.8 f=24mm. Otherwise it will be the first MD II version. I’ve got an MC version, I think it’s the heavier earlier version, but will weigh it later to check. Love your reviews!

        • Benjamin Post author

          Hi Dex,

          very interesting info. I just checked all lenses where I’m sure that they are either MC-X, MD-I or MD-II and indeed: Up to MD-I, the naming is “1:X.Y f=ZZmm”, whereas for all MD-II and later (inlcuding MD-III / plain MD), the naming is “ZZmm 1:X.Y”. I never realized this. That would suggest that the lens shown above is an MD-II. Thank you for this hint!


          • Gabe

            I still disagree Ben.
            Regarding Dex’s comments; true that the front inscription ring labeling were changed as time progressed during production of lenses and their subsequent updates from Minolta. As evidenced here for the lens in question above, the entire lens design (9/7) remained the same for the lens until the new MD/Plain MD (8/8) lens of 1981 (MD-III,Ø49mm).
            Regarding to Bens reply, it’s quite interesting that just an inscription ring format change would indicate an entirely different version, from MD-I to an MD-II as you suggest in your reply to Dex above. What is also interesting is that according to the 6 row rubber grip tapered DOF version has the same MD-II name as the one with the 4 row rubber grip lens. That seems odd.

            Benjamin, it is safe to suggest that regardless of what inscription your particular lens has, it is definitively the MD-I version irrespective of it having 24mm f=2.8, or 1:2.8 f=24mm inscription. Search google/ebay, and you’ll see photos the lens just like yours that interchange the inscription labeling, but all exactly the same.
            With that being said, the 6 rubber griped row, tapered DOF ringed, plastic aperture ring 24mm should be the only MD-II version there is, there should not be two MD-II versions as suggested in website. I think is wrong in having two MD-II’s listed. As a matter of fact see rows 29 & 30 notes, they even have different Minolta Code Number/Part Numbers.

            To reiterate it is safe to suggest that could be wrong regarding there being two MD-II. If you search ebay for 24mm MD Rokkor lenses, you’ll only see two, the 4 row, and 6 row and of course the last iteration; the new/plain MD 24mm (Ø49mm).

            My conclusion still stands, you Sir have the MD-I lens, not the MD-II.

            And to the Jury, I rest my case. We’ll let the jurors decide… 😃

            Always a fan of your work.

  • Quiznot

    There was a conical and a cylindrical MD-II. The MC-X versions used a self-lubricating aluminum and brass helicoid, they are the best because they cost the most to make, period. MD added improved coatings which is where the focus shifted, and mechanically towards lighter (industry trend). I have the Conical MD-II. In mass productions different parts are manufactured by different manufactures, assembled mostly by the primary manufacturer. Abundant supplies of some parts accumulate, many times manufactures try adapting things so they don’t waste inventory. It means productions runs for the same lens can change in mid-production. This is more common then it is uncommon. The transformation from MC to MD was all metal to plastic, it did not happen over night and was a slow transition. Thus multiple versions, thus the historic pattern…efficient planned and adaptive, the most phenomenal thing and why the connection exist to this day between German and Japanese manufactures. The lesser 8-8 has superior coatings over the MD-I and II, it is better corrected and has less fringing and better contrast, creating the illusion of being sharper. However, distance details in the real world uncover the real truths? The MD-II has a 12″ close focus and phenomenal resolution, distance details along with a flatter curve, handling, and light gathering ability/light transmission makes one the Swiss Army knife of manual wides for me … it does all the important things very well without a weakness that stands out, maybe flaring a bit but what wide’s don’t? If people state it’s the best or one of the best, it’s because it checks the boxes for a lot of things, not sharpness alone?