If you can read some German, there is this Swiss site with very detailed info:

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive

(The colors for the menu are a pain, though)

Some info in English here: http://digitalrokkor.altervista.org/minoltalens.html (scroll down)

Maybe the Chinese will be faster, they have it for NEX already…

I should receive next week a Rokkor 135mm 2.8 5/5 version and the so reputed Rokkor 35-70 3.5. Adapters will take 2 weeks to come from China. I will use them for video on my GH3 and will give you feedback. I'm still hesitating between the 28mm and the 24mm... The first is cheaper but the second is closer to 50mm (Full frame)... Nonetheless, I think its only a matter of positioning the camera in the right place. The only advantage of the 24mm I can think of would be in tight places. any thoughts?

While the 21mm is only so-so, both the 24mm and the 28mm are great lenses. Your choice!

But since you have the 35-70, why not get the wider one?

@QuickHitRecord I use a micrometer to check my adapter flange distance, but in the end, I use Minolta zooms to check if the adapter is correct. In my experience with almost every Minolta zoom that I have owned, they are all parfocal with a correctly calibrated adapter. The only lens that gave me a problem was the 100-500/8 MD Rokkor-X. It has a brass ring inside that I had to file down to get the lens parfocal.

Instead of scotch tape, I use aluminum tape that is made for air-conditioning duct repair. It is thin enough for the increments of thickness that I need.

In the case of other brands of lenses with Minolta mounts, I still use the same tape, but within the lenses themselves. It is surprising how many off brand lenses are never set with the correct back focus. Most every lens that is supposed to be parfocal can have their back focus adjusted correctly, but it is usually a pain in the ass.

Watch out for late model manual focus zoom lenses, especially Kirons. They are great lenses, but are varifocal. They do not keep focus through zooming. They are meant for stills, and by being varifocal, have better optical performance throughout the range.

When talking about Rokkor lenses, it's essential to say which one it is, otherwise people could get a false impression of what that lens is like. For example, some people have said they got the Rokkor 58mm F1.4

There are TWO lenses:

Minolta Auto Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4

Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 58mm F1.4

The 2nd is much superior to the 1st.

Or the 50mm F1.4

It is MC Rokkor, or MD Rokkor or MD?

@panystac, those 58mm Rokkors are optically identical... now for the 50mm, there are about 3 or 4 different versions... I've used all of them, except the late MD with 49mm filter... but the 50mm with 55mm filter is the sharpest, and the 50mm PG version has the best rendering... (it's subjetctive though...)

Guys, I've been using Rokkors since the GH1! actually, since when I was using film... I have large experience with the rokkors

Some quick tips... the Minolta 24mm is fantastic... but there are 2 versions! the MC is identical to the Leica 24mm R lens, and there's the smaller MD version that it's a bit sharper wide open. The 28mm f/2 MD is fantastic, VERY sharp wide open but my sample flares a lot when you have bright lights on a scene. The 35mm f/1.8 Rokkor is OK, a bit soft wide open but very sharp from f/2.8 (I have the modern Minolta AF 35mm f/2 and it's a much better lens) All the 50mm Rokkors are good... I have the 50mm f/1.2 and I love it... but the 58mm f/1.2 is legendary...one of the best lenses ever. The 50mm f/1.4 are all good... The 85mm f/1.7 I was not impressed... maybe was a bad sample... Never used the 100mm f/2, but everyone say it's terrific... I hope I can contribute with this topic... if anyone need samples, just ask...

@aashkar77

Are you really referring to CA or to flare? The older Minoltas can indeed flare – quite nicely, if you ask me – but more than modern glass. The newer ones had improved coatings.

But CA is something very different, it's the way light of different wavelengths is not landing on the very same spot, in particular in the corners. I have tested the 35-70mm against the famed Zeiss Contax 35-70mm, and it comes very close. CA is minimal in both.

I'am talking indeed about CA especially in video, undesirable pink and green fringes appear when the lens is exposed to the sun. It appears as spots on the image. I have no complaints about flare from these lenses. Have you tried the lenses shooting video?

@ivanlee what you see is probably just a ghosting and reflections of the coating. It is not CA

What I see is indeed CA and I'm starting to wonder if the problem might be with the adapter? I bought a cheap one from ebay but built from metal and solid. I tried a Cosina MD 28 2.8, which should be an inferior lens, it did not have CA as the minoltas. If someone can do a short video test that would be great.