Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Comparison: Canon nFD 300/5.6 vs Minolta MD 300/4.5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:45 am    Post subject: Comparison: Canon nFD 300/5.6 vs Minolta MD 300/4.5 Reply with quote
Another one...

Scene - Center:


Scene - Edge:


Sharpening:

(no sharpening on export)


Minolta 300mm - f/4.5


Canon 300mm - f/5.6


Minolta 300mm - f/5.6


Canon 300mm - f/6.7


Canon 300mm - f/8


Minolta 300mm - f/8


Canon 300mm - f/9.5


Minolta 300mm - f/9.5


Canon 300mm - f/11


Minolta 300mm - f/11


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Wow, that's quite a difference. Were the minolta corner shots focused on the corner? I guess they must be. So, the Minolta never gets sharp in the corners at any aperture? What about long distance?


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 6:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Great work as always, but there something that I didn't get: do you refocus individually the edges shots? If yes, I don't totally agree, since in this way you bypass the field curvature.

My way would be to shoot at the same time several identical targets in different areas of the picture, to focus in the center, and then check middle and edges areas.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 2:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
Wow, that's quite a difference. Were the minolta corner shots focused on the corner? I guess they must be. So, the Minolta never gets sharp in the corners at any aperture?

The Minolta actually gets worse when stopped down, Stephan found the same thing:
http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/341-sony-a7-and-classical-rokkors
Ultrapix wrote:
Great work as always, but there something that I didn't get: do you refocus individually the edges shots? If yes, I don't totally agree, since in this way you bypass the field curvature.

I refocused when I reframed for the corner crops, I didn't refocus for every aperture.

miran wrote:
What about long distance?


There you go:


Scene:



Minolta 300mm - f/4.5


Canon 300mm - f/5.6


Minolta 300mm - f/5.6


Canon 300mm - f/6.7


Canon 300mm - f/8


Minolta 300mm - f/8


Canon 300mm - f/9.5


Minolta 300mm - f/9.5


Canon 300mm - f/11


Minolta 300mm - f/11


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had the md lens.

One of the worst lenses that I have used.

Plenty of strong CA.

Newer sharp in bordes.

Mínimal sharp at center.

The MC versión is far beber than the newer and light Md one.

The Last is If lens, but not good enought for that.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This guy seems to agree the MC is better too:

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/179-minolta-300mm-f45

Although, center sharpness, the MD seems better, but the nFD blows them both away it would appear.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 5:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
devinw wrote:
This guy seems to agree the MC is better too:

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/179-minolta-300mm-f45

Although, center sharpness, the MD seems better, but the nFD blows them both away it would appear.


Given the prices the nFD300/5.6 sells for, it's a certainly worth a try.

stevemark wrote:
(...) I do own the FD 2.8/300 Fluorite, the nFD 4/300 IF and the nFD 5.6/300 IF. The latter (5.6/300) is surprisingly good and distinctively better than any of the ca 10 non-ED 300mm i have. In fact, you'll have troubles to distinguish 24MP FF images from the nFD 5.6/300mm, the FD 2.8/300 Fluorite and the Minolta AF 2.8/300mm APO G HS!
(source)


Too bad there's no room to fit a tripod collar like on the MD300/4.5:



PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 7:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
That doesn't hold good promise for my future. After I'm done collecting Minolta MD lenses it looks like I'll have to start a Canon FD collection as well. Razz Very Happy Oh, my wallet... Surprised


PostPosted: Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you do go this route, avoid the nFD range and go with previous lenses. The nFD optical solution may be good but the construction/mechanics/plastics are the pits...
Ref the minolta 300mm it is known it is a very bad lens...just further confirmation.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
If you do go this route, avoid the nFD range and go with previous lenses. The nFD optical solution may be good but the construction/mechanics/plastics are the pits...
Ref the minolta 300mm it is known it is a very bad lens...just further confirmation.


The 200 mm MD is one of the Best 200 manual focos lenses. And With the fd are cheap. and very good lenses.
The Md 400 is good too.

But the MD 300 is not good

BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with


Which one?


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I'm really glad I got the MC-I 300/4.5 now! Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Teemō wrote:
Well, I'm really glad I got the MC-I 300/4.5 now! :1ls)


I'm really glad I only paid 30 for the MD300/4.5 but I wouldn't be all that interested in the MC300/4.5 either...



(source: artaphot.ch, obviously)

The nFD300/5.6 will do until someone sells me an nFD300/4L at some ridiculously low price.

Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Sun Sep 11, 2016 11:43 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with

I had an MD-II and it was amazingly good. I sold it in a fit on insanity. Now I have an MD-III and it's nothing to write home about. Though I think they should be the same optically, maybe it's just copy to copy variation.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 8:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
papasito wrote:
BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with

I had an MD-II and it was amazingly good. I sold it in a fit on insanity. Now I have an MD-III and it's nothing to write home about. Though I think they should be the same optically, maybe it's just copy to copy variation.


The [5/5] versions of MC-X, MD-I, MD-II and MD-III 2.8/35mm are virtually indistinguishable on 24MP FF sensors. I own them all, and i have tested them carefully.

Stephan


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
miran wrote:
papasito wrote:
BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with

I had an MD-II and it was amazingly good. I sold it in a fit on insanity. Now I have an MD-III and it's nothing to write home about. Though I think they should be the same optically, maybe it's just copy to copy variation.


The [5/5] versions of MC-X, MD-I, MD-II and MD-III 2.8/35mm are virtually indistinguishable on 24MP FF sensors. I own them all, and i have tested them carefully.

Stephan


I have no complaints with mine (24MP FF rather than 16MP APS-C, though), we bought the lenses from the same place (Foto Kberl Graz) and they seemed to be in very similar condition...

I have a copy of the MD35/1.8 (and an nFD35/2 incoming), I can post a comparison next week. If I got a good copy of the MD35/2.8, the results should line up with yours.

Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:12 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
Antoine wrote:
If you do go this route, avoid the nFD range and go with previous lenses. The nFD optical solution may be good but the construction/mechanics/plastics are the pits...
Ref the minolta 300mm it is known it is a very bad lens...just further confirmation.


The 200 mm MD is one of the Best 200 manual focos lenses. And With the fd are cheap. and very good lenses.
The Md 400 is good too.

But the MD 300 is not good

BTW the 2,8/35 MD is another Minolta lens that I was dissapointed with


I love my 200 / 3.5 QF, it's a big, heavy old thing, but wonderful. I keep looking at this 300, damn nearly bough one recently. Question


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quote:
have no complaints with mine (24MP FF rather than 16MP APS-C, though), we bought the lenses from the same place (Foto Kberl Graz) and they seemed to be in very similar condition...

Actually I think I may have written to quickly. I only took my new 35/2.8 out once (yesterday) and it was just kind of maybe not the best first impression because conditions weren't ideal. Looking at the photos now more closely I can't say there's anything wrong. So all good really. Smile

And yes, the condition of the lens is near enough perfect! Smile


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I keep looking at this 300, damn nearly bough one recently. Question


Dammit, I should have put it up for sale before posting this...
I paid 30 for the lens and another ~25 to rig up the tripod collar, I'd like to get that money back at least.


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
I keep looking at this 300, damn nearly bough one recently. Question


Dammit, I should have put it up for sale before posting this...
I paid 30 for the lens and another ~25 to rig up the tripod collar, I'd like to get that money back at least.


If I remember rightly the one I looked at was for sale by a big and reputable dealer at the local camera fair, in very nice condition ( no case but both original caps ), and priced at about 50. I could probably have got it for 40


PostPosted: Sat Sep 10, 2016 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Lloydy wrote:
I keep looking at this 300, damn nearly bough one recently. Question


Dammit, I should have put it up for sale before posting this...
I paid 30 for the lens and another ~25 to rig up the tripod collar, I'd like to get that money back at least.


If I remember rightly the one I looked at was for sale by a big and reputable dealer at the local camera fair, in very nice condition ( no case but both original caps ), and priced at about 50. I could probably have got it for 40


Right... I'm off to find an idiot then.


PostPosted: Sun Sep 11, 2016 6:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
Teemō wrote:
Well, I'm really glad I got the MC-I 300/4.5 now! Like 1 small


I'm really glad I only paid 30 fpr the MD300/4.5 but I wouldn't be all that interested in the MC300/4.5 either...

The nFD300/5.6 will do until someone sells me an nFD300/4L at some ridiculously low price.


That's true but I find a lot of bad images taken with these old lenses and I've generally accepted that for actual photography, it is not that critical. Besides, I don't think I can mount the Canon on my SRT. Wink
I paid 54 euro for mine (MC-I, maybe performance differs again from MC-II on Artaphot) but it was worth it because it came with the original leather case and both caps - all in mint condition.
Anyway, it is more fun to use the Minolta Monocular Converter for some casual 30x mag. viewing in the city or airport.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've taken some test shots with the following lenses :
Minolta MD 300mm F4.5
Canon FD 300mm F5.6 s.c
Canon FD 300mm F4.0 s.s.c.

I will post results in a day or two.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 1:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used to have a Minolta just like that. It was amazing wide open - sharp, and with better resolving power than most of my other tele lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Gardener wrote:
I used to have a Minolta just like that. It was amazing wide open - sharp, and with better resolving power than most of my other tele lenses.


Absolutely true - as long as you take pictures in a (nearly) monochromatic light. Green pastures and forrests, for example ...
The lens has (similar to the Canon nFD 4/300mm IF and FD 4.5/400mm IF) pretty hefty lateral CAs, and therefore i would not recommend it as a good allround 300mm tele. While the nFD 5.6/300mm IF is, of course, 2/3 EV slower, it is a much better "allround/budget" 300mm lens.

I have no experience with the Nikkor 4.5/300mm ED, and only limited experience with the nFD 4/300mm L. The latter is as good as my Minolta AF 4/300mm APO and FD 2.8/300mm Fluorite. Longitudinal CAs, however, are not as well corrected as with the newer 2.8/300mm lenses (e. g. Sony AL 2.8/300mm G).

Stephan
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2