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

Have a look at a nice 28mm. Which one is this?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:14 pm    Post subject: Have a look at a nice 28mm. Which one is this? Reply with quote
I am surprised by the quality of this 28mm lens. Lot of finesse to my eyes. It is a Minolta. What are your bets about the version?

[img][/url]DSC00131ra_01 by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have three different MF Minolta 28s and the AF version and they are all very good lenses, so I don't care about versions. to me, they are all good, capable lenses.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta MC Rokkor 28mm SI 2,5 or Minolta MD III 28mm 3,5

after investigating your flickr album list :p


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:36 pm    Post subject: Re: Have a look at a nice 28mm. Which one is this? Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I am surprised by the quality of this 28mm lens. Lot of finesse to my eyes. It is a Minolta. What are your bets about the version?



1:2,5?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If i'm not wrong, the rendering seems to be of the MC 2,5.

The yellowed Sky tell me that, I guess.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 15, 2020 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
It is not.

I just bought a MDIII 28 2,8. And I am surprised.

It is the 5/5 version.

I bought it on the Internet on a deceptive description where it was listed as MDIII 28 2,0 at 85 euros.

I placed the bid immediately since I could not pass the ridiculous price.

I was disappointed opening the box and decided rather than giving a call to the seller to test it a bit.

Central sharpness was outstanding.A little less so on the right side of the frame and worse on the left. Not a good start.

Took another 28 and the left was still not good.

Changed the adapter and same outcome.

I checked then the screws of my A7II mount and one of them needed less than a quarter turn.

Tested again and it was fine.

Long story short the 28 2,8 5/5 is not a lesser lens. The apparent reduction of complexity of the lens has been somewhat compensated.

I have never seen such level of finesse and microcontrast on a wide angle.

However the bokeh is less interesting than the one of the 28 2,5.

Colors and tones are way ahead of those of MDIII 28 3,5 which I respect very much. Admittedly you can tweak these in post processing but it is so nice to see a nice result at the opening of a file.

I know I have overpaid but I am not calling the seller.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 5:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Amazing IQ, BTW.

What aperture?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If my recollection is correct F4,5 or f5,6


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 8:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Could you show a picture of the lens?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
This is not mine, which is mint, but I found this pic on the web.

Note the plastic ring around the front lens and the IR red dot nearer to f8 on the focus scale. These two points allow to make a difference with the 7/7 version.



PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
MDiii 28mm f2.8 7/7 serial number starts with 8.
5/5 version starts with 9.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
This is not mine, which is mint, but I found this pic on the web.

Note the plastic ring around the front lens and the IR red dot nearer to f8 on the focus scale. These two points allow to make a difference with the 7/7 version.



This is the same as my one. Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).



PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The bottom pic is a MDii 7/7.

Edit..

When I bought most of my Minolta glass cheap, this lens was harder to find in the US market. I still haven't added one to my collection.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
walter g wrote:
MDiii 28mm f2.8 7/7 serial number starts with 8.
5/5 version starts with 9.


No. This is an urban legend. I have half a dozen MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5]. Some have a serial nr starting with 8, some with 9.

Below the two variants. First the [7/7]:


And now the [5/5]:


Stephan


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).



Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).

S


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).



Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).

S


LOL, it says Rokkor on the name ring, so it's not a Celtic.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
stevemark wrote:
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Which version is this? (photo taken from internet).



Looks like a the last version of the MD Celtic 2.8/28mm (budget version of the normal MD-II 2.8/28mm) to me: typical "celtic" rubber grip, no multi coating, painted lens mount index (instead of a small red ball), different distance scale engravings (orange ft scale instead of green).

S


LOL, it says Rokkor on the name ring, so it's not a Celtic.


Ian, I'm mistaken. That is not a MDii, it is a Celtic lens someone put a MD W name ring on.
The way to tell, is the red dot is painted on. The grip is definitely a Celtic grip, and the ft numbers are the wrong color for a MD W lens, atleast the ones I've seen.
I do have the Celtic version.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must have missed when it became okay to use anothers photo without attribution, and to use photos "taken" outright from "the internet" which doesn't own anything itself but connects people who do have ownership.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
walter g wrote:

Ian, I'm mistaken. That is not a MDii, it is a Celtic lens someone put a MD W name ring on.
The way to tell, is the red dot is painted on. The grip is definitely a Celtic grip, and the ft numbers are the wrong color for a MD W lens, atleast the ones I've seen.
I do have the Celtic version.


Interesting, why would they do that - to increase it's sale value?

If everything about the lens is consistent with a Celtic apart from the name ring, then that does seem the logical conclusion - that the ring was changed.


PostPosted: Mon Nov 16, 2020 10:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Stephen, thanks. Every copy I've ever checked on ebay. The serial number trick has worked. Guess it was just bad luck I hadn't found a copy that didn't.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 11:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
walter g wrote:
Stephen, thanks. Every copy I've ever checked on ebay. The serial number trick has worked. Guess it was just bad luck I hadn't found a copy that didn't.


I know everybody says so - and in fact I did rely on that information, confidently ordering MD-III 2.8/28mm lenses with the proper starting number (to get a [7/7] MD-III). However, that didn't work - i constantly got [5/5] lenses, both with starting "8" and "9" serials.
In fact, here in Switzerland it's almost impossible to find a [7/7] MD-III. I'd even guess that the local Minolta representatives never ever got a batch of MD-III [7/7] lenses ...

Those "8" and "9" MD-III 2.8/28mm [5/5] lenses are somewhere in a box in th attic; over the weekend I'll have time to make some images to prove my point.

S

Last edited by stevemark on Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:32 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have noted two points that might be of interest:
- In strong backlit scenes there are some CA wide open, quite none closed down one stop,
- It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know.


PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 3:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know.


This is absolutely normal, no two lenses are exactly the same focal length, rather, there is a spread of values, therefore a nominally 28mm lens could be +-a few fractions of a mm off that nominal figure.

Last edited by iangreenhalgh1 on Tue Nov 17, 2020 6:06 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Nov 17, 2020 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I have noted two points that might be of interest:
- In strong backlit scenes there are some CA wide open, quite none closed down one stop,
- It is not a 28. The scene is less wide than with the 3,5, maybe a 29 or so. Or the 3,5 is a 27, I do not know.


It's quite common that lens manufacturers "crop" the focal length and the brightest f-value. Accoring to some international guidelines the values should be +/- 5% of the nominal value.

Of course a five element 2.8/28mm is more difficult to calculate than a seven element 2.8/28mm or a five element 3.5/28mm. One way to facilitate a proper correction is to limit the angle of view (wideangles) or to increase the angle of view (telephoto lenses).
The Zeiss Jena Sonnar 3.5/135mm, for instance, is closer to 130mm than to 135mm. The Minolta AF 2.8/180mm, too, is closer to 190mm than to 200mm.

However, the sample variation of a given optical construction is nowhere near 5% or "a few mm".

S


PostPosted: Wed Nov 18, 2020 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lumens pixel, it's an esthetically impressive shot, congrats.

Sharpness wise and as for coulour rendition it has much to do with an MD 3.5/28 I used. That's pretty intriguing what you say about a specially refined character of the image. I was asking myself if it was worth to add a 2.8 version to the list, as I already have a 3.5 one.

As far as I understood, you've made a series of the same or similar shots with both lenses. Could you put here a double shot, that would give a perfect idea of what you are pointing out.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2