help me choose Minolta MD 135 F2.8 or 3.5

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

Ok i have decided to compliment my first SLR that i bought almost 25 years ago with the glass that it deserves as at the time i had a very poor sigma zoom lens, so now i can afford some better glass, and i now have following
Minolta MD 35mm F2.8
Minolta PG 50mm F1.4
I will add the 28mm F2.8 if i can get it cheap.
But i am looking to add a nice portrait lens in the 135 Range I will only be going with Minolta, so no other suggestions.
What lens is better then the
MD 135 F3.5 or the 135 F2.8
If you have samples i would appreciate.
I will be buying one of these two

They will mostly be for my film setup

Also is it worth me upgrading my x-300 to the x-700?

ForenSeil · Joined: 15 Apr 2011 Posts: 2726 Location: Kiel, Germany.

There are more than one Minolta 135/2.8 ^^
I only had one of them on NEX-C3, I think latest MD version. Very good in center wide open, not worse than 3-4times more expensive Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* 135/2.8 C/Y or Leica Elmarit-R 135/2.8. Only corners were inferior (vignetting etc.) if I remember correctly.

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

looking at the md tele rokkor 135mm f2.8 with 55mm filter

Lloydy · Expire: 2022-01-01

I've got both, and the pair are in great condition. But, I have never shot them back to back. I use the 2.8 more, and it is a glorious lens. It does what you ask of it.
The 3.5? it's slower, smaller and lighter, but still a very good lens. I got the 3.5 in a kit of Minolta stuff, and I wasn't at all dissapointed with it, but when I saw the 2.8 at a reasonable price at the camera fair I bought it, I think I paid about �40 for it.

I like them both, some days when I go for a walk and I can't be bothered to carry a bag I'll drop the 3.5 in a jacket pocket, but I'm rarely far away from my 2.8.

I should do a shootout.... here's one from the 2.8
Rolling Eyes

Mir · Expire: 2017-09-30

I should have an X-700 for sale soon...

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

Both very nice lenses. But in my taste, the 2,8 win.

Now i have only the 2,8 - 4/4 version. The rest, sold

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England

I havent got the 2.8 I have others which I use, but the f3.5 is a cracking lens. Mine is the old second generation MC version. It gives the 135 f3.5 Nikkor Q a run for its money, and the Jupiter 11 and 37a. So I'm happy.

TrueLoveOne · Expire: 2013-12-24

The f/3.5 comes in a few different versions as well. I've got 3 i guess... i don't use 135mm lenses a lot, planning on doing so since i bought the MD f/2.8.

Upgrading to an X-700 is a good thing! It has more features! Look for an X-500/570 as well, some say it's even better, it was marketed later than the 700 and has some improvements. Read this for more information: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/X-570.htm

You'll find some information on the 135 lenses on that website too!

DR.JUAN · Joined: 08 Feb 2013 Posts: 661

Minolfan · Joined: 30 Dec 2008 Posts: 3437 Location: Netherlands

More detailed info on Minolta manual lenses: http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4748 Location: Cheshire, England

Drack · Joined: 27 Feb 2011 Posts: 735 Location: Lithuania

I do use an X-700 and I also have the X-300. The X-700 has some nice features, a lot more than you`d actually need. I do not use the P mode, I almost always stay at A. As far as functionality goes, the X-300 is less, but less might be better in this case. I can`t say that X-700 is better built or that it`s VF is brighter. They are primarily the same, but the 700 has more features to it. If you can get it for cheap - yes, why not, however if your thinking about paying 50$ for a nice one off ebay, I`d pass.

nurkov · Expire: 2014-03-09

I do have 3 minolta MF film bodies and 135mm F3.5 lens, as for a body really not an issue any is good, I do not use any extra futures to be honest. All you have to do is to set it up in A mode and set f stop and focus. i cannot tal about 2.8 version as I do not have one but 3.5 is great, sharp and very light and small, I absolutely love it. Example below:

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Hey,

Head to head comparison of Minolta MD 135mm f/2.8 vs. MD 135mm f/3.5 - sharpness on infinity distance only test, but it looks enough to see the winner
Hope it can help to make a choice

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

2.8 (5/5) looks quite better... and I can testify it is very compact. Lots of people think the old 4/4 version is better though.

miran · Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia

Good comparison. I confirms my experience as well. The f/3.5 is a tiny little bit worse, but then again also the difference in weight and size is also noticable. Personally I take the f/3.5 out more often because a 135 is usually not the main lens but just on of the extras in my bag, and in this case the f/3.5 is good enough while not being too big and heavy. Every gram counts. Wink

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

[quote="stevemark"]

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

tf
At the end of the day, given Stephan has excellent an 135 mm 3.5, either something went wrong with your test or your lens is a "bad apple" (damaged or always bad).

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162