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

Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:40 pm    Post subject: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? Reply with quote

I acquired the Minolta MD 50/1,4 lens. It's not with me yet. From next friday to sunday will.

Saw recently a Minolta AF 50 mm F/1,4 lens, the "AF LENS 50" at one side of the lens. It seems nice to use in manual focus.

Which version to have?

MD, AF v.1 (With "AF lens 50" at one side) or the AF v.2 (with "AF 50" at the side)?

Thanks


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:37 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
I acquired the Minolta MD 50/1,4 lens. It's not with me yet. From next friday to sunday will.

There are several computations of the MD 1.4/50mm, an early [7/5] and two later slighly different [7/6] formulas.

papasito wrote:

Saw recently a Minolta AF 50 mm F/1,4 lens, the "AF LENS 50" at one side of the lens. It seems nice to use in manual focus.
Which version to have?
MD, AF v.1 (With "AF lens 50" at one side) or the AF v.2 (with "AF 50" at the side)?
Thanks


MD-III and AF have the same optics. So it's a matter of handling characteristics. The Sony AL 1.4/50mm (for Sony / Minolta SLRs) is a slightly improved design with environment-friendly glass (no lead, cadmium). The Zeiss (Sony) Planar ZA (for Sony / Minolta SLRs) is a completely new design.

S

EDIT: I dont' think the different Minolta 1.4/50mm have visible performance differences. The design changes were probably focused on reducing costs while keeping their performance


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The AF 1.7/50 is a great lens, especially for it's price secondhand. Beware of oily aperture blades though, a common problem with that lens that causes them to stick wide open.


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:14 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
papasito wrote:
I acquired the Minolta MD 50/1,4 lens. It's not with me yet. From next friday to sunday will.

There are several computations of the MD 1.4/50mm, an early [7/5] and two later slighly different [7/6] formulas.

"mine" is the MDIII. I had the MC 7/5 and was very very sharp, but my copy had strong CA in highlights, very a fine red tint in white skin and from F1,4 to F/2,8 some veiling in objets in the shadows. I speack only about my copy.

papasito wrote:

Saw recently a Minolta AF 50 mm F/1,4 lens, the "AF LENS 50" at one side of the lens. It seems nice to use in manual focus.
Which version to have?
MD, AF v.1 (With "AF lens 50" at one side) or the AF v.2 (with "AF 50" at the side)?
Thanks


MD-III and AF have the same optics. So it's a matter of handling characteristics. The Sony AL 1.4/50mm (for Sony / Minolta SLRs) is a slightly improved design with environment-friendly glass (no lead, cadmium). The Zeiss (Sony) Planar ZA (for Sony / Minolta SLRs) is a completely new design.

S

EDIT: I dont' think the different Minolta 1.4/50mm have visible performance differences. The design changes were probably focused on reducing costs while keeping their performance


Thank you, very much. I will have your words in my mind


PostPosted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
The AF 1.7/50 is a great lens, especially for it's price secondhand. Beware of oily aperture blades though, a common problem with that lens that causes them to stick wide open.


Thank you, I will look for one in my local market


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My 50/1,4 MD III have arrived.

I hoped find better IQ. Not a bad lens, of course, but my Xenon 50/1,8 is sharper and have less CA.

Now it's for sale.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Xenon 1.8/50 will be hard to beat, perhaps a Planar 1.7/70 T* will be a little better, but not by much and is an expensive option. I use my Planar on my Sony a850 a lot, but I still use my Minolta AF 1.7/50 on that camera too, for times I feel a bit lazy and want AF. The Minolta AF lens is so good I don't feel like I'm giving up much in IQ vs the Planar. The lens I turn to when I want a vintage look on that camera is the Xenon 1.9/50 in DKL mount, it's sharp as hell but has beautiful rendering with more flare and less contrast than the Planar and Minolta AF.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I cannot say anything about the Xenons, I have not tried them. Maybe you should try a well centered copy of the late MD III 50 f2,0.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
That Xenon 1.8/50 will be hard to beat, perhaps a Planar 1.7/70 T* will be a little better, but not by much and is an expensive option. I use my Planar on my Sony a850 a lot, but I still use my Minolta AF 1.7/50 on that camera too, for times I feel a bit lazy and want AF. The Minolta AF lens is so good I don't feel like I'm giving up much in IQ vs the Planar. The lens I turn to when I want a vintage look on that camera is the Xenon 1.9/50 in DKL mount, it's sharp as hell but has beautiful rendering with more flare and less contrast than the Planar and Minolta AF.


I remember my DKL lenses when was a collector of voigtlander/Retina.
The Xenon DKL has different coating than the Edixa or Rollei versions, perhaps because it was older. (Generally 5 to 9.xxx.xxx in DKL and 11 to 12.xxx.xxx in M42 or QBM).
But Planar has better coating that all of them.
Some time ago, I compared two copies of pancolar 1,8/50 M42 vs. Planar y/c 50/1,7 and they has very similar rendering, perhaps the Pancolar with more creaming bokeh and the planar with more punch colors.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lumens pixel wrote:
I cannot say anything about the Xenons, I have not tried them. Maybe you should try a well centered copy of the late MD III 50 f2,0.


Thanks. I saw very good pics taken with the MD 50/2.
Not distortion nor CA.
IT's a lens to try.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have with me another copy of the MD 50/1,4 Lens.

Very sharp, very good contrast, light CA in extreme highlights, with 3d images.

By far better than the first I had got.

QC differences?

I don't know, really. But it's a very good lens.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
I have with me another copy of the MD 50/1,4 Lens.

Very sharp, very good contrast, light CA in extreme highlights, with 3d images.

By far better than the first I had got.

QC differences?

I don't know, really. But it's a very good lens.


What might be the defect? Smile


PostPosted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

visualopsins wrote:
papasito wrote:
I have with me another copy of the MD 50/1,4 Lens.

Very sharp, very good contrast, light CA in extreme highlights, with 3d images.

By far better than the first I had got.

QC differences?

I don't know, really. But it's a very good lens.


What might be the defect? Smile


My first MD 50/1,4 was unsharp and some CA. I don't know why there is so big difference with my second copy.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

How would you then assess your second MDIII against the Xenon?


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lumens pixel wrote:
How would you then assess your second MDIII against the Xenon?


First. Subjective impression of the whole image. I prefer the Minolta made one.

Second. Minolta has rich colours. Without blueish cast of my Xenon.

Third. Both are practically equals in sharpness (a bit sharp the Xenon from F/1,8 to F/2, the Minolta at F/4,8 -5,6)

Forth. The Minolta has better coated (is MC) so better flare resistence. Loss less contrast when highlights are inside the pic. No ghosts.

Fifth. Thed Xenon has less CA control.

But, I have to say, both are very closely in performance.


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
How would you then assess your second MDIII against the Xenon?


First. Subjective impression of the whole image. I prefer the Minolta made one.

Second. Minolta has rich colours. Without blueish cast of my Xenon.

Third. Both are practically equals in sharpness (a bit sharp the Xenon from F/1,8 to F/2, the Minolta at F/4,8 -5,6)

Forth. The Minolta has better coated (is MC) so better flare resistence. Loss less contrast when highlights are inside the pic. No ghosts.

Fifth. Thed Xenon has less CA control.

But, I have to say, both are very closely in performance.


This is very thorough and useful. What about the bokeh the Xenons are famous for?

Many thanks for your insights.

I still think you should try MDIII 50 2,0 for sharpness eveness across the frame.

For maximum sharpness in the central area to the line of thirds the Canon fd 50 1,8 might trump them all....


PostPosted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

lumens pixel

Thanks for your suggestions.

In bokeh department, none of both have a very distracting one. I like the minolta a bit more