View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 4:40 pm Post subject: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3751 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 6:37 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? |
|
|
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.
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ I don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:14 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta 50 :MD, AF I, AF II. Which? |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Tue Sep 22, 2020 10:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
iangreenhalgh1
Joined: 18 Mar 2011 Posts: 15685
Expire: 2014-01-07
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 7:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 don't care who designed it, who made it or what country it comes from - I just enjoy using it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Thu Sep 24, 2020 12:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 5:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
visualopsins
Joined: 05 Mar 2009 Posts: 10463 Location: California
Expire: 2021-06-22
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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? _________________ ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮ like attracts like! ☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮☮
Cameras: Sony A7Rii, Spotmatics II, F, and ESII, Nikon P4
M42 Asahi Optical Co., Lenses:
Takumar 1:4 f=35mm, 1:2 f=58mm (Sonnar), 1:2.4 f=58mm (Heliar), 1:2.2 f=55mm (Gaussian), 1:2.8 f=105mm (Model I), 1:2.8/105 (Model II), 1:5.6/200
Tele-Takumar 1:5.6/200, 1:6.3/300
Macro-Takumar 1:4/50
Auto-Takumar 1:2.3 f=35, 1:1.8 f=55mm, 1:2.2 f=55mm
Super-TAKUMAR 1:3.5/28 (fat), 1:2/35 (Fat), 1:1.4/50 (8-element),
Super-Multi-Coated Fisheye-TAKUMAR 1:4/17
Super-Multi-Coated TAKUMAR 1:4.5/20, 1:3.5/24, 1:3.5/28, 1:2/35, 1:3.5/35, 1:1.8/85, 1:1.9/85 1:2.8/105, 1:3.5/135, 1:2.5/135 (II), 1:4/150, 1:4/200, 1:4/300, 1:4.5/500
Super-Multi-Coated Macro-TAKUMAR 1:4/50, 1:4/100
Super-Multi-Coated Bellows-TAKUMAR 1:4/100
SMC TAKUMAR 1:1.4/50, 1:1.8/55
Other lenses:
Carl Zeiss Jena Flektogon 2.4/35
SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:3.5 35~105mm, SMC PENTAX ZOOM 1:4 45~125mm
Nikon Micro-NIKKOR-P-C Auto 1:3.5 f=55mm, NIKKOR-P Auto 105mm f/2.5 Pre-AI (Sonnar), Micro-NIKKOR 105mm 1:4 AI, NIKKOR AI-S 35-135mm f/3,5-4,5
Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51B), Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 (51BB), SP 500mm f/8 (55BB), SP 70-210mm f/3.5 (19AH)
Vivitar 100mm 1:2.8 MC 1:1 Macro Telephoto
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Fri Sep 25, 2020 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
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? |
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
How would you then assess your second MDIII against the Xenon? _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
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.... _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Mon Sep 28, 2020 10:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
lumens pixel
Thanks for your suggestions.
In bokeh department, none of both have a very distracting one. I like the minolta a bit more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|