View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
caspert79
 Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 1035 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 8:55 am Post subject: Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8, WOW! |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Took out my Minolta MD 35mm f/2.8 for the first time (camera A7RII).
I quite like the bokeh for a 35mm.
I like sharpness, colours and contrast:
100% crop, shot wide open. Sharp enough for you?
I really love this lens. It is well built, fairly small and it can focus pretty close. It is razor sharp and contrasty already wide open and I love the colours. Prices are not as low as they used to be, usually around 100 dollars, but I think it is still a great bargain. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
DigiChromeEd
 Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3293 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 11:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
I love mine too. _________________ Edgar |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
poilu
 Joined: 26 Aug 2007 Posts: 10482 Location: Greece
Expire: 2019-08-29
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
poilu wrote:
 _________________ T* |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
papasito
 Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1419
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 3:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
Great!!!
I shall take mine and compare with the angulon 35/2 8 QBM that actually use with my 7RIII.
Your images remind me how good the MD is. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
cbass
 Joined: 27 Jul 2019 Posts: 206
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
cbass wrote:
Do you remember the aperture the leaf was shot at? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caspert79
 Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 1035 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
cbass wrote: |
Do you remember the aperture the leaf was shot at? |
No I'm not sure. But the lens its very sharp wide open (see last picture). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caspert79
 Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 1035 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
papasito wrote: |
Great!!!
I shall take mine and compare with the angulon 35/2 8 QBM that actually use with my 7RIII.
Your images remind me how good the MD is. |
That would be interesting to see. Here somebody tested how it holds up to the Sony Carl Zeiss FE 35mm 1:2.8 ZA: https://lens.ws/comparison-minolta-md-35mm-sony-35mm/ |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
vivaldibow
 Joined: 23 Jun 2018 Posts: 571
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
vivaldibow wrote:
Nice examples. I got an MD W. Rokkor 35mm 2.8, don't know if it is the same one as the plain MD version. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemark
 Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 1837 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
... and here's someone else who did complare those two lenses on 43 MP FF (previous test mentioned above is on 24 MP FF):
http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/434-sony-a7rii-and-summilux-1-4-35mm-asph-sony-zeiss-fe-2-8-35mm-and-minolta-md-2-8-35mm
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Oldhand
 Joined: 01 Apr 2013 Posts: 5497 Location: Mid North Coast NSW - Australia
|
Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2020 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oldhand wrote:
Thank you Stephan for your review.
A very impressive lens for sure
Congratulations caspert79.
Great lens, lovely images.
Bokeh is delightful too.
Tom |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
caspert79
 Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 1035 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Thank you Stephan ! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
sergun
 Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 183 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
sergun wrote:
I had the MD-III version on A7R and R2. I liked it but it was a bit "crooked" on one side. Now I have canon nfd 35/2.8 on A7r2. I didn't compare them directly, but it seems that Minolta has a slightly smoother transition of the blur zone and the Canon is sharper, somewhat more contrasting (colorful) and more vignetting. _________________ https://www.flickr.com/photos/105161078@N06/
https://fotki.yandex.ru/users/sergun-p |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
uddhava
 Joined: 22 Aug 2012 Posts: 2856 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2021-06-21
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
uddhava wrote:
 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lumens pixel
 Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 238
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I have noted that the Minolta 35 2,8 is a little bit sharper than the nFD in the corners IF you take into account field curvature but the NFD has a flatter field. So flat or 3D subject might dictate your choice.
It also seemed to me that the nFD is a tad sharper at close distance.
However the nFD has much more distortion than the MD.
So two very good lenses with strengths (a lot) and weaknesses (a few). _________________ 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; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: 14 2,8L; Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 135 3,5; 70-150 4,5; 80-200 4L
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 (52B)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
stevemark
 Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 1837 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
I have noted that the Minolta 35 2,8 is a little bit sharper than the nFD in the corners IF you take into account field curvature but the NFD has a flatter field. So flat or 3D subject might dictate your choice.
It also seemed to me that the nFD is a tad sharper at close distance.
However the nFD has much more distortion than the MD.
So two very good lenses with strengths (a lot) and weaknesses (a few). |
Thank you for this information! I have nevere ever senn a Canon nFD 2.8/35mm lens for sale here in Switzerland - it seems everybody took either the nFD 2/35mm or the nFD 2.8/28mm, but not the nFD 2.8/35mm. In fact, in its "Canon Lens Book", Canon itself highly praises the nFD 2.8/35mm as a very capable lens.
There are a few similar constructions (apart from the Minolta MD 2.8/35mm), such as the Mamiya CS/E 2.8/35mm, the Yashica ML 2.8/35mm, and the Nikkor AiS 2.8/35mm. All theses lenses are really difficult to find here, and therefore I only own several MD 2.8/35mm and a ML 2.8/35mm (which is a very good as well - better than most 1960/1970s 2.8/35mm lenses - but not as good as the Minolta MD).
S _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
papasito
 Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1419
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
lumens pixel wrote: |
I have noted that the Minolta 35 2,8 is a little bit sharper than the nFD in the corners IF you take into account field curvature but the NFD has a flatter field. So flat or 3D subject might dictate your choice.
It also seemed to me that the nFD is a tad sharper at close distance.
However the nFD has much more distortion than the MD.
So two very good lenses with strengths (a lot) and weaknesses (a few). |
Thank you for this information! I have nevere ever senn a Canon nFD 2.8/35mm lens for sale here in Switzerland - it seems everybody took either the nFD 2/35mm or the nFD 2.8/28mm, but not the nFD 2.8/35mm. In fact, in its "Canon Lens Book", Canon itself highly praises the nFD 2.8/35mm as a very capable lens.
There are a few similar constructions (apart from the Minolta MD 2.8/35mm), such as the Mamiya CS/E 2.8/35mm, the Yashica ML 2.8/35mm, and the Nikkor AiS 2.8/35mm. All theses lenses are really difficult to find here, and therefore I only own several MD 2.8/35mm and a ML 2.8/35mm (which is a very good as well - better than most 1960/1970s 2.8/35mm lenses - but not as good as the Minolta MD).
S |
I read very good reports of the Mamiya CS and the Nikkor (Ais I guess).
Here in the Forum, there are some members who have written very good things about the Mamiya 35 CS.
I never used one of these lenses. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
lumens pixel
 Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 238
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2020 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Thank you for this information! I have nevere ever senn a Canon nFD 2.8/35mm lens for sale here in Switzerland - it seems everybody took either the nFD 2/35mm or the nFD 2.8/28mm, but not the nFD 2.8/35mm. In fact, in its "Canon Lens Book", Canon itself highly praises the nFD 2.8/35mm as a very capable lens.
S |
Too cheap for our Swiss friends I guess.  _________________ 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; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: 14 2,8L; Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 135 3,5; 70-150 4,5; 80-200 4L
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 (52B)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Sciolist
 Joined: 29 Mar 2017 Posts: 1415 Location: Scotland
Expire: 2021-04-16
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 9:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sciolist wrote:
Lovely shots. #2 is so joyous . |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Ernst Dinkla
 Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 184
|
Posted: Tue Nov 03, 2020 10:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
[quote="stevemark"]
lumens pixel wrote: |
There are a few similar constructions (apart from the Minolta MD 2.8/35mm), such as the Mamiya CS/E 2.8/35mm, the Yashica ML 2.8/35mm, and the Nikkor AiS 2.8/35mm. All theses lenses are really difficult to find here, and therefore I only own several MD 2.8/35mm and a ML 2.8/35mm (which is a very good as well - better than most 1960/1970s 2.8/35mm lenses - but not as good as the Minolta MD).
S |
Yes, I also noticed the similarity in optical design between the Minolta MD III 35mm 2.8 and the Mamiya-Sekor CS/E 35mm 2.8 some time ago. Although the MD III has a 5/5 and the CS/E a 6/6 element/group design. Their forerunners have some similarities too, the early MC versions and the SX. Here the Minolta has one element more, 7/6, versus 6/5 for the SX. WA's based on Tessar rear groups as I understand it. Rolleinar MC 35mm 2.8 should be like the M-S SX version.
Equivalent focal lengths of the Mamiya-Sekor C 645 WA lenses show some differences to the CS/E lenses (more elements in the C lenses anyway) and the similarities are sometimes more visible in a focal length a step further in the range. For example the CS 28mm more to the C 35mm than to the 45mm which should be its equivalent focal length. _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|