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 MD 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 - are tested, again...
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Papasito, I fear you have to find out yourself. Ask 8 different people and you will get 12 different opinions. Wink
Everybody has a different taste and/or priority.

If my memory serves me right the Minolta 50/1.7 was not the best but among the best lenses when "Colorfoto" made a very big comparison test among all "normal" lenses betw. F1.6 and F.1.9 in the early 1980's.
On average slightly better was C/Y 50/1.7, Rollei/Voigtländer 50/1.8 and Yashica ML 50/1.7. All others have been rated equal or worse when used wide open.
However, when stopped down these lenses ALL perform very nicely and are hardly distinguishable. There are only a few well known negative exceptions like the Pentacon 50/1.8 and alike.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 12:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
aidaho wrote:
Gardener wrote:
50/1.7 and 50/2 might be the same lens, just like 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 MCII were.

55/1.7 and 55/1.9 are definitely not the same. I do have both.


Well.

Among the Minolta's 50 lenses all seem to be clear.

The canon nfd 50/1,4 and the minolta. MD III 50/1,4 were revisted before.

But what about the minolta MDIII 50/1,7 VS. the Canon FD and nFD 50/1,8 lens?

Which to have?

If the question was directed to me, than I'm afraid I'm of no help here, as I have not used either of the two.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 05, 2019 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:
aidaho wrote:
Gardener wrote:
50/1.7 and 50/2 might be the same lens, just like 55/1.7 and 55/1.9 MCII were.

55/1.7 and 55/1.9 are definitely not the same. I do have both.


Well.

Among the Minolta's 50 lenses all seem to be clear.

The canon nfd 50/1,4 and the minolta. MD III 50/1,4 were revisted before.

But what about the minolta MDIII 50/1,7 VS. the Canon FD and nFD 50/1,8 lens?

Which to have?

If the question was directed to me, than I'm afraid I'm of no help here, as I have not used either of the two.


Thank you, Aidaho. very much.

But my cuestión was made for all our friend who know about that theme


PostPosted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Quite a lot of questions arise about the classification of Minolta's lenses. Especially for such cases, I made a simple diagram with yes-no questions. As a result of the discussion, I believe that this algorithm did not reveal any shortcomings or objections in the collector's collective. It covers 99.99% of cases. Nevertheless, in the future, the diagram may change that's why I put here the link to the original article so that it would be easy in the future to update the logic if necessary



Last edited by tf on Sun Jul 10, 2022 6:11 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
tf wrote:
Quite a lot of questions arise about the classification of Minolta's lenses. Especially for such cases, I made a simple diagram with yes-no questions. As a result of the discussion, I believe that this algorithm did not reveal any shortcomings or objections in the collector's collective. It covers 99.99% of cases. Nevertheless, in the future, the diagram may change that's why I put here the link to the original article so that it would be easy in the future to update the logic if necessary



Your wealth of information is really appreciated!

I just got an MDiii 50mm f/1.4 and did a few test shots. Somehow, I don't seem to get the impression that this lens is very sharp wide open.
It is just from my pure impression, but for ever lens I got (200+) I shoot the same scene at home for test shots. Could there be quality
variation? I remember there is a website that shows the comparison of many 50mm lenses, the MDiii 50mm is the among the top in terms
of sharpness. On the other hand, certainly sharpness is not the only thing. I'll take more shots to get a feel of this one.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 9:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
I just got an MDiii 50mm f/1.4 and did a few test shots. Somehow, I don't seem to get the impression that this lens is very sharp wide open.
It is just from my pure impression, but for ever lens I got (200+) I shoot the same scene at home for test shots. Could there be quality
variation? I remember there is a website that shows the comparison of many 50mm lenses, the MDiii 50mm is the among the top in terms
of sharpness.

Thank you,
Yes, MD III 50/1.4 is the lens of latest-generation from the top-level together with the best products by Canon/Zeiss/Nikon/Pentax etc. I tend to think that something wrong with your copy (or with test-conditions). I'm not sure that it is a quality variation - such noticeable deviations seem the rare case for MD-III, but of course, it just based on my own experience


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
vivaldibow wrote:
tf wrote:
Quite a lot of questions arise about the classification of Minolta's lenses. Especially for such cases, I made a simple diagram with yes-no questions. As a result of the discussion, I believe that this algorithm did not reveal any shortcomings or objections in the collector's collective. It covers 99.99% of cases. Nevertheless, in the future, the diagram may change that's why I put here the link to the original article so that it would be easy in the future to update the logic if necessary



Your wealth of information is really appreciated!

I just got an MDiii 50mm f/1.4 and did a few test shots. Somehow, I don't seem to get the impression that this lens is very sharp wide open.


It might be useful to provide your test conditions. Using the MD-III 1.4/50mm at f1.4 on a 20MP 4/3 sensor results in vastly different images than using it on a 24MP FF camera.

I can support tf concerning quality control on MD-III lenses: I have tested, for instance, eight MD-III 35-70mm on 24MP FF, and there were no visible differences. Similarly, i have tested seven Minolta AF 28-135mm lenses (they have an extremely complicated mechanical and optical construction, thus one would expect them to be prone to sample variation) - again no visible difference on 24MP FF. Of course, there are, even in modern zoom constructions, easily measurable sample variations (read Roger Cicalas blog), but their impact on 24MP FF is rather limited.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tf and Stephan,

Thanks for your comments. My test shots are actually not "TEST" shots. I just shoot the same objects with the
same camera at home, on my desk to see how the images look in the EVF (for each lens I got). This is what I called
a quick test.

This copy of MDiii 50/1.4 wide open feels to me more towards a zoom type of image. Somehow I couldn't even
determine if the focal point is the sharpest with 11.7x MF assistance. The lens is in decent shape with no sign
of being tinkered. There is loss of paint on the rim of the filter ring but the ring is still round. So it seems the
lens has not been dropped or bumped into some hard object to affect the optical path or anything.

I shall definitely upload some photos here.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2020 4:21 am    Post subject: 50/1.4 Reply with quote
Absolutely love coming across this conversation... as much as I want a 50/1.2 for my collection, I find myself not needing anything after my late-MC 50/1.4 purchase!


PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2020 3:14 pm    Post subject: Re: 50/1.4 Reply with quote
axtran wrote:
Absolutely love coming across this conversation... as much as I want a 50/1.2 for my collection, I find myself not needing anything after my late-MC 50/1.4 purchase!


The MC version of the 50/1,4 lens is the sharpest to my eyes.

The details I can see of the pics taken with it, is better than the present in pics taken with my copy of the MDIII and MD II.
The newer versions have better flare resistence and less CA (green or magenta lines in strong sunlight very noticeable in the MC lenses) At least in my old nex 5N .
In FF I Didn't try the MC again.

If the sensor of my 7RIII should be less sensible to CA with the MC lenses, the 24/2,8, 50/1,4 and the 100/2 should be my lenses.


PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
minolta mc pf 55mm f1.7@f1.7

smile-7 by Сергей Пашнин, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergun wrote:
minolta mc pf 55mm f1.7@f1.7



That's exactly how I would recommend to use this lens. Very nice image!
The MC 1.7/55mm is quite underrated, and it has a relatively "calm" (smooth) bokeh. And extremely smooth focuising. Very useful for b/w portraits on APS-C as well.

S


PostPosted: Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I like the MD III 50/1.4 much, but my Rokkor PG 50/1.4 does have better build quality, and butter smooth bokeh.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
R2 (minolta mc pf 55/1.9 + Set Extension Tube 14/21/28мм


PostPosted: Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
doomed-forever wrote:
I like the MD III 50/1.4 much, but my Rokkor PG 50/1.4 does have better build quality, and butter smooth bokeh.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way around. MD-III improved upon the PG in terms of bokeh.
The six wavy aperture blades were a downgrade though. Six curved ones did look better.

And if we are to do a bokeh contest, none of the 50/1.4s could even remotely match the 55mm series.
If I'd own 55mm back in the day, no way would I "upgrade" to any of the subsequent 50mm.


PostPosted: Fri May 05, 2023 7:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Let's continue the bokeh theme) Minolta MD-I 50mm/1.7 (There's more here https://photos.app.goo.gl/krnwoPhhkpLVpJnM8 )
Егор-7 by Сергей Пашнин, on Flickr

p/s I don't know what 55/1.7 would look like here


PostPosted: Sat May 06, 2023 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
sergun wrote:
Let's continue the bokeh theme) Minolta MD-I 50mm/1.7 (There's more here https://photos.app.goo.gl/krnwoPhhkpLVpJnM8 )
Егор-7 by Сергей Пашнин, on Flickr

p/s I don't know what 55/1.7 would look like here


I like the bokeh!


PostPosted: Wed Sep 27, 2023 6:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Today I had some time and so I decided to make some test shots on my Sony A7R II.


I especially wanted to test how some classic cheap 50mm lenses compare to the AF nifty fifties from Sony and Canon in landscape scenes. So I took my tripod, A7R II and my following lenses:

Minolta MD 1:2 50mm (Fotodiox Pro Adapter)
Pancolar aus Jena DDR electric 1:1.8 50mm (M42 -> E-Mount Adapter)
Minolta AF 1.7 50mm (Sony LA-EA3 Adapter)
Canon 1.8 50mm STM (Sigma MC11 Adapter)
Sony FE 1.8 50mm (-)

The first three were shot with manual focus while the Canon and Sony were shot with auto focus. (I shot both with manual focus too, but the AF shots were equally as good)

I decided to shoot in Mode A with 2 second delay and each lens at f2 and f5.6. Lightning changed slightly but not too much.

The original ooc 42MP JPGs can be downloaded as ZIP archieve

2023-09-27 A7RII Test 50ies Wildbachtal.zip

from here (172 MB):

http://wuw2.ddns.net/mflensesPics

Username and pw: mflenses forummember

Comments are welcome I will report my conclusions later.


BG lightdreamer

Last edited by lightdreamer on Thu Sep 28, 2023 11:33 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:


from here (172 MB):

http://wuw2.ddns.net/mflensesPics


BG lightdreamer


It asks for a username and password to access the pictures... maybe you could post the results side to side here? (at least details of the picture, so it does not lose any quality when uploading).


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2023 10:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Zamo wrote:
lightdreamer wrote:


from here (172 MB):

http://wuw2.ddns.net/mflensesPics


BG lightdreamer


It asks for a username and password to access the pictures...

Sorry, I now added a username and pw: mflenses forummember

BG


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2023 2:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Surprised how good Pancolar is in the center at f2, comparable with the Sony. Edges are slightly better in the Sony. Minolta 50 f1.7 is also quite good, a tad less than the other two. Surprisingly, the Minolta is better in the center, right hand border compared to the other two, which could be better on the top, left corner.
At 5.6 I would say center is pretty much the same in all of them, and surprisingly (for me) the Pancolar has the worst corners/sides. Here the Minolta f2 gets the best marks, Sony being a good runner up.


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2023 7:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And here my conclusions:

f2:

My personal landscape sharpness performance ranking:

1. Sony FE 1.8 50mm (auto vignetting and distortion correction applied in camera, thats how I use my lenses)
The Sony shows very good center sharpness at f2 and at the borders it also is in front of the whole bunch.

2. Minolta MD 2 50mm
This old cheap Kitlens shows a result behind the No 1 Sony, especially remarkable for me is, that the Minolta MD runs in at a clear second place concerning border sharpness at f2,even rivaling the Sony at the outmost borders. The Minolta MD has a very flat field.

3. Minolta AF 1.7 50mm
The Minolta AF shows remarkable center sharpness at f2 too, but looses clear in border sharpness against the Sony and the Minolta MD at f2.

4. Canon EF 1.8 50mm STM
The Canon lens is a bit disappointing at f2 and beaten by all others in the center and only wins in border sharpness against the Pancolar.

5. Pancolar 1.8 50mm
The Pancolar at f2 shows remarkable good center sharpness, nearly on par with the Sony and clear better than the Canon, but significantly lacks on border sharpness.


f5.6:

All lenses show much improved sharpness to the borders:

The f5.6 ranking:

1. Sony FE 1.8 50mm (auto vignetting and distortion correction applied in camera, thats how I use my lenses)
Center has sharpened up only a tad (there was little room for improvement from f2 center). Borders have sharpened up now and the whole image is very good IMHO.

2. Minolta MD 2 50mm (again very close to 1.)

3. Canon EF 1.8 50mm STM and Minolta AF 1.7 50mm both much improved and rank very close.

5. Pancolar 1.8 50mm
The Pancolar despite delivering very good center sharpness still slightly lacks on border sharpness, but at f5.6 it overall also shows a good result.


Overall the Sony IMHO is the winner concerning sharpness for far distances and also has slow but precise AF and as a Sony user I do not have to deal with adapters. The sharpness of the Canon STM is a little bit disapointing here in my eyes and even more so is the Pancolar at f2, may be they are more optimized for shorter distances not tested here.

BG lightdreamer


PostPosted: Thu Sep 28, 2023 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for that summary!

The Minolta MD-III 2/50mm (I think you are talking about that one, and not about the MD-I which has another computation) is a remarkably well balanced normal lens. It has another advantage compared to most fast normal lenses: It is nearly distrortion free (patent says aboiout 0.1% which is incredibly good). Since it has less CAs than faster lenses, and a nearly perfect detail resolution in the f5.6 to f11 range I've been using it occasionally for architecture / landscape images intended for publication.

S


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you for this helpful piece of information. As always.


PostPosted: Fri Sep 29, 2023 9:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Thank you for that summary!

The Minolta MD-III 2/50mm (I think you are talking about that one, and not about the MD-I which has another computation) is a remarkably well balanced normal lens. It has another advantage compared to most fast normal lenses: It is nearly distrortion free (patent says aboiout 0.1% which is incredibly good). Since it has less CAs than faster lenses, and a nearly perfect detail resolution in the f5.6 to f11 range I've been using it occasionally for architecture / landscape images intended for publication.

S


Indeed a very good lens and the very first lens I owned, which came with my first camera, a Minolta XG-1(n) (i.e. new model); an awesome present from my parents at age 12.
It also has a reasonably deeply recessed front element; use of a lens hood is always advisable of course but if the MDIII 50/2 is used without one, no man overboard.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6