Home
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...
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Oct 01, 2018 10:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Minolta Rokkor MD II 50mm F1.4 has been tested and reviewed
Comparisons with other fifties will be soon


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another big lens battle of fast 50mm F1.4:

    Minolta MC Rokkor PG
    Minolta MD I Rokkor
    Minolta MD II Rokkor
    Minolta MD III

- most difficult was to select winner


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 8:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Another big lens battle of fast 50mm F1.4:

    Minolta MC Rokkor PG
    Minolta MD I Rokkor
    Minolta MD II Rokkor
    Minolta MD III

- most difficult was to select winner


That's also my experience. The newer 7/6 versions are the slightly better ones.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a question. I have a late(r) MD 50/1.4. It has no Roman numerals on its face. How do I tell which version it is? Serial number? Close focusing distance?

The face just states:

Minolta (then 180 degrees apart:) MD 50mm 1:1.4 Japan Φ49mm

It has the MD switch also.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 05, 2018 6:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
I have a question. I have a late(r) MD 50/1.4. It has no Roman numerals on its face. How do I tell which version it is? Serial number? Close focusing distance?

The face just states:

Minolta (then 180 degrees apart:) MD 50mm 1:1.4 Japan Φ49mm

It has the MD switch also.


That's easy. Every Minolta lens without "Rokkor" on the front ring is a "plain MD" AKA MD version III.

Refer also to this table for easy identification of all different MF Minolta lenses: http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 9:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

An article about some observations about the effect of the focus point on the results of testing lenses. No new information just a visualization was added for the old thematics. It may be interesting not only to fans of Minolta.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
An article about some observations about the effect of the focus point on the results of testing lenses. No new information just a visualization was added for the old thematics. It may be interesting not only to fans of Minolta.

Thanks.

The part about the differences of copies of the same lens in good condition is very interesting.
Sample variation is not something new, but we rarely have a chance to see the effects.

One trick to save you time on identifying lenses with notable field curvature is to fully open one on MFD and point your camera at oblique angle to a flat textured surface (table or whatever).
From my experience it's very easy to tell from a live view or a test shot if a field curvature is a thing for the particular glass.

And if you plan to test for this in reviews, I suggest doing an oblique shot of graph paper.
Not only this is minimal effort, but if you ever decide to update previous reviews, you can easily do so without a full corner focus reshoot.

Keep up the good work!


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
One trick to save you time on identifying lenses with notable field curvature is to fully open one on MFD and point your camera at oblique angle to a flat textured surface

Yes-yes, I have the idea to add such tests to reviews, want to do it with an effect like 'focus peaking' - red colored for contrast zones, just postpone more and more... Will do it, just later. Thank you


PostPosted: Mon Apr 22, 2019 5:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Minolta Rokkor MD II 50mm F1.4 has been tested and reviewed
Comparisons with other fifties will be soon


Happy Cat

I really like the avatars that you choose. Just amazing. First class all the way!


PostPosted: Tue Apr 23, 2019 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Blazer0ne wrote:
I really like the avatars that you choose. Just amazing. First class all the way!

This site is about anime, in fact, reviews of lenses are bait
Laugh 1


PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is the comparison of two different copies of the Minolta MD 50mm 1:1.4
More comparisons with this idea - 'the same lens, different copies' - will be published in next months. I hope it can help to realize the differences in the behavior of the same models.


PostPosted: Mon Jun 10, 2019 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
Here is the comparison of two different copies of the Minolta MD 50mm 1:1.4
More comparisons with this idea - 'the same lens, different copies' - will be published in next months. I hope it can help to realize the differences in the behavior of the same models.

Thanks for the comparison.

This is fairly negligible level of difference in my opinion.
However copy-to-copy variation can be much more prominent.
For a long time I was skeptical of your FDn 50/1.4 vs MD-III 50/1.4 war results, since in any prior comparisons I've seen, FDn 50/1.4 was undefeated in center sharpness.
And from personal experience it is indeed a monster among vintage lenses, when it comes to sharpness.

Recently I've got both FDn and MD-III in mint condition together, and while MD-III is indeed a very sharp lens and able to narrowly beat FDn in the outer 3rd of the frame, canon is the undisputed king of the center sharpness. 36Mp sensor sets them apart by a good measure.

Not sure whether I have an exceptional FDn or mediocre MD-III though.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
For a long time I was skeptical of your FDn 50/1.4 vs MD-III 50/1.4 war results, since in any prior comparisons I've seen, FDn 50/1.4 was undefeated in center sharpness

I'm also looking for the truth, and that my comparison MDIII and FDn is the first try, but not last. I've spent enough time with a few repeats of the test to be sure that my result isn't occasional. Also, I'm sure that MDIII copy is not exceptional -the published 'LensRomantic' contains the comparison of two copies, but two years ago I did the same test with other (third) copy and didn't find noticeable deviations too, but it happened before the site was created, so I can't add that materials. That's why for today I prefer to think that Minolta beats Canon - at least until I will see another good test from someone who can do it correctly or I will repeat it myself. Canon has only chance if the tested copy was abnormal, but no reasons to think so because all tests were passed with great results. Even more - if another copy will be much better then only the third Canon will help. As I said - I don't see issues with compared FDn but of course, if I get another one - then I do the comparison again.
What about center sharpness - a lot of lenses has incredible sharpness in the center, but we have 35mm standard. In the real photography sides or corners can be out of DOF, it's an often case but not every time case, so lens should work over the whole frame, otherwise, lenses like MDII 45/2 would be enough for anything, but it isn't


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm curious -- did you ever try comparing the MDIII against the Canon SSC 50/1.4 breechlock lens?

I have a couple of these Canons and I like them a lot -- but I've never tried a comparison between them and any of my other 50/1.4s. Maybe I should.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
aidaho wrote:
For a long time I was skeptical of your FDn 50/1.4 vs MD-III 50/1.4 war results, since in any prior comparisons I've seen, FDn 50/1.4 was undefeated in center sharpness

I'm also looking for the truth, and that my comparison MDIII and FDn is the first try, but not last. I've spent enough time with a few repeats of the test to be sure that my result isn't occasional.

In no way was I suggesting your test was somehow incorrect. I'm after the truth too.
Perhaps I could've worded this better: I was skeptical I can repeat it with same results.

And I'm not suggesting my experience is somehow more universally "correct".
I in fact do trust your experience as much as I trust mine, and this is exactly why I've raised the issue with sample variation, not your test.

Roger Cicala at Lens Rentals refuses to draw any conclusions until he has 10 copies of the lens.
I think he knows something. Obviously, we can't afford to follow his steps, which makes any chance to witness copy-to-copy variation that more valuable.

Was the difference between two MD-IIIs big enough to matter in actual day to day photography?
Definitely no (if you ask me). So we can rest easy: our amateur clean up jobs are getting us 90-95% of original performance.
Was the difference big enough to lose a battle to contemporary 50mm? Maybe.
Is copy-to-copy variation big enough reason to cause inconsistent results in case FDn and MD-III? I think so.


PostPosted: Tue Jun 11, 2019 4:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

cooltouch wrote:
I'm curious -- did you ever try comparing the MDIII against the Canon SSC 50/1.4 breechlock lens?

I have a couple of these Canons and I like them a lot -- but I've never tried a comparison between them and any of my other 50/1.4s. Maybe I should.



I still didn't test any SSC to my regret. To be honest, I plan to return to Canons SLR lenses, but not soon - have a lot of work with Minolta for today

Of course, If you like to do tests - why not? It's not rocket science to make a good comparison


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here a few examples of an amateur 'travel-photography' taken with cheap but great 50mm Minolta lens - MD III 50/1.7.

The article is published to support the idea that testers of lenses are people too and can take photos not only of brick walls

Like this:



PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 12:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Which minolta 1,7 is the best?

55 mm?

MC 50 mm?

MD I, MD II or MDIII?


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Which minolta 1,7 is the best?

55 mm?

MC 50 mm?

MD I, MD II or MDIII?


I can't answer with 100% confidence, but...
The is no detailed comparisons inside the line of 1.7 Minoltas, like this one on F1.4 I mean. This buttle of 1.4 shows that difference between those lenses is less than its worth to care about it. Additionally, I've got tests results with 55/1.7 MC II lens (review will be published soon) - and I know that this my copy isn't a sharpness champion. Not bad for a classic, but not amazing.
So, if we are speaking about 'choice' in a lack of data conditions - then I recommend MD II or MD III - these two options have fewer chances to disappoint a photographer


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
Which minolta 1,7 is the best?

55 mm?

MC 50 mm?

MD I, MD II or MDIII?

You will have to expand your definition of best for us.

Because while I agree with every word in the quote
tf wrote:
I mean. This buttle of 1.4 shows that difference between those lenses is less than its worth to care about it. Additionally, I've got tests results with 55/1.7 MC II lens (review will be published soon) - and I know that this my copy isn't a sharpness champion.

55/1.7 MC-II is a jewel among gems for me.


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

tf wrote:
An article about some observations about the effect of the focus point on the results of testing lenses. No new information just a visualization was added for the old thematics. It may be interesting not only to fans of Minolta.


I'm slightly surprised about these differences.

In fact, i have been starting to test several lenses of the same construction back in 2011 (seven samples of the Min AF 4-4.5/28-135). While i found considerable performance deviations e. g. in Konica AR zooms, the Minolta lenses were surprisingly uniform in performance. My last "multiple" test did include ten MD 3.5/35-70mm lenses, and only one of them had a slight drop in corner performance. I have specifically chosen the MD 35-70mm because its was A) a zoom (mechanically much more complex than a prime) and B) because it was the "budget" zoom which - I thought - might have lead to higher tolerances.

Similar consistent performance was found with a series of MD-III 1.7/50mm lenses.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 5:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

aidaho wrote:
papasito wrote:
Which minolta 1,7 is the best?

55 mm?

MC 50 mm?

MD I, MD II or MDIII?

You will have to expand your definition of best for us.


Best:

IT means, for me, high resolution power, creamy bokeh and medium to strong contrast


PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:
tf wrote:
An article about some observations about the effect of the focus point on the results of testing lenses. No new information just a visualization was added for the old thematics. It may be interesting not only to fans of Minolta.


I'm slightly surprised about these differences.


yes, I know, that's why I left it in this article but didn't publish the Lens Romantic test between 50/1.2 copies - to many chances that one with bad IQ has a hidden defects. So, such materials are good for article like that one, but not for comparisons.
anyway, such a result is also a good result - at least it will notify a readers about that even lenses with a 'mint' exterrior need to be tested.

I'm in process of 'Lens Romantic' testing but for today only this 50/1.2 shows so big difference. For 50/1.2 it looks like hidden defects in the lens, but not for 100% - it will be retested with another opponent (it is on the way right now). And the second one - MD III 28/2.0 - the difference is noticeable too. But I'm sure that 28/2 copies haven't issues, opposite to the case with 50/1.2.