Minolta MD 75-150 F4 Constant Zoom Lens

RokkorDoctor · Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1268 Location: Kent, UK

A gem of a lens, the MDIII 75-150 f/4.

Positives:

- Very sharp across the whole frame right from wide-open at f/4
- High contrast
- Neutral colour balance
- Rarely has issues with flare/ghosting (when using the original deep hood!)
- Compact
- Full-metal construction apart from the aperture ring
- Perfect slightly-longer-than-average focus throw
- Very usable DOF scale at all focal lengths (tbh, the main reason I like push-pull zooms)
- Almost no internal volume change when zooming, so not a dust-pump
- Rear element is fixed in position, less chance of blowing air/dust over the sensor when zooming/focusing
- Fixed exit pupil when zooming/focusing: no colour shifts on older sensors

Negatives:

- For a short-range zoom slightly above average distortion at both ends, but non-complex simple barrel/pincushion so easy to correct in PP if desired
- Mild vignetting at f/4, but still good for a legacy zoom
- Some copies can exhibit a bit of zoom-creep when pointing straight up/down

I have used all Minolta MF zooms (apart from the Auto-Rokkors 50-100, 80-160 and 160-500), and IMO the MDIII 75-150 f/4 is the best of the lot, hands-down.

When I need to travel light and can't predict the subject matter, this one goes in the bag, always, together with an MDIII 35mm f/1.8 and MDIII 20mm f/2.8, and a 49mm close-up lens for unexpected near-macro use. For me that's a perfect travel combo.

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

Don't you miss a 50? How good is your 20mm if you are using full frame?

Best.

RokkorDoctor · Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1268 Location: Kent, UK

No, I don't really miss a 50 in that package, I'll make up the difference in perspectives between the 35mm and 75mm by some footwork Wink

For sure, ideally I would want every focal length in existence in my bag, but we are talking about a lightweight travel option here.

Besides, even when I do cary a 50mm, I find I rarely use it; somehow it is not a focal length that works well for me, much less so than a slightly longer 58mm, as odd as that may sound. Same goes for 28mm wide-angles; that is also not a focal length that appeals to me.

I do sometimes cary an MDIII 24-50 f/4 & MDIII 75-150 f/4 combo, but somehow I like the above one better for my needs. Whilst good, Minolta wide-angle zooms generally have bit of an issue with the MFD at the short end, and are missing a DOF scale which I use a lot.

The 20mm is good enough for 12 Mp full frame work for me. It has a slightly wavy field curvature, i.e. under close examination there is an intermediate ring-shaped area that is slightly less sharp than the center & corners, but it is still better than its MC 21mm f/2.8 predecessor in this respect. Like most short wide-angles, it has some complex "moustache" distortion, but still less than you would get in a zoom. It is one of the better 20mm lenses out there from what I understand.

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

Thank you for your answers.

I did not practice the 20 so I am at odds here but I am interested. I have red a lot that the 21 was better and I find interesting that you disagree. Philip Reeve and others wrote about the mid zone dip of the 20 and it is for sure different if it is field curvature (can be compensated by focusing) or inherent softness.

I also like very much 58 but that is becoming very close to 75 when you use the zoom.

Maybe you might try the 45 and couple with a 24. That would not add weight or the number of lenses and the combination seems less extreme to my eyes. When I take the 45 I often end up with the majority of the pics taken with that lens...

Nice to hear about others experiences.

RokkorDoctor · Joined: 27 Nov 2021 Posts: 1268 Location: Kent, UK