Minolta MD 75-150 F4 Constant Zoom Lens

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

Ok here is one that does not get a lot of press, the Minolta MD 75-150 F4 Zoom lens.

I think this is a rather impressive lens, on FF camera, and i am surprised at how well it handles in this modern day
These Images are straight out of camera 0 Processing done on them shot at F8 one 75mm the other 150mm
These classic old Minolta MD lenses certainly don't get the recognition they deserve, I know the 35-70 F3.5 has a cult following but this lens i can say is right up there.

#1

#2

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

Looks great! Like 1 small

But lens relatively expensive as a zoom so quality well known.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland

Apart from some distortion at the short & long end, the MD 4/75-150mm is a very good vintage zoom lens and very well suited for 24MP FF.
It certainly is quite a bit better than the MD 3.5/35-70mm!!

S

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

Wow had not realized the price these go for now, I think I paid around £10 many years ago

PhantomLord · Joined: 08 Apr 2013 Posts: 476 Location: Szczecin, Poland

This is a great lens, I've acquired it just recently, but was looking for one in good condition and in decent price for some time now. £10 is a steal, but I consider my £30 paid to be a great price too (in great optical and cosmetic condition with original hood).

I was stunned by the quality of this lens. Wide open it's tack sharp on close and at infinity at any focal length with very very good contrast and micro contrast. Even corners on FF are really very good wide open.

This lens is easily on par with modern lenses in terms of quality of the image, no more softness or glow wide open, just great contrast and sharpness. Honestly I'm most often using this lens wide open without bothering to close it down if I don't need greater DOF.

I've compared many 7x-150/2xx lenses and this one is far superior.
Maybe it'll be interesting to someone, but Vivitar 70-150 (2 touch and 1 touch), Kiron 70-150 (2 copies), Olympus OM 75-150 (2 copies) don't even come close to the quality of this Minolta. The same goes with longer ones: Vivitar S1 70-210/3.5 (4 copies - 3 Kirons, 1 Komine), Tamron SP 60-300, Pentax-M 80-200 and Kiron 70-210/4 Zoom Lock, not to mention non SP Tamrons.

Out of the above bunch Kiron 70-210/4 Zoom Lock was so better that I sold all the remaining ones, but know I can't find any reason to carry this bulky Kiron instead of Minolta. I know Minolta is shorter in range, but honestly it doesn't bother me too much as it's also a lot smaller and lighter and quality wide open is simply far superior. Kiron's Zoom Lock feature is fantastic and I've used it extensively, but Minolta has really nice mechanical built as there is no zoom creep and while focusing it stays on desired focal length with ease.

It's great addition to the well known 35-70/3.5 which is also great lens, pity that there's nothing special in the <35mm zoom range of Minolta's line-up. I had 28-85/3.5-4.5 and it was on par in terms of sharpness with 35-70, but still somewhat less pleasurable to use and 28mm is not wide enough for me anyway to justify bigger size, variable aperture and worst feel. 24-35/3.5 sounds great on paper, but quality wise (from what I've read and seen) is nowhere near 35-70 and 75-150 unfortunately.

I'll try to attach some photos later on, but honestly if you have opportunity to buy this lens, don't hesitate.

Slalom · Joined: 10 Dec 2017 Posts: 151 Location: Stourbridge

My MD 75-150 f4 ws 45.69 The Olympus OM was 40.

Looking at current prices, the Md was a good buy, The Om less so, but i have read that the 75-150 OM was extremely dominantant as the second purchase after the OM camera and prime, there are certainly a lot around.

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

Sure it is good.

I got mine at a great price too considering quality, around 60 euros.

Mind you the Canon 70-150 4,5 and the Tamron 70-210 3,8-4 46A are also very good if you succeed obtaining good copies. I had some difficulties and had to buy each of these twice.

Mechanically, the Minolta is much more enjoyable to manipulate.

[img]

[/url]Egypte | Le Nil | Felouque by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

Yes, this lens is GREAT!

I even rate it higher than the 35-70 f3.5.

The reason that people rarely talk about it is simply that it's a quite rare lens. It was in production only for a short time in 1981.
So obviously there are not many people who have tried it.

Pros:

- Really sharp from wide open
- Almost no CA (!)
- Contrast already perfect wide open
- No "glow" wide open / at MFD
- Low MFD - this lens is a great "flower lens"!
- Wonderful rendering (of the kind that you chimp in the viewfinder and think "whoa")
- Really nice, smooth bokeh
- Really compact and light (you don't think twice whether you should put it in your bag)
- No zoom creep in spite of it being a push-pull zoom

- Cons:
For me personally, none. Some may not like the push-pull action, but I find it very unproblematic with this lens. It's simply a very "friendly", easy to use lens which gives great results every time and which needs no attention to certain weaknesses and problems that occur under certain circumstances (like it's the case with many vintage lenses).

First image unknown focal length and f8, other two at 150mm and wide open (aka "flower mode" Smile

)

#1

#2

#3

Alsatian2017 · Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237

Yes, I fully agree will all the comments about this great little lens which is still undervalued (like the Canon 70-150 which is great as well). The only disadvantage is the heavy distortion at both ends. BTW, I've made a set of DNG correction profiles for Adobe apps ( Camera Raw + Lightroom) which one can use as well in Rawtherapee and Iridient Developer. They correct the distortion and the vignetting at 75, 100 and 150 mm, wide open and at f/8. So if ever you're interested, send me a private mail.

Best regards Volker

Alsatian2017 · Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 551 Location: Italy

Nice lens indeed, but I find your files have odd artifacts for "0 processing". Wich camera?

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

Oh, is here the rule "0 processing"?

I understand why that is (although I find it a very questionable rule since one exposes pictures with post processing in mind, so "0 processing" pictures nearly always don't look good as they are typically underexposed for preserving the highlights).

I apologize for my processed pictures (i.e. developed, as it should be) - one question, though: Where do you see "odd artifacts"?

Oldhand · Posted: Sat May 16, 2020 10:25 am Post subject:

aidaho · Joined: 29 Apr 2018 Posts: 456 Location: Ukraine

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

Ultrapix, it would really interest me what artifacts you mean in my photos. I am always interested in improving my editing skills.

In your photos, when I zoom in, I see much grain/noise - are they shot with higher ISO (and if they are, why)?

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

Could someone explain to me how to post an "unsharpened" RAW?

Obviously, if I turn down the sharpness slider in Lightroom (or comparable program) to 0, then that's too unsharp because always some sharpening must be applied to a RAW file. So, letting the slider remain on Lightroom's default value (at least with A7III files) of 40 qualifies as "unsharpened"? Or what?

And when I shoot directly in JPEG, obviously there is sharpening happening in the camera's internal image processor... Please enlighten me what the term "unsharpened" means so that next time I can post really virgin OOC images!

(In my pictures above, I remember that in the first one I applied a low amount (8 or 10 or something like that) of clarity, otherwise no additional sharpening. In the other two, no extra sharpening at all.}

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

Okay, you've introduced another term "unsharp" which has a different meaning from what we're discussing here.

No use of sharpen or unsharp tools in PP. Internal camera processing for jpegs should be minimized. In camera processing is usually not applied to RAW files. Te definition of RAW, however, has changed for some more modern cameras which do some processing.

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2494

There are cooked raws (this can not be reverted, mostly noise reduction) and settings applied to raw. (e.g. sharpening settings). Those are simply orders to the raw converter to set the sharpness, and white balance to a certain value. You can change those at will or completely disable them. If your raw converter supports your camera it can also apply other settings to the raw like in camera colour profiles that will otherwise only work in jpeg. Usually you have to use the proprietary raw editor supplied by the camera manufacturer for this. (Which in Pentax's case looks like it is from 1998:p).

Ultrapix · Joined: 06 Jan 2012 Posts: 551 Location: Italy

I brought up the concept of "zero processing" because the opener said so. Anyway, I'm referring to that strange effect that looks like a drawing (enlarge at maximum and look at the trees)

D1N0 · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2494

I think he may have shot in jpeg. That looks like noise reduction processing to me. Sony loves to do that.

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

My fault! Sometimes I am a moron... I thought Ultrapix answered to me and my images, when it was in fact very obvious he answered to the thread starter... And he is of course right when he notices strange artifacts in these pictures, I also have already mentioned them.

eddieitman · Joined: 12 Apr 2011 Posts: 1247 Location: United Kingdom

Yes, Sorry they are JPG in Camera.

hasenbein · Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93

Finally Phillip Reeve has a review up!

Of course a favorable one!

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-minolta-md-zoom-75-150mm-14/

lumens pixel · Expire: 2021-06-25

If I may:

[url]

[/url]Après la pluie | After the rain by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/url]