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 Celtic?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="Excalibur"][quote="Oldhand"]
Excalibur wrote:


..and the Canon FL 100mm f3.5 is very good. But an excellent basic Minolta lens is the MD 50mm f1.7 (can't see any difference compared to the 50mm f1.4 on a film camera) and should be a starter into using Minolta lenses.


I'm a bit confused by your statement. Using a Minolta lens should be no different from using any other lens, so stating you need a starter lens to break into the Minolta brand strikes me as quite odd. Of course I could have just misunderstood your point.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a Minolta Celtic 50mm f2.8 macro lens. By all accounts, it is optically identical to any of the MC or MD Minolta 50mm macro versions. Although it has a slightly different focus ring appearance, I can say the overall fit and finish and operation of this particular Celtic lens is outstanding. It's as smooth and well built as you'd ever want.

It's the only Celtic I own among the 10-14 Minolta MC or MD lenses I have on hand.

Julian


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 1:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="spiralcity"][quote="Excalibur"]
Oldhand wrote:
Excalibur wrote:


..and the Canon FL 100mm f3.5 is very good. But an excellent basic Minolta lens is the MD 50mm f1.7 (can't see any difference compared to the 50mm f1.4 on a film camera) and should be a starter into using Minolta lenses.


I'm a bit confused by your statement. Using a Minolta lens should be no different from using any other lens, so stating you need a starter lens to break into the Minolta brand strikes me as quite odd. Of course I could have just misunderstood your point.


Well for a film or digi camera, they are going so cheap it's a shame not to buy one...look at completed listings on the bay.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 3:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Best bang for the buck is the MD 50mm f/2.0.
It was a budget lens, but it is really a great performer, many do not want it because there's also a faster f/1.7 version.

See here: http://forum.mflenses.com/won-by-accident-minolta-md-50mm-2-0-t75727,highlight,%2Bminolta+%2B2+%2B50.html

Cheers, René!


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
Best bang for the buck is the MD 50mm f/2.0.
It was a budget lens, but it is really a great performer, many do not want it because there's also a faster f/1.7 version.

See here: http://forum.mflenses.com/won-by-accident-minolta-md-50mm-2-0-t75727,highlight,%2Bminolta+%2B2+%2B50.html

Cheers, René!


Well my Minolta 50mm f1.7 is the one that goes cheaper as it hasn't got Rokkor x on the front....I suppose someone know the difference in results comparing non Rokkor and Rokkor X, but I'm not bothered if I can get results like this on a film camera:-


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 9:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Excalibur wrote:


Well my Minolta 50mm f1.7 is the one that goes cheaper as it hasn't got Rokkor x on the front....I suppose someone know the difference in results comparing non Rokkor and Rokkor X, but I'm not bothered if I can get results like this on a film camera:-


I have been saying this for a long time.

There are some people who are spec nuts, and everything must rely on the exact specs as tested. Now, there is nothing wrong with being spec savvy, it does have it's benefits, but as a photographer my concerns lay in the actual application and how well we apply what we have to achieve acceptable results. We are all looking for a usable image, that's the bottom line. It doesn't matter what the specs say, one lens over another. It's the end result, the image before you that counts, regardless of what the specs may say. Application and specs are two different animals. Customers want a usable image, not the specs that your equipment are rated at. You show a customer a terrific image and they are happy.

But then again, specs are fun and it's interesting to compare the lenses,.


PostPosted: Fri Aug 18, 2017 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I once did a direct comparison between a Leica R-Summicron 2/50 and the Minolta MD 1.7/50.

The Minolta won, hands down, in pretty much every category - superior macro contrast, superior micro contrast, far better colour fidelity and saturation, the Minolta images made the Leica look flat and lifeless.

Of course, this was on an APS-C sensor, and I'm sure some Leicists will say 'aah, but the Summicron has better corners' and other excuses such as 'it's got better haptics' and the helicoid is smoother'.

But bottom line, the Minolta is at least as good, probably better, and costs one tenth as much.

At the end of the day, if a lens like the Minolta MD 1.7/50 isn't good enough for you, then you need to improve your skills rather than buy a 'better' more expensive optic.

Perhaps I should compare the Minolta 1.7.50 to my T* Planar 1.7/50, but then again, I already know that the differences are rather small and I'm not pedantic enough to really care, both are more than good enough for any practical application I could put them to.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 4:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:


But bottom line, the Minolta is at least as good, probably better, and costs one tenth as much.

At the end of the day, if a lens like the Minolta MD 1.7/50 isn't good enough for you, then you need to improve your skills rather than buy a 'better' more expensive optic.


It's rarely the gear's fault for poor images. You can buy the best equipment available and still produce snot.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very much so, and those people are often the source of the best bargains on ebay - they sell off their equipment cheap because they have bought the latest and greatest thinking it will improve their pictures. I recently bought an OM-D E-M5 for 100ukp, the seller had listed it as faulty, couldn't get a sharp image out of it. God knows why, the damn thing works perfectly as far as I can tell, I think he just didn't know how to use it properly, it certainly looks like it's hardly ever been used.

Then there are the guys who can produce technically good images but have no aesthetic sense so their pictures are always dull as ditchwater, there's lots of those, usually they are obsessed with how sharp their lens is wide open or some other such technical aspect but have no clue about composition or perspective or anything else that actually matters.

Some of the best images I've seen were produced with very humble equipment.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 19, 2017 6:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Just to add my two cents regarding the 50/1.7 and 50/2. Between these two I actually prefer the 50/2. I haven't done any direct comparisons but I think the f/2 might be a bit better. Well, it's certainly good enough. And it is the cheapest Minolta lens I have. Wink


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Minolta MD 135mm arrived today. Seller sent me a lens loaded with fungus, even after he promised me it was clean. Refund requested, I'll see how they respond. Hopefully he refunds me, if not I will open a case.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Perhaps I should compare the Minolta 1.7.50 to my T* Planar 1.7/50, but then again, I already know that the differences are rather small and I'm not pedantic enough to really care, both are more than good enough for any practical application I could put them to.


I have been thinking about comparing lenses like that as well, Planar 1.4/50 to a Minolta 1.4/50 or the 4 different versions i have of the Minolta 1.7/50 plus the 2/50 to each other, tests like that.
Although interesting to some extent, it's such a time robbing experiment that i'll probably never get to it.... plus the reasons you've mentioned!

And i feel i already have too little time to actually go out and shoot more.....


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TrueLoveOne wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

Perhaps I should compare the Minolta 1.7.50 to my T* Planar 1.7/50, but then again, I already know that the differences are rather small and I'm not pedantic enough to really care, both are more than good enough for any practical application I could put them to.


I have been thinking about comparing lenses like that as well, Planar 1.4/50 to a Minolta 1.4/50 or the 4 different versions i have of the Minolta 1.7/50 plus the 2/50 to each other, tests like that.
Although interesting to some extent, it's such a time robbing experiment that i'll probably never get to it.... plus the reasons you've mentioned!

And i feel i already have too little time to actually go out and shoot more.....


Go out and shoot more and enjoy your image making.
Testing, and all the time that it entails, is rarely appreciated - and sometimes simply causes a reaction from those whose favourite lens comes off second best.
If people want to know which lens is best for them, then they can do their own research.
Go out and make some images that you are pleased with instead
Tom


PostPosted: Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oldhand wrote:

Go out and shoot more and enjoy your image making.
Testing, and all the time that it entails, is rarely appreciated - and sometimes simply causes a reaction from those whose favourite lens comes off second best.
If people want to know which lens is best for them, then they can do their own research.
Go out and make some images that you are pleased with instead
Tom


Thank you!

And indeed, that is what i plan on doing, make time to shoot more. And that is why i have never done these tests, although i did think about it! Wink


PostPosted: Mon Aug 21, 2017 2:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Indeed, and to be honest, I only ever do very informal comparisons, to satisfy my own curiosity, and I very rarely do them. In fact, probably the last one I did was Sonnar 3.5/135 vs Komura 4/135 M39 vs Canon 4/135 M39 and that was a couple of years ago. Sonnar won hands down, superior in every regard.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 15, 2018 2:18 pm    Post subject: Minolta MC Celtic 35mm f2.8 Reply with quote

I just recently purchased a Celtic 35mm lens on ebay. I've never owned a 35mm focal length as a prime and I have really enjoyed it so far. There was some issues with the aperture not opening/closing but I was able to fix the issue by moving a spring that controls the aperture.


by Andy Clement, on Flickr

A few more photos I've taken with this lens can be found here:
https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=70297544%40N00&sort=date-taken-desc&text=minolta%20celtic&view_all=1