View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
kyrcy
Joined: 23 Feb 2015 Posts: 124
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:21 pm Post subject: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
kyrcy wrote:
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7796 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I have a few MD zooms and none suffer from creep. Great lenses. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
newst
Joined: 21 Oct 2014 Posts: 617 Location: Troy, MI USA
|
Posted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
newst wrote:
Minolta was a first tier lens maker, so good that Leica collaborated with them and even adopted at least one Minolta lens to be sold under the Leica label.
That said, these are now older lenses with who knows what treatment in the past. It is possible to get a lens that doesn't perform at its best any longer. Caveat emptor. _________________ Steve
Just an armadillo on the shoulder of the information superhighway. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aeropic
Joined: 24 Jul 2015 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Sun May 28, 2017 7:10 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
aeropic wrote:
kyrcy wrote: |
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep? |
I do like those Minolta rokkor. Here are some pictures with a MD ROKKOR 200 F/4 on a Sony a6000... (the only PP is histogram adjust and some cropping to show the details the lens can capture)
#1
#2
#3
#4
_________________ Sony a6000
- rollei planar 50 1.8
- rolleinar 35 2.8, 105 2.8
- Chinon 50 1.7
- yashica 135 2.8
- Minolta rokkor MC 58 1.4, MD 200 4, MD 50 1.7
- HELIOS 44-2, 44-3, 44M, 44M4
- industar 22
- Jupiter 8
- Konica Hexanon AR 50 1.7 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Beautiful! _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7796 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Mon May 29, 2017 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
aeropic
That MD ROKKOR 200 F/4 has a good reputation, your excellent pictures show us why. I've got the 3.5 which I like a lot, maybe there's not much difference? _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Antoine
Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2017 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Antoine wrote:
Actually, there are 2 different 200mm f 4: one heavy rokkor 520 g (the 2.8 is 700 g) and one lighter (MD II rokkorand MD) which is only 400g and shorter.
I wonder which one was used for by aeropic. _________________ Antoine
Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii
Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l
100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4)
Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii
Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye
Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aeropic
Joined: 24 Jul 2015 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Tue May 30, 2017 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
aeropic wrote:
@Antoine : My MD ROKKOR 200 f/4 is the big one. It weights 600g including the sony adaptor.
@Lloydy : I had a look to your gallery. You do marvels with the 58 f/1.4 .... I like the Austin 7 special. Those Minolta lens are great when in good hands
@both: thanks for your kind words _________________ Sony a6000
- rollei planar 50 1.8
- rolleinar 35 2.8, 105 2.8
- Chinon 50 1.7
- yashica 135 2.8
- Minolta rokkor MC 58 1.4, MD 200 4, MD 50 1.7
- HELIOS 44-2, 44-3, 44M, 44M4
- industar 22
- Jupiter 8
- Konica Hexanon AR 50 1.7 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4080 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:39 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
kyrcy wrote: |
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep? |
During the past years, i have tested (and to some extent also used) about 125 different manual Minolta lenses. In addition i know quite a few lenses from the other "big two" (Canon and Nikon).
Very generally speaking, Minolta MD lenses are optically on par with their Canon and Nikon MF counterparts from the same time. Mechanically, today (after 30-50 years of use) they usually are superior to the CaNikons. There are a few exceptions, notably in the field of apochromatic super-tele lenses - there is simply no Minolta MD 2.8/300, 2.8/400 or 4/600mm, but one can find a Canon/Nikon MF 2.8/300mm, 2.8/400mm or a Nikon 4/600mm.
A few remarks about the Minolta MD zooms:
MD-II 4/24-50mm: very well built, but not as good as the best conteporary primes. MD-III may be better. Two ring zoom, no zoom creep.
MD-III 3.5/24-35mm: very sophisticated construction, small, lightweight, similar performance as the above 4/24-35mm. Two ring zoom, no zoom creep. Personally, I prefer the larger nFD 3.5/20-35mm L.
MD-II 3.5/35-70mm: quite OK, but not very good - neither corner resolution nor distortion are really convincing (several samples tested)
MD-III 3.5/35-70mm and MD-III 3.5/35-70mm Macro: visibly better than the previous MD-II version. Good corner resolution. Clearly better than the Nikkor 43-86mm, but clearly inferior to the class-leading Nikkor 3.5/35-70mm [62mm Filter].
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/28-85mm: relatively new design with aspherical lenses. Wide open strong vignetting, otherwise excellent lens for its time. No zoom creep.
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.8/28-70mm: late MD budget lens, excellent build quality, very good overall detail resolution, relatively high distortion. No zoom creep.
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-135mm : not as common as the MD 35-105mm lenses, with similar performance. Very good for its time.
Minolta MD 4.5/80-200mm: early construction (1973) with lower performance than the later 4.5/75-200mm and 4/70-210mm. The Nikkor AiS (!) 4.5/80-200mm is better.
Minolta MD 4.5/75-200mm: visibly better than 4.5/80-200mm, but often oily / sticky aperture.
Minolta MD 4/70-210mm: faster and better design with less lenses (12 instead of 15), computed in cooperation with Leitz. Very good lens for its time. Similar overall performance as the AiS Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm. The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L has visibly crisper color rendition, however!
Minolta MD 5.6/100-300mm: low contrast and mushy colors at f5.6 and f8, images don't have the classical Minolta look. I suspect it to be a third party computation. No recommended.
If you have particular questions about other MD lenses i'll try to answer them. Quite a lot of information can be found also on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/slrs
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
aeropic
Joined: 24 Jul 2015 Posts: 34
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 5:39 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
aeropic wrote:
Hi Stephan, very very interesting website you get! Thanks for the link
I could not resist to have a look to the MD 200 f/4 and I'm very happy with what I read :
" At least the first invoice (delivered as MC and as MD) can be convincing at 16MP APS-C as well as at 24MP and 36 MP full format: The performance of the lens is close to the legendary Minolta AF 2.8 / 200mm APO G. Fading increases The detail resolution is no longer worth mentioning, only the microcontrast in the slabs is slightly better at f5.6. Even at f11, the performance decreases slightly again. This makes the 4/200 mm in the focal length range between 135 mm and 300 mm the best Minolta lens in the SR system.
I love this lens even more
_________________ Sony a6000
- rollei planar 50 1.8
- rolleinar 35 2.8, 105 2.8
- Chinon 50 1.7
- yashica 135 2.8
- Minolta rokkor MC 58 1.4, MD 200 4, MD 50 1.7
- HELIOS 44-2, 44-3, 44M, 44M4
- industar 22
- Jupiter 8
- Konica Hexanon AR 50 1.7
Last edited by aeropic on Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
woodrim
Joined: 14 Jan 2010 Posts: 4060 Location: Charleston
|
Posted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:21 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
woodrim wrote:
stevemark wrote: |
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.
Stephan |
Stephan: The Monolta AF 35-105 also has two versions with the first of the two being the better. Do you know how they relate to the MF versions? _________________ Regards,
Woodrim |
|
Back to top |
|
|
sergun
Joined: 01 Jun 2017 Posts: 291 Location: наша раша
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:53 am Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
sergun wrote:
[quote="stevemark"]
kyrcy wrote: |
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep. |
I do not understand. Better than the first version or the second ? My examples with 35-70 macro , 75-150mm and 28mm.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Paulius
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 327 Location: Connecticut
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paulius wrote:
Thank you Stephan!
As I understood, two lenses, MD 35-70 f3,5 Macro and MD 70-210 f4, are definitely designed with Leitz cooperation using computer.
Both lenses were marketed as "Leica" and "Minolta" for those two brands accordingly. The prices on today second hand market are 10 to 1, for the names only!
I have both 35-70 f3,5 micro and MD 70-210 f4, the first one is a lens for everyday use on Sony A7R II and very often only lens I taking with me for all occasions.
Are there any more Leica/Minolta glass around? At the topic "Leica/Minolta collaboration" the picture showed Vario Elmar 70-200 f4,5 and it MD variation as a same lens.
Last edited by Paulius on Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
TeemÅ
Joined: 07 Apr 2016 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
TeemÅ wrote:
Paulius wrote: |
Thank you Stephan!
As I understood, two lenses, MD 35-70 f3,5 Macro and MD 70-210 f4, are definitely designed with Leitz cooperation using computer.
Both lenses were marketed as "Leica" and "Minolta" for those two brands accordingly. The prices on today second hand market are 10 to 1, for the names only!
I have both 35-70 f3,5 micro and MD 70-210 f4, the first one is lens for everyday use on Sony A7R II and very often only lens I taking with me for all occasions.
Are there any more Leica/Minolta glass around? At the topic "Leica/Minolta collaboration" the picture showed Vario Elmar 70-200 f4,5 and it MD variation as a same lens. |
The ones I know for sure:
MC-X W.Rokkor-SI 24mm F2.8 and MC-X (I presume) 16mm F2.8 Fisheye, Leitz Telyt-S 800/6.3 for Minolta, Minolta RF 800/8 for Leica, MD 35-70/4 and Leitz Photar 12/1.9 and 25/2.5... http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html
EDIT. More are discussed here before: http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-minolta-collaboration-t63389.html
Last edited by TeemÅ on Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Paulius
Joined: 25 Nov 2014 Posts: 327 Location: Connecticut
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Paulius wrote:
Thanks! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4080 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:23 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
aeropic wrote: |
Hi Stephan, very very interesting website you get! Thanks for the link
I could not resist to have a look to the MD 400 f/2 and I'm very happy with what I read :
" At least the first invoice (delivered as MC and as MD) can be convincing at 16MP APS-C as well as at 24MP and 36 MP full format: The performance of the lens is close to the legendary Minolta AF 2.8 / 200mm APO G. Fading increases The detail resolution is no longer worth mentioning, only the microcontrast in the slabs is slightly better at f5.6. Even at f11, the performance decreases slightly again. This makes the 4/200 mm in the focal length range between 135 mm and 300 mm the best Minolta lens in the SR system.
|
I know i SHOULD try to translate my texts into English ... !! _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4080 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:25 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
woodrim wrote: |
stevemark wrote: |
Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.
Stephan |
Stephan: The Monolta AF 35-105 also has two versions with the first of the two being the better. Do you know how they relate to the MF versions? |
Yep. The second computation of the MD-III 35-105mm is identical to the first (full metal!) version of the Minolta AF 3.5-4.5/35-105mm.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Attila
Joined: 24 Feb 2007 Posts: 57865 Location: Hungary
Expire: 2025-11-18
|
Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Attila wrote:
I rate latest Minolta MD primes to equal or sometimes even better than Carl Zeiss. _________________ -------------------------------
Items on sale on Ebay
Sony NEX-7 Carl Zeiss Planar 85mm f1.4, Minolta MD 35mm f1.8, Konica 135mm f2.5, Minolta MD 50mm f1.2, Minolta MD 250mm f5.6, Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4080 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
Attila wrote: |
I rate latest Minolta MD primes to equal or sometimes even better than Carl Zeiss. |
You're right if
a) the Minolta lens was (at the time!) a new computation and
b) the corresponding Zeiss C/Y lens was an older design
If, however, the Zeiss design is from the same time period (or even newer) than the Minolta MD-III lens, the Zeiss clearly wins.
A few examples (tests on 24MP full frame):
* MD-III 2.8/24mm (1981) vs Zeiss CY 2.8/25mm ("old" Zeiss design from the 1960s): Zeiss has less CA, and more field curvature than the newer Minolta MD-III; overall similar performance
* MD-III 2.8/28mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm: Overall similar performance
* MD-III 1.4/50mm vs Zeiss CY 1.4/50mm: Similar performance; Zeiss may be a trace better
* MD-III 2.8/135mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/135mm: Zeiss is clearly better, especially at f2.8 (better corners, less CAs), even though the Zeiss design is a decade older than the Minolta
* Minolta MD-III 4/70-210mm (1983) vs Zeiss 3.5/70-210mm (1979): Zeiss has less CAs and better corner resolution; the newer Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is even better (the latter was calculated by Kölsch, later responsible at Leica for lenses such as the 2.8/70-180mm APO. Compare the lens sections of the CY 4/80-200mm and the Leica R 2.8/70-180mm ...)
* Minolta MD 2.8/20mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/21mm: The Zeiss is clearly superior
I regularly use the CY PC Distagon 2.8/35mm (Shift lens), but i've never used the corresponding Minolta 2.8/35mm Shift, so i can't comment on them. I have used the Zeiss 2.8/16mm Fisheye, and it performs similarly to the older 2.8716mm Fiseheye from Minolta. Whether it outperforms the newer MD-III 2.8/16mm Fisheye i can't say.
I don't know other Zeiss CY lenses. Maybe someone with more experience than me can write a bit more about them ...? I would, however, not hesitate to assume that CY lenses such as the Distagon 1.4/35mm aspherical, the APO Sonnar 2/200mm or the Apo Tele Tessar 2.8/300 are far superior to the corresponding (slower) Minolta MD-III designs, which i know from my own experience. The same is probably true for the CY 3.4/35-70mm.
Stephan _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|