Minolta 17mm f4 - anything substatially better ?

[guardian]

Here is an inexpensive copy of a very fine 17mm lens:

Click here to see on Ebay

It is commonplace to see this lens offered much nearer to US$1000. This copy is less expensive than that probably because of the mount, and perhaps because it is not pristine.

There is a whole lot of glass in that lens . . . a whole lot!

[stevemark]

Looking carefully at old "Modern Photography" test (1974) i found that an early version (obviously MC-X) of the MC 4/17mm was said not to have floating focusing, while the newer version (also MC-X!!) was said to have floating focusing:

"Before Minolla redesigned its 17mm lens it did not have the floating-element system, so we were looking for improved corner image quality ..."
And:
"When we included the middle area of the film image we found that the floating-element design indeed represented improvement."

Could that explain some of the discrepancies ...??


Towards the end of the month i will have the opportunity to compare the Tamron 3.5/17mm (51B), the Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm and the Minolta MD-II 4/17mm. Results will be published on artaphot, as usual.

Stephan

[Lloydy]

[tf]

Another Minolta MD 17mm f4 review and test

(https://photolenses.wordpress.com/2017/09/01/minolta-md-17mm-4/)

[stevemark]

[tf]

[stevemark]

[tf]

[Antoine]

Nice site. Hard work!
I suppose you intend to do the whole late (MD) range...
Then, after this, you may put short analysis/comments on strengths and weaknesses.
And why not some conclusions?

[tf]

I'm glad. Thank you

I hope to do all New MD range but it's impossible - a few of lenses too rare to find even the photos of them, some another lenses I can't find for reasonable price (and to be honestly - some lenses I can't afford even if it will be sold after tests).
Now target is - to test all New MD prime lenses which haven't specialization (no tele, macro, fisheye, etc) - it's a real to do. Then will continue to find available special lenses one-by-one, don't know how many years it will take
And you absolutely right about strengths and weaknesses information - I have to do it, just need a more time to finish tests before. But I'am not sure that I can be objective
BTW: I'm impressed with your collection!

[stevemark]

A few more images taken with the MD 4/17mm on the Sony A7II, taken this morning i my home town.
The combination of the A7II with the MD 4/17mm feels quite well balanced. Focusing is precise and quite smooth. The aperture ring, made from metal, moves equally precise (much better to use than the Canon FD or Konica Hexanon AR aperture rings).


First image, taken at sunrise (look at the mountains in the background). While some distortion is present, it is hardly visible.



A few moments later, on the other side of the river, in the old part of the town.



A small square, hidden behind ancient buildings. Taken at f4 (wide open); the vignetting helps to keep the sky coloured (at f11 the sky becomes too bright).




Looking from the old town to the other side of the river. The A7II and the 17mm 1:4 do nicely bridge the contrast between the foreground and the brightly lightened building in the center. Pay attention to the skillful correction of the distortion: is is visible only in the extreme corners (where it usually doesn't disturb at all).




Finally the headquarter of our local state bank - there are lots of straight lines, and now in the upper left corner the distortion becomes obvious!

Apart from the Minolta MC/MD 4/17mm I have been using the Canon FD 4/17mm and the Zeiss CY Distagon 4/18mm. Concerning extreme corners, the Zeiss has a slight advantage (which is gone if you crop the Minolta 17mm images to "18mm"); surprisingly, the Minolta has slightly better contrast and better colors than the Zeiss. The Canon's resolution is nearly identical to the Minolta's; the Canon however has a bit duller colours.

Stephan

[cooltouch]

Thanks for reviving this old thread, Steve. I'd totally forgotten about it, even though I wrote several comments on the first page of posts. I've become intrigued by all the comments and images about the Schneider 0.7x, so I checked into it further -- because I don't own an FF digital yet -- and I like what I found. So I found a new one very reasonably priced on eBay and bought it just now. I plan to try it out on my Canon FD 28mm and 24mm lenses and see how it works with my NEX 7. Hopefully it will do a good job.

Steve, if you ever get the chance to try either the Tokina or Tamron 17mm f/3.5, you might want to give either a try. They're excellent performers and not too expensive on the used market.

[Antoine]

Excellent pictures! Pity this lens is so difficult to find at decent price...

[stevemark]

[stevemark]

[tb_a]

Coming back to the original title of the tread.

Have acquired a Minolta MD 17mm/F4 earlier this year for the use with my Sony A7R II and compared it with my other rectilinear UWA lens, my Voigtlaender 15mm/F4.5 Series 1 in LTM/M39.
Interestingly the very outer corners are much better with the CV 15mm lens, particularly in infinity landscape sceneries. It's almost impossible to get them tack sharp with the Minolta 17mm lens, independently of used aperture.
However, for users of the "normal" A7 with the old style sensor the old CV 15mm lens is not recommendable due to the well known sensor stack issues (color shift).
Anyway, for users of the newer BSI-CMOS sensor A7/A7R cameras the Voigtlaender lens may be a good or the better alternative. The used prices are quite comparable and the much smaller size and weight in combination with the larger field of view of the CV lens are additional benefits.

[hemeterfilms]

Actually since my original post I did find something better - a Rokinon CV14M-NEX 14mm T3.1 for a curiously low price on Amazon Mexico ! it is free of the often quoted problem of decentering, much more contrast and colour saturation too.

[stevemark]

[hemeterfilms]

Well I haven't had that problem but I was aware that QC was a bit of a gamble. As for the distortion, well yes it can be quite noticeable but I use a one - click profile in Lightroom. Overall I still think it is the best value ultra-wide for FF. My Minolta 17mm has been unused since I got the Rokinon so I'm tempted to do a side by side comparison.

[stevemark]

[Antoine]

This thread made me buy a Minolta 17 mm (£230 complete with Hoya filter), getting more expensive everyday with £ rise... It certainly looks good enough with the bonus of legacy lens robust construction. The lens is mint.


If anyone wants to buy my Vivitar (Tokina) 17mm (MD mount, in good shape) be my guest.

[Antoine]

http://allphotolenses.com/public/files/pdfs/da94d8464a5cca54e8107d07920d62fa.pdf

For those who like detail, there are 2 versions of the Minolta 17 mm:
Minolta redesigned the 17 mm to include a floating element that according to modern photography did improve the lens performance especially at short distances.
Quite remarkable at the time when one looks at the findings with almost no coma, lateral CA and distortion.
Confirmed by Steve pictures/findings

[caspert79]

I'm quite happy with my Nikkor 20/2.8, but you have to stop down for good results. I would probably be equally happy with the 20/4, but I happened to find the 2.8 at a good price.

I used to have the CV Ultron 21/1.8, which is quite excellent, but finally sold it because of its substantial weight/ size and the fact that I don't really need speed from an ultrawide.

[D1N0]

http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51B.html The Nikkor is the best option according to The adaptall-2 site (least rectalinear distortion) but Tamron has the best corners if you look at the resolution figures. It has the most evenly distributed sharpness (especially F8/11) from all lenses.

[Antoine]