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

A hello and a 35mm maybe?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:27 pm    Post subject: A hello and a 35mm maybe? Reply with quote

The past couple of months I've been reading endlessly about manual focus lenses. I've only recently bought a Sony A6000 and based on the posts here and other sites I've bought the following

Konica Hexanon 28mm f3.5
Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.4
Helios 44-4 55mm f2.8
Meyer Optik Orestor 100mm f2.8

The choices were limited by the money I could spend and availability. Now, I've had a fun time shooting with the Zuiko 50mm f1.4 and I am eagerly awaiting for the other three to reach my doorstep.

I was looking for a 35mm lens and before asking for recommendations, I wanted to know that on an APSC sensor does it really offer anything different over a 28mm or 50mm?

If yes, then which one of these would be the best?

1. Nikon 35mm f2.8 AIS
2. Canon FD 35mm f2.8
3. Konica Hexanon 35mm f2.8
4. Minolta MD 35mm f2.8

Or perhaps something other than these 4.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Welcome to the forum.

Out of the 4 lenses you are considering I had 2, the Minolta and the Nikon one. I gave away the Nikon lens to a friend because the Minolta lens was IMHO the better one. I cannot say anything about Konica and Canon.
However, out of my remaining 9 lenses in 35mm the Minolta MD 35mm/F2.8 version II (5l/5g) is clearly the winner. Especially if you consider the price/quality relationship.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you are considering a Minolta 35mm, I would just skip the prime and get the fantastic MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (with the macro). It's a stellar, prime-like sharpness performer in a lovely zoom.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think on an APSC, the gain from a 35mm vs a 28 isn't really worth it. Especially if you also have a 50mm already. The 28 gives you a 42mm equivalent and the 50 a 75. Normally you wouldn't buy an in between lens if you have those.

The Minolta MD zoom 35-70mm however, is a good suggestion and would also work well if you changed to an A7 series camera later.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have none of the 35mm lenses you mention, but I will agree with devinw that the Minolta 35-70 / 3.5 Macro is so good that you will hardly need to bother with a 35mm prime lens.

But...I adore my 35 / 2.4 Zeiss Flektogon, it's a lens I'd save if the house caught fire. How about the Russian Jupiter 12 35 / 2.8 ? it's a great lens, but not compatible with all modern digital cameras. My other 35's are mainly other third party lenses, and there are so many different lenses, even from the same brands such as Soligor or Vivitar, that it's impossible to say what is good, bad or just average. But I'm sure members that have good 35's will let us know about them.


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had most of these, and I think the differences aren't that great, it is more of a question of personal preference, they are all very good.

I have the MD 35/2.8 last version, and it is slightly sharper than the others, also very small and light because it uses a bit more plastic but the focusing is Leica-like buttery smooth. Quite rare nowadays, so worth getting if you can, the others are much more common.

Using a prime is not nearly the same as a zoom lens so yes it is definitely worth buying and maybe later on selling, if it turns out to be a focal length that you don't get with.

Nowadays I use 28mm or 35mm on FF way more often (that is 19mm/24mm on APS-C) but looking back at older photos, I am still drawn to the 35mm on APS-C (50mm) as well Smile


PostPosted: Wed Feb 15, 2017 10:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you decide that a 35mm prime is what you want the Minolta Rokkor 2.8/35 is a fine choice.

If you decide to go for a Minolta Rokkor 35-70 zoom be careful. There were three variants produced. The first was nowhere near as good as the other two.

The best was the third, which added a macro capability at the 70mm end. Not a great macro actually but functional. The second version didn't have the macro function, and can be distinguished from the first by the lens labeling. The first version was labeled on a standard name ring while the second and third versions were labeled on the outside of the lens, around the filter ring.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:

If you decide to go for a Minolta Rokkor 35-70 zoom be careful. There were three variants produced. The first was nowhere near as good as the other two.

The best was the third, which added a macro capability at the 70mm end. Not a great macro actually but functional. The second version didn't have the macro function, and can be distinguished from the first by the lens labeling. The first version was labeled on a standard name ring while the second and third versions were labeled on the outside of the lens, around the filter ring.


Absolutely! Some of the other variants are quite terrible actually!


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Vivitar 35mm f1.9 and Tamron 01a 35-80mm are my 2 favourites....CLICK for large.Both with Vivitar




PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

kryss wrote:
The Vivitar 35mm f1.9 and Tamron 01a 35-80mm are my 2 favourites....CLICK for large.Both with Vivitar



second picture Like 1


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Regarding the choice between Minolta MD 35mm/2.8 and Minolta MD Zoom 35-70/3.5 macro, there are a few things to be said. As has been mentioned, the zoom is a very good lens but be sure to get the right variant (the third version with macro and f/3.5).

Then comparing the prime and the zoom there are important differences:

1. The zoom is slower by almost a stop. Might be important to you or not.

2. The minimum focus distance of the zoom is 80cm with a pseudo macro option at 70mm which is useful but not nearly the same as being able to focus closer all the time. The prime focuses down to 30cm if I remember correctly.

3. Size and weight difference is enormous, especially when you put these lenses on a small camera. The zoom will be like a giant weight hanging off the front of the camera. The prime on the other hand is very small and light.

4. The prime has 6 blades in the iris, the zoom has 7. The difference is in bokeh when closed down a bit and in the sunstars. The zoom is actually better here. Bokeh at f/5.6 of f/8 is not that much different (although 7 is IMHO better than 6) but if you do night photography at f/8-f/11 with sunstars at points of light, the zoom will give you 14 pointed stars and the prime will give you 6 pointed stars. It's a subjective thing but 14 looks better than 6 to me.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did not test that many MF 2.8/35mm lenses (apart from Minolta), and i have tested them usually on 24 MP FF.

1) Elicar 2.8/35mm
2) Konica Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm (metal focusing grip)
3) Minolta Auto Rokkor 2.8/35mm [7/6]
4) Minolta MC-I, MC-II and MC-X Rokkor 2.8/35mm [7/6] (new computation)
5) Minolta MC-X and MD-I 2.8/35mm [5/5]
6) Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm [5/5]
7) Yashica ML 2.8/35mm

* Forget about the Elicar (1), it is really bad.
* The Hexanon (2) is on a similar level as the early Rokkors (3, 4) - OK but not very good
* Both the Yashica ML as well as the Minolta [5/5] lenses (5, 6, 7) are excellent

I don't have any personal experience with the AiS Nikkor 2.8/35mm and the Canon nFD 2.8/35mm; at least the Canon has an excellent reputation as well.

I have compared the MD-III 2.8/35mm with the much more expensive Sony Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/35mm and the Leica M 2/35mm ASPH using the 42MP Sony A7RII Camera - you may judge yourself:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/434-sony-a7rii-and-summilux-1-4-35mm-asph-sony-zeiss-fe-2-8-35mm-and-minolta-md-2-8-35mm

Stephan


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 9:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I realise that you already have a 28mm lens and if you are comfortable with it in use, then maybe you will not need a 35mm lens.
However, in my experience a 35mm lens is far more useful than a 28mm - but maybe this is just me and my way of taking pictures speaking!
In any case, I find that I like using the 35mm lenses on APS-C much more than I like to use 28mm lenses.
If you are prepared to consider some other alternatives, then here are some that I have kept after using a large number of others besides.

Yashinon-DX 35mm f2.8
MIR-1 37mm f2.8
Canon FL 35mm f2.5
Meyer Primagon 35mm f4.5
Nikkor-S 35mm f2.8
Super-Takumar 35mm f2

T


PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Regarding the choice between Minolta MD 35mm/2.8 and Minolta MD Zoom 35-70/3.5 macro, there are a few things to be said. As has been mentioned, the zoom is a very good lens but be sure to get the right variant (the third version with macro and f/3.5).

Then comparing the prime and the zoom there are important differences:

1. The zoom is slower by almost a stop. Might be important to you or not.

2. The minimum focus distance of the zoom is 80cm with a pseudo macro option at 70mm which is useful but not nearly the same as being able to focus closer all the time. The prime focuses down to 30cm if I remember correctly.

3. Size and weight difference is enormous, especially when you put these lenses on a small camera. The zoom will be like a giant weight hanging off the front of the camera. The prime on the other hand is very small and light.

4. The prime has 6 blades in the iris, the zoom has 7. The difference is in bokeh when closed down a bit and in the sunstars. The zoom is actually better here. Bokeh at f/5.6 of f/8 is not that much different (although 7 is IMHO better than 6) but if you do night photography at f/8-f/11 with sunstars at points of light, the zoom will give you 14 pointed stars and the prime will give you 6 pointed stars. It's a subjective thing but 14 looks better than 6 to me.


All great points!

Like 1 small


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 1:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

On APS-C 35mm is "normal" lens. Another to consider is the Konica 40mm 1.8. A very good lens and quite inexpensive. It would be just at the wide end of normal comparative 60mm. Also the Pentacon 30mm 3.5 would be an option being a nominal 45mm and also quite good and inexpensive.

Future FL recommendations on a IQ/dollar basis IMHO. Asahi pentax S-M-C 135mm 3.5, and their 200mm f4. BOth are ridiculously low piced and excellent performers.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 6:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the 35mm f/2.0 Mir 24(N, or H in russian), made by Arsat. Has the advantage of a stop more light than its 37mm f/2.8 Mir 1(B, or V) brother, and a mfd of 24 cm instead of 70cm.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newst wrote:
...
If you decide to go for a Minolta Rokkor 35-70 zoom be careful. There were three variants produced. The first was nowhere near as good as the other two.


I don't know. I wouldn't get the first one, as it is definitely (slightly) worse. But in my tests, there wasn't that much of a difference. Maybe the problem is worse at infinity, though. Anyway - you can get all of them pretty cheap, so it's wise to spend the equivalent of three coffees more on the better lens.

newst wrote:
The best was the third, which added a macro capability at the 70mm end. Not a great macro actually but functional. The second version didn't have the macro function, and can be distinguished from the first by the lens labeling. The first version was labeled on a standard name ring while the second and third versions were labeled on the outside of the lens, around the filter ring.


I think you've got that mixed up: The later two variants (MD-III) are labeled on a ring around the filter ring, which is visible from the front. The first variant (MD-II) is labeled on the outside of the lens body near the front and the label can only be read from the side.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are only two zooms that I ever use, and one of them even less than the other. The Minolta AF 35-105 (older one) I find very good and use it when I know convenience and AF will be useful, basically once a year. Other than that, I've stayed away from zooms in favor of all prime since the mid 1970s.

35mm is a focal length I much preferred over 28mm in the film days when I was using full frame. I thought the image had a more "normal" look to it versus the distortion from the 28mm. Today I use APS-C and appreciate both focal lengths, but 35mm gives a field of view closer to the FF 50mm norm.

While I don't have many 35mm lenses, I can say that I have no complaints with the Topcor I have. I also acquired an old Nikkor last year and have only used it once, so don't have a judgment yet. My others are the old Soligor from those film days, which doesn't get used, and a 2.4 Flek. I'm actually surprised both Fleks weren't included in this discussion. If they were, then I'm sorry for missing it.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="bobcominitaly"]A lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the 35mm f/2.0 Mir 24(N, or H in russian), made by Arsat. Has the advantage of a stop more light than its 37mm f/2.8 Mir 1(B, or V) brother, and a mfd of 24 cm instead of 70cm.[/quote]

Its the first time I'm hearing of it . How does it fare against the more famous Japanese stalwarts ?


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="stevemark"]I did not test that many MF 2.8/35mm lenses (apart from Minolta), and i have tested them usually on 24 MP FF.

1) Elicar 2.8/35mm
2) Konica Hexanon AR 2.8/35mm (metal focusing grip)
3) Minolta Auto Rokkor 2.8/35mm [7/6]
4) Minolta MC-I, MC-II and MC-X Rokkor 2.8/35mm [7/6] (new computation)
5) Minolta MC-X and MD-I 2.8/35mm [5/5]
6) Minolta MD-III 2.8/35mm [5/5]
7) Yashica ML 2.8/35mm

* Forget about the Elicar (1), it is really bad.
* The Hexanon (2) is on a similar level as the early Rokkors (3, 4) - OK but not very good
* Both the Yashica ML as well as the Minolta [5/5] lenses (5, 6, 7) are excellent

I don't have any personal experience with the AiS Nikkor 2.8/35mm and the Canon nFD 2.8/35mm; at least the Canon has an excellent reputation as well.

I have compared the MD-III 2.8/35mm with the much more expensive Sony Zeiss Sonnar 2.8/35mm and the Leica M 2/35mm ASPH using the 42MP Sony A7RII Camera - you may judge yourself:
[url]http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche/434-sony-a7rii-and-summilux-1-4-35mm-asph-sony-zeiss-fe-2-8-35mm-and-minolta-md-2-8-35mm[/url]

Stephan[/quote]

I dont see any listing on eBay for the Yashica. Even the later version minoltas are rare but they do keep popping every now and then. I hope find a listing thats not to expensive.

Most comments seem to favour the Minolta (zoom and prime), and your review certainly does sing praises of it. Seems like it is the 35mm prime to buy.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think i have a Nikkor-O C 35mm f2. Havent used it much, but heard it was good.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I started with a NEX 6 (APS-C) and used mainly a 50mm. Rarely used 28mm, but would be my next pick if going wider. Never really had the need for 35mm.

However, my most used 35mm on the NEX 6 was the Fujian 35mm 1.7 because it gives caracter no other lens give so it was worth using and fun.

Is there an equivalent on FF since thats what i use now.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 12:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've got three different Soligor 35's - the good, the bad, the ugly! There's a lot of Soligors out there and a massive difference between different manufacturers.

The Flektogon is excellent, and the MIR.1B. is a close contender. I just reach for the Flektogon or the Minolta 35-70 / 3.5 Macro, I know I'll get good images from either of them.


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

woodrim wrote:
There are only two zooms that I ever use, and one of them even less than the other. The Minolta AF 35-105 (older one) I find very good and use it when I know convenience and AF will be useful, basically once a year. Other than that, I've stayed away from zooms in favor of all prime since the mid 1970s.

35mm is a focal length I much preferred over 28mm in the film days when I was using full frame. I thought the image had a more "normal" look to it versus the distortion from the 28mm. Today I use APS-C and appreciate both focal lengths, but 35mm gives a field of view closer to the FF 50mm norm.

While I don't have many 35mm lenses, I can say that I have no complaints with the Topcor I have. I also acquired an old Nikkor last year and have only used it once, so don't have a judgment yet. My others are the old Soligor from those film days, which doesn't get used, and a 2.4 Flek. I'm actually surprised both Fleks weren't included in this discussion. If they were, then I'm sorry for missing it.


Yes, thanks for the reminder Michael.
An excellent lens.
Getting a little on the expensive side these days though.
T


PostPosted: Sat Feb 18, 2017 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

tripside wrote:
bobcominitaly wrote:
A lens I haven't seen mentioned yet is the 35mm f/2.0 Mir 24(N, or H in russian), made by Arsat. Has the advantage of a stop more light than its 37mm f/2.8 Mir 1(B, or V) brother, and a mfd of 24 cm instead of 70cm.


Its the first time I'm hearing of it . How does it fare against the more famous Japanese stalwarts ?


Haven't got that much experience with the Japanese - my only other 35mm is included in the Minolta 35-70mm 3.5, which I have been trying to repair (I'm afraid there is still a tiny screw loose in its innards, but it functions well).

Here are some examples from the Mir 24H, on crop and full frame. Don't remember the aperture settings any more, but it must have been somewhere around or below 5.6, judging from the dof.

#1 On crop: Fuji X-E1


#2 On full frame, Sony A7


#3 Ditto

[/img]