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 MDIII 2,8/35mm
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:23 pm    Post subject: Minolta MDIII 2,8/35mm Reply with quote
Killer lens. Really sharp even in no contrast situations. See for yourself.

[img]La Défense dans le brouillard | Paris La Défense fog and mist by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Agreed. Very good performer.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 9:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My MD prime's jump from 28 to 45. I can see that 35 joining them. I do like the wide Minolta's, I think they might be some of the sharpest from the major manufacturers.

That's a terrific picture, a great lens in good hands.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 07, 2021 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1
Nice picture!


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
My MD prime's jump from 28 to 45. I can see that 35 joining them. I do like the wide Minolta's, I think they might be some of the sharpest from the major manufacturers.

That's a terrific picture, a great lens in good hands.


Thank you all for the kind words.

28 / 45 / 100 is a nice setup. If you get the 35 you will experiment with 35 / 50 / 100 or 35 / 58 / 135. If you do not start at 28 you can also add a 24 at the low end in that case and I would recommend Sigma Super Wide or Tamron.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice result, but I think ,it has to do with the photographer more than the lens.
How would you compare this 35mm with the MDIII 35-70 zoom ? Thanks


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Very nice result, but I think ,it has to do with the photographer more than the lens.
How would you compare this 35mm with the MDIII 35-70 zoom ? Thanks


Kiddo thank you for your comment.
The photographer did not do much when catching the pic that is quite an ordinary perspective of a well known location.
However I decided to take the gear despite terrible weather and that was the good decision.

The difference is made with good use of a processing software.
Do not think about jpeg for this kind of shot.
I have good memories of my lab days printing in black and white after film processing and that gave me an appreciation of tones I still use today for digital.

But I could not capture or make good use of details that have not been captured by the lens.
So the lens has to do a lot here, used at optimal aperture (f5,6) to maximize contrast in a dull grey day.

The zoom (mkIII macro version) is a very good performer and would have produced quite a similar image.
It would have been very slightly weaker in the corners (not discussing F3,5 performance here) and generated more barrel distortion, easily corrected.
However I have not tried a side by side comparison and there might be more to say.
Note that any weaknesses of the zoom quite disappear if you step to the 40mm focal length (that I like very much) and you are there very very close to a prime result.

I very much like the zoom but tend to favor primes, not much because of inferior quality, but because of weight.
Most of the time I go for a one lens stroll and do not miss much the rest of my gear, just trying to do the best with what I have in my hands.

Cheers.

Last edited by lumens pixel on Wed Dec 08, 2021 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 2:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I go through the same thing with lenses- up to the point of where I quit buying zooms.

I really don't have anything against zooms, and have even taken a few "print worthy" frames with them.
The problem is they fill up the bag rapidly, and yes, they tend to weigh a bit.
I find myself with a bag full of primes from 28-200 f/l, and that's how I do it these days.
Perhaps I would feel slightly different with a smallish twin-ring zoom...
but I'm still not real sure on this yet.

-D.S.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 5:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Very nice result, but I think ,it has to do with the photographer more than the lens.
How would you compare this 35mm with the MDIII 35-70 zoom ? Thanks


Kiddo thank you for your comment.
The photographer did not do much when catching the pic that is quite an ordinary perspective of a well known location.
However I decided to take the gear despite terrible weather and that was the good decision.

The difference is made with good use of a processing software.
Do not think about jpeg for this kind of shot.
I have good memories of my lab days printing in black and white after film processing and that gave me an appreciation of tones I still use today for digital.

But I could not capture or make good use of details that have not been captured by the lens.
So the lens has to do a lot here, used at optimal aperture (f5,6) to maximize contrast in a dull grey day.

The zoom (mkIII macro version) is a very good performer and would have produced quite a similar image.
It would have been very slightly weaker in the corners (not discussing F3,5 performance here) and generated more barrel distortion, easily corrected.
However I have not tried a side by side comparison and there might be more to say.
Note that any weaknesses of the zoom quite disappear if you step to the 40mm focal length (that I like very much) and you are there very very close to a prime result.

I very much like the zoom but tend to favor primes, not much because of inferior quality, but because of weight.
Most of the time I go for a one lens stroll and do not miss much the rest of my gear, just trying to do the best with what I have in my hands.

Cheers.


Yes, I like primes too for that reason. Another plus of prime lenses: the possibility to use the image stabilization of my camera body without too much of a fuzz. And in general larger apertures that allow for added creative possibilities.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you all for the replies. In fact, i basically use primes (my son's happily using the sp60-300 and very few times the 200-500), but I've just read so many good things about this zoom (and the c/y Zeiss), that I'm wondering if I really need it or not. To be honest, I'm using more 24-28mm and pass to 50mm , but it's true that sometimes , a good zoom would be a help.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 08, 2021 7:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The MDIII 35/2,8 is a great little lens, as we can see looking at the pic posted.

I have a poor looking one. But the images made with it are very good ones.

I should like to use it with the 58/1 2 for b&w images or with the MC 100/2 for colour portraits.the MC 100/2 is another mágical lens to me


PostPosted: Sat Dec 11, 2021 2:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:

Yes, I like primes too for that reason. Another plus of prime lenses: the possibility to use the image stabilization of my camera body without too much of a fuzz. And in general larger apertures that allow for added creative possibilities.


For me the lack of a depth-of-field scale and short focus throw on most zooms is why I usually go with my primes, esp. at the wide-angle end.

Fortunately a handful of push-pull style tele zooms do have a usable / effective DOF scale with decent focus throw, which is one reason I often end up with two wide-angle primes (20mm & 35mm) and one MDIII 75-150 f/4 zoom in my bag...

And the MDIII 35mm f/2.8 is a very capable wide-angle indeed. Minolta made very few lemons Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1