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 35-105 F3,5/4,5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:15 am    Post subject: Minolta MD 35-105 F3,5/4,5 Reply with quote
Not much about this zoom I rarely use because of monstrous 1,5 m minimum focus distance.

But I like to use a lens out of its comfort zone.

Zoom engaged in macro works at 70mm focal length. Thanks to extension tube.

[img][/url]Champignons d'automne | Mushroom time by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 5:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The lens has a macro feature built in - the first production variant even over the whole focal range.

So photographing something nearer than 1,5m is not really "out of the comfort zone"...

And the quality of your photo (at least how you processed it) is... how should I say it... if it were taken with some crummy $5 lens it most probably wouldn't be worse...


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 11:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
hasenbein wrote:
The lens has a macro feature built in - the first production variant even over the whole focal range.

So photographing something nearer than 1,5m is not really "out of the comfort zone"...

And the quality of your photo (at least how you processed it) is... how should I say it... if it were taken with some crummy $5 lens it most probably wouldn't be worse...


Yes it does have a macro mode. But this is a magnification far superior to what is allowed by the macro mode at 105mm (version 2), just a few centimetres from the front lens.

To reach this magnification with an extension tube you preferably use something else than the longest focal length, since the longest the focal the longest the extension tube. Not even considering the difference in framing.

I was amazed by the crispness, even in the corners, considering this is a zoom with floating elements that could had heavily suffered from changing registration distance. Not the case.

I am of course frustrated you disliked the processing. I have to live with that.

This is a crop (100%) not to the level of what I see in my raw processing program:

[img][/img]


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
What is the rendering for general use?
Similar to the 35-70/3,5 ?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 1:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
What is the rendering for general use?
Similar to the 35-70/3,5 ?


Quite good. I find sharpness amazing at longer zoom range. Not saying it is bad near 35 but there is more field curvature than for the 35-70. If this is not a problem for your subject or if you can use it to your benefit (outbound curvature) it is really good.

The main issue is the minimum focusing distance.

I have bought a fotodiox pro dlx adapter with an helicoid. Nicely crafted but a hair too long so I lost perfect crispness at infinity. I sent them a message and they courteously proposed to either refund or send another copy they have checked for registration. I am waiting for the replacement adapter and hope it will be fine. If that was the case it would permit a general use of the 35 105.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 2:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
papasito wrote:
What is the rendering for general use?
Similar to the 35-70/3,5 ?


Quite good. I find sharpness amazing at longer zoom range. Not saying it is bad near 35 but there is more field curvature than for the 35-70. If this is not a problem for your subject or if you can use it to your benefit (outbound curvature) it is really good.

The main issue is the minimum focusing distance.

I have bought a fotodiox pro dlx adapter with an helicoid. Nicely crafted but a hair too long so I lost perfect crispness at infinity. I sent them a message and they courteously proposed to either refund or send another copy they have checked for registration. I am waiting for the replacement adapter and hope it will be fine. If that was the case it would permit a general use of the 35 105.


Thank you Lumens, very informative and useful.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I feel bad I have hurt the eyes of our fellow Hasenbein.

So this is a more classical use of this lens. I have nevertheless used the helicoid since the column is less than 1,5 meters from the focal plane.

[img][/url]Caresse lumineuse | The stroke of light by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Nov 29, 2020 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And a 100% crop:

[img][/url]DSC00216_1crop by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 9:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Is that pincushion distortion?


PostPosted: Mon Nov 30, 2020 11:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are two different optical computations of the MD 3.5-4.5/35-105mm. The earlier one obviously has strong similarities with the Tokina 35-105mm, the later version seems to be a genuine Minolta computation.

See here for identification of your lens:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/189-minolta-35-105mm-f35-45

And here's a comparison of ten (2Cool 35-xx zooms @ 35mm, both wide open and at f8:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/528-midrange-zooms-at-f-35mm

These are 100% crops from the corner of 24MP FF images, as usual.

Some more on 35-70mm lenses here:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/451-35-70mm-zooms

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 12:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
There are two different optical computations of the MD 3.5-4.5/35-105mm. The earlier one obviously has strong similarities with the Tokina 35-105mm, the later version seems to be a genuine Minolta computation.

See here for identification of your lens:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/189-minolta-35-105mm-f35-45

And here's a comparison of ten (2Cool 35-xx zooms @ 35mm, both wide open and at f8:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/528-midrange-zooms-at-f-35mm

These are 100% crops from the corner of 24MP FF images, as usual.

Some more on 35-70mm lenses here:
http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/451-35-70mm-zooms

S


Very interesting as always. Thanks.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I got one of these zooms just yesterday, I bought a big kit of Minolta with a X-500 camera and this was one of the six lenses. I literally dashed out in the rain just to get a couple of shots with each lens on my Sony A7II, and this lens impressed me straight away, I'm going to be using this a lot. ( along with the Rokkor 300 / 5.6 which was the lens I was after Wink )





PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 7:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I wonder how this lens compares to the 28-85mm?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
uddhava wrote:
I wonder how this lens compares to the 28-85mm?


I have compared both lenses in their AF versions (same optical formula as their MF counterparts) ten years ago when I wrote the A900 book. The 28-85mm obviously has some problems at f=28mm (mainly strong vignetting), but otherwise both lenses perform surprisingly well, especially compared to other legacy MF zooms. One certainly can use both of them for excellent landscape images. I my Sony Full Frame book I have printed a large image (32 x 48 cm / 12.5 x 19 inch) taken with the 28-85mm at 28mm / f11, and it is perfectly sharp even in the extreme corners. And yes, that's the weak end of the lens ... and the MD 35-105 (II) certainly isn't worse.

Of course, wide open at f=28mm it's another thing.

S


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"][quote="uddhava"]I wonder how this lens compares to the 28-85mm?[/quote]

I have compared both lenses in their AF versions (same optical formula as their MF counterparts) ten years ago when I wrote the A900 book. The 28-85mm obviously has some problems at f=28mm (mainly strong vignetting), but otherwise both lenses perform surprisingly well, especially compared to other legacy MF zooms. One certainly can use both of them for [i]excellent [/i]landscape images. I my Sony Full Frame book I have printed a large image (32 x 48 cm / 12.5 x 19 inch) taken with the 28-85mm at 28mm / f11, and it is [i]perfectly [/i]sharp even in the extreme corners. And yes, that's the weak end of the lens ... and the MD 35-105 (II) certainly isn't worse.

Of course, wide open at f=28mm it's another thing.

S[/quote]

Thanks for the information.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 01, 2020 10:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
uddhava wrote:
I wonder how this lens compares to the 28-85mm?


I have compared both lenses in their AF versions (same optical formula as their MF counterparts) ten years ago when I wrote the A900 book. The 28-85mm obviously has some problems at f=28mm (mainly strong vignetting), but otherwise both lenses perform surprisingly well, especially compared to other legacy MF zooms. One certainly can use both of them for excellent landscape images. I my Sony Full Frame book I have printed a large image (32 x 48 cm / 12.5 x 19 inch) taken with the 28-85mm at 28mm / f11, and it is perfectly sharp even in the extreme corners. And yes, that's the weak end of the lens ... and the MD 35-105 (II) certainly isn't worse.

Of course, wide open at f=28mm it's another thing.

S


That's interesting to read. I had two copies of the 28-85 and while they could deliver supreme sharpness in the center none was capable of sharp corners for landscape use. I write for landscapes because of the strong field curvature. You could have very sharp corners focusing on them but on a flat subject or a landscape I did not reached this result.

What you write makes me want to try a third copy since I would really be happy to benefit from this focal range with such good results.

The Tamron 27A I use has less saturated colours but is very sharp if not supremely sharp like the Minolta can be but the field is much flatter which makes it a better landscape lens to my eyes.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

That's interesting to read. I had two copies of the 28-85 and while they could deliver supreme sharpness in the center none was capable of sharp corners for landscape use. I write for landscapes because of the strong field curvature. You could have very sharp corners focusing on them but on a flat subject or a landscape I did not reached this result.


To be honest, I haven't been using the MD/AF 28-85mm too much for "real world photoraphy". However, I just have checked again said image publlished in the A900 book (page 48/49 here in this PDF: http://artaphot.ch/images/PDFs/AlphaSystemBuch_I/Sony_Alpha_Vollformat-System_48-75_72dpi.pdf), and it's is perfectly sharp even in the corners of the 32 x 48cm print. I'll get the original image tomorrow to see how the RAW is looking. In addition I probably have more than one AF 28-85 here, to check the sample variation. Since I had checked seven MinAF 28-135mm back in 2010 (a very complicated construction, optically as well as mechanically), and found no sample variation on 24MP FF, I never bothered to check other MinAF lenses.

To be clear: the 28-85 is far from perfect wide open, but very useable for landscape at f11 (and partly already at fCool.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1