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 35-70 3,5 Macro
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:15 am    Post subject: Minolta MD 35-70 3,5 Macro Reply with quote

There is a consensus about the quality of this lens. Nevertheless I am still surprised how good it can be.


#1


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not too shabby! Quite remarkable for an old zoom lens.

Did you do anything special to post a picture that you can click on to watch it bigger? I always use 1200 as maximum width, but it's sometimes useful to show them in full size.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Beautiful result. I don't often use zooms but this one is an exception as well as the Minolta MD 70-210mm f4.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
Not too shabby! Quite remarkable for an old zoom lens.

Did you do anything special to post a picture that you can click on to watch it bigger? I always use 1200 as maximum width, but it's sometimes useful to show them in full size.


I just used the drag and drop function.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lovely photo. Happenstance lighting or did you arrange it?
Is the MD 35-70 the same, optically as the AF? I keep the AF zoom in my camera bag all the time because it's light, dirt cheap, versatile and optically way better than any 25 dollar zoom should ever be. Oh and it, too, has macro mode.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fully arranged. I consider the Raw file the same way I looked at a negative in the good old days. Jpeg means nothing to me apart from Sony's automatic interpretation of the file. This lens is a different computation than the 35 70 f4 Minolta A mount that I don't have but is supposed to be good.


PostPosted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have both the manual and AF versions, it's a remarkable lens. I shall have to compare them sometime.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just bought one, inspired by this post. 😊


PostPosted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry for the expense.

Hope you will like it.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

caspert79 wrote:
I just bought one, inspired by this post. 😊


Me too! A mint copy.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

e6filmuser wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
I just bought one, inspired by this post. 😊


Me too! A mint copy.


Mine arrived as well, also mint. I like the build quality.


PostPosted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

It looks like I have two of each - MF and AF, and a non Macro Rolling Eyes They're great lenses, but one of each is probably enough.....


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Converted the III Macro version to an EOS mount. Yes, a good lens. At 35mm not as good as my Mamiya Sekor CS 35mm 2.8 though.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/63231666


PostPosted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have it, too.

Really great lens, and the bang for the buck ratio is through the roof.

Unfortunately I also have the Contax-Zeiss 35-70mm f3.4 which is an even greater lens, so the Minolta gathers dust...


PostPosted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I am certain the Zeiss is a good one for having such a strong following.

However one must consider that despite the fact that Minolta's quality control was certainly not the worst there was some discrepancies between copies.

The copy I am using has been picked amongst three the seller owned, and I made him wait and suffer a lot so I could nit pick the best of the three. There were differences between copies but neither of them would have been considered as a bad or faulty one.

So my MD is well worn, has some damages on the coating of the front lens but I will keep it.

I would not be surprised that my copy would be closer to the Zeiss (that I have never tried) than one could imagine because perfect sharpness is perfect sharpness and I do not see how anything could be sharper or have more micro contrast than that.

So maybe it would be worth chasing for a good Minolta copy so you could sell your Zeiss and fund something else with the price difference.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Minolta has its Achilles heel at 35mm where corner sharpness suffers a bit and CA is quite strong.

The Zeiss is significantly better in that regard.

And the Zeiss simply has a different rendering - especially in the highlights: Where the Minolta loses detail in very bright parts of the picture, the Zeiss often retains it. Shoot foliage with both lenses, then you will immediately see the difference.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasenbein wrote:
The Minolta has its Achilles heel at 35mm where corner sharpness suffers a bit and CA is quite strong.

The Zeiss is significantly better in that regard.

And the Zeiss simply has a different rendering - especially in the highlights: Where the Minolta loses detail in very bright parts of the picture, the Zeiss often retains it. Shoot foliage with both lenses, then you will immediately see the difference.


I have the Minolta lens. Your argument is valid. I am interested in the point. Though, there is an insane price difference in these two lenses. Would you be able to provide some visual support, if you have samples available?

Btw, I find the Mintola works well with the Fotasy MD-NEX Focus, which includes the added focus helical to double down on the macro.


PostPosted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasenbein wrote:
The Minolta has its Achilles heel at 35mm where corner sharpness suffers a bit and CA is quite strong.

The Zeiss is significantly better in that regard.

And the Zeiss simply has a different rendering - especially in the highlights: Where the Minolta loses detail in very bright parts of the picture, the Zeiss often retains it. Shoot foliage with both lenses, then you will immediately see the difference.


Could not speak about the Zeiss but I have little to no CA with the Minolta. I have noticed that register of the adapter has tremendous impact on CA. I spent two hours adjusting mine and my reference was Minolta MDIII 24mm 2,8 that has a floating element and which focused at infinity much before the infinity mark on the focus scale. Adjusting the register improved the corners a lot.

This point might be mute for lenses where all the optical block moves as a whole. Register distance is not an issue there. Do not know where the 35 70 falls.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Good lens.

[/url]Le port de Tyr | Liban by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img]


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lumens pixel wrote:
Good lens.


And good photographer.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hasenbein wrote:
The Minolta has its Achilles heel at 35mm where corner sharpness suffers a bit and CA is quite strong.

The Zeiss is significantly better in that regard.

And the Zeiss simply has a different rendering - especially in the highlights: Where the Minolta loses detail in very bright parts of the picture, the Zeiss often retains it. Shoot foliage with both lenses, then you will immediately see the difference.


One shouldn't forget that Minolta made three versions of the MD 35-70 mm f/3,5 and one can't be absolutely sure if the manufacturer did not improve the optical formula without mentioning it. Up to know, I've bought and sold seven samples of the lens in all three versions and I've kept only the best of it, a third iteration lens with the macro setting. Astonishingly, it was the only one with very good sharpness at f = 35 mm and wide open, with just a slight loss of contrast in the far corners of the 24 x 36 mm format (Sony A7R 36 Mpix.). If the Zeiss probably has less spherical aberration which helps to maintain the contrast in the highlights, my MD 35-70 mm sample is good enough that I abandoned the search for a good sample of the nFD 35-70 mm f/4 which might be slightly better around but which suffers from an abysmal mechanical construction.


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about the MD 24/50? Same IQ than the 35/70?


PostPosted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alsatian2017 wrote:

One shouldn't forget that Minolta made three versions of the MD 35-70 mm f/3,5 and one can't be absolutely sure if the manufacturer did not improve the optical formula without mentioning it.

My MD-II is visibly less sharp in the corners than my (many) MD-III 35-70mm. [/quote]

Alsatian2017 wrote:

Up to know, I've bought and sold seven samples of the lens in all three versions and I've kept only the best of it, a third iteration lens with the macro setting. Astonishingly, it was the only one with very good sharpness at f = 35 mm and wide open, with just a slight loss of contrast in the far corners of the 24 x 36 mm format (Sony A7R 36 Mpix.).

Strange. I have ten MD-III 3.5/35-70mm (partly non-macro and partly macro version). I have compared them on 24MP FF - all but one were exactly the same, even when pixel peeping. The one that was not up to the others wasn't really bad, but slightly inferior.

Alsatian2017 wrote:

If the Zeiss probably has less spherical aberration which helps to maintain the contrast in the highlights, my MD 35-70 mm sample is good enough that I abandoned the search for a good sample of the nFD 35-70 mm f/4 which might be slightly better around but which suffers from an abysmal mechanical construction.

The Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm (62mm filter) is my favourite vintage 35-70mm. Much better than the later AF Nikkor 2.8/35-70, and it has no distortion (<1% throughout the entire range). Really remarkable, and quite useful!

S


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevemark wrote:

Strange. I have ten MD-III 3.5/35-70mm (partly non-macro and partly macro version). I have compared them on 24MP FF - all but one were exactly the same, even when pixel peeping. The one that was not up to the others wasn't really bad, but slightly inferior.


Yes, I find it strange as well, but the sample I still have (BTW, I bought it in Switzerland...) is remarkably better than the others I had....

stevemark wrote:

The Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm (62mm filter) is my favourite vintage 35-70mm. Much better than the later AF Nikkor 2.8/35-70, and it has no distortion (<1% throughout the entire range). Really remarkable, and quite useful!

S


I've been looking for a cheap sample of this lens for ages already and I fully believe your evaluation of that lens !

Greetings

Volker


PostPosted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

papasito wrote:
What about the MD 24/50? Same IQ than the 35/70?



Steve did a test already on artaphot.ch. It seems that its IQ is a little lower since compacity was the foremost design goal. On the other hand, the MD 24-50 f/4 might be well the equivalent of the MD 35-70 f/3,5 among the wide-angle zooms. I've found it recently and my first tests seem to agree with the statement above.