View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 11:15 am Post subject: Minolta MD 35-70 3,5 Macro |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
There is a consensus about the quality of this lens. Nevertheless I am still surprised how good it can be.
#1
_________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3461 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 3:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
Beautiful result. I don't often use zooms but this one is an exception as well as the Minolta MD 70-210mm f4. _________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
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. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jamaeolus
Joined: 19 Mar 2014 Posts: 2913 Location: Eugene
Expire: 2015-08-20
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jamaeolus wrote:
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. _________________ photos are moments frozen in time |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
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. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7775 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
I have both the manual and AF versions, it's a remarkable lens. I shall have to compare them sometime. _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I just bought one, inspired by this post. 😊 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 4:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Sorry for the expense.
Hope you will like it. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
e6filmuser
Joined: 12 Nov 2010 Posts: 488 Location: Reading UK
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 11:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
e6filmuser wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
I just bought one, inspired by this post. 😊 |
Me too! A mint copy. _________________ Dedicated to using manual focus lenses with digital. Equiped for photography from macro to panoramic & from ultra-wide to extreme telephoto. Mostly shooting outdoor macro. Experienced entomological taxonomist. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2901 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7775 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Fri Oct 09, 2020 9:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
It looks like I have two of each - MF and AF, and a non Macro They're great lenses, but one of each is probably enough..... _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla
Joined: 30 Nov 2016 Posts: 378
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 9:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ernst Dinkla wrote:
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 _________________ Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hasenbein
Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93
|
Posted: Sat Oct 10, 2020 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
hasenbein wrote:
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... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Oct 11, 2020 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
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. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
hasenbein
Joined: 15 May 2020 Posts: 93
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 4:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 19, 2020 8:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
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. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Good lens.
[/url]Le port de Tyr | Liban by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img] _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013 Posts: 700 Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 4:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
55 wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
Good lens.
|
And good photographer. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
papasito
Joined: 09 Jan 2015 Posts: 1658
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
papasito wrote:
What about the MD 24/50? Same IQ than the 35/70? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3748 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Sun Nov 08, 2020 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
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 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Alsatian2017
Joined: 05 Mar 2018 Posts: 237
|
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2020 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Alsatian2017 wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|