Minolta MD 50 f2

[walter g]

Minolta MD 50 f2. I just bought one really cheap. I know very little about this lens. I never researched it, because I never planned on owning one. The lens is in excellent shape. Might even be ex. +.
$2.24 for the lens plus shipping. Less than $8 total price.

How good is the plain Jane 50. I'd really like to see a bokeh shot with this lens.
Any reviews good or bad, are welcome.
Thanks Walter

[walter g]

Here is this Ebay pic.Looks like it might have one scratch on the body.
Looks great for the money.
Now I have 3 49mm lenses and only one hood.No lens caps. I really need to buy some of new Minolta repo. caps.

[walter g]

Not a scratch on it. Must have been a hair in the photo. Really haven't found much about this lens on the net. Very, very common lens, but no test results.
I found a couple bokeh shots, but the quality of the shots was not very good.
I will test this lens and post my results.
Here are a couple pics of the lens. I wouls rate it at ex.+.

[revers]

I was thinking I had this lens as well but upon checking it is a Sears 50/2 that I have not played with much at all. I guess why yours looked familiar is because it is much like my Minolta 50/1.4.

[Dr.AK]

Looks like you got that for a real steal. I'm interested to see some photos taken with it - maybe it will be a good lens.

[walter g]

Reviving another old thread. I did post test images in other threads from this lens.
These 3 shots are using the Nikon J1.
First 2 shots are at f2, last shot is at f4.

[kenetik]

Really nice shots, Ed. I have most of the Minolta 50s (I think I have 16 or so Minolta 50/50ish lenses) except the f2. I have thought about buying one to try it, because as you confirmed here, Minolta never made a bad 50mm lens and they all have slightly different character.

Since there is so much talk tonight about Minolta 50s, do you have the 55 1.9? It was the kit lens on the SRTs for only a couple of years in the early 70s, so you see them less, but it's smaller than the 45 f2 and I really enjoy using it.

[walter g]

[VLR]

Older thread, but I recently came across a 50 mm f/2 as MD-III like Walter has got. I'm pretty sure that this is the sharpest 50 mm I own, at least in the center. Stopped down a bit, the corners catch up quickly, too. Contrast is great, micro contrast is awesome, there is little haze wide open and the flare resistance is top notch. Even shot directly into the evening sun, it was hard to provoke any flare at all. I never expected to enjoy this cheap lens so much - it's just extremely straightforward to shoot with


(JPEG, OOC, cropped, resized)

[iangreenhalgh1]

Judging by the samples, I'd say this lens performs every bit as well as the 1.7/50 thus making it a very fine lens indeed.

[Lloydy]

It's a Rokkor....it's gotta be good.

Seriously, every 50ish Rokkor I have is excellent. I guess this one doesn't get the popular vote because it's slower - and the faster lenses are still available at a decent price.
I wouldn't hesitate to get one of these.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I agree Dave. I love the 1.7/50 and 2/45 and have become very impressed with the 1.4/50 I bought a few weeks ago.

[TrueLoveOne]

From the moment i got a Rokkor lens on the NEX3 years ago i was fascinated by them. They even got me shooting film again!
By now i have more than 30 different Minolta SR mount lenses, one of which is this 2/50.

Somehow it's an underdog, nobody seems to be interested in these cheap kitlenses. Even i have never used mine.....

It deserves better i think, it shows right here why! I need to use it and post some samples here!

[walter g]

[tb_a]

Interestingly among all my several Minolta fifties there is not even one 50/2. I just checked my inventory....
Only different MC and MD versions from F1.2 up to F1.7 and the MD 45/2.
Obviously I've also underrated this lens by far.
However, the (Rokkor) MD II 45/2 (introduced 1978) was actually the predecessor of the shown (plain) MD III 50/2 (1981). The optical formula is the same (double-Gauss 6/5).
The 45mm lens is even a little bit more compact and seems to have a comparable performance.
Time to test this lens as well.....

[TrueLoveOne]

We have some dull and grey weather, lot's of fog in the morning and evening.... not the most perfect light conditions for a some good shooting but i could not resist and put the 2/50 on the A3000.

These 4 shots are unprocessed, i just put a watermark in them, otherwise straight JPG from the camera.
(full size on Flickr)
The last shot is wide open.

It really is an underestimated lens!

1.
Minolta MD 2/50 by René Maly, on Flickr

2.
Minolta MD 2/50 by René Maly, on Flickr

3.
Minolta MD 2/50 by René Maly, on Flickr

4.
Minolta MD 2/50 test by René Maly, on Flickr

[memetph]

[tb_a]

[memetph]

The Minolta 50 f2 and Rokkor 45 f2 are of course two different lenses.
The 50 f2 is a more homogeneous lens at wide apertures especially wide open. As consequence it is far more usable for composition.
The 45 f2 is weak out of the center at f2.

Minolta 50 f2 at f2 raw out of the camera ( a7)




Minolta 50 f2



Rokkor 45 f2 same conditions

[tb_a]

[peterqd]

My 50/2 came mounted on an XG-M, and I've used it only once - with film. The scanned negs looked washed-out with strange colours,
with the result that I've never even looked at this lens again. Your beautiful shots make me think I've been unfair not to give it a go on
digital.

I also have the 45/2, which I got out of curiosity about the focal length. I don't use that one much either. I'll have to give them both
another go and see what they can produce.

[Attila]

looks nice lens, congrats! I bought also to get hands on experience , but no time yet to try it out.

[TrueLoveOne]

As was still on the A3000 i used it some more, to be honest, i am uite impressed with it's wide open performance!

Here is one more shot at full aperture, f/2 :

[stevemark]

[peterqd]

Thanks for the info. Mine is the MD-III, with the lock on the aperture ring.
Can't say I've noticed distortion on the 1.4 but to tell the truth I don't give my Minolta lenses enough use these days.