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

A summer with one lens: Minolta MD 35-70/3,5
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Oct 20, 2023 11:33 pm    Post subject: A summer with one lens: Minolta MD 35-70/3,5 Reply with quote
I will post in the next days a few pics in this thread, upon editing. Hope you will enjoy them.

This is also a tribute to a fantastic lens.

In some cases, if you click on the Flickr image, you will find under the comment a link to the Prodibi website that will allow 100% pixel peeping.

Mountain panorama by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Last edited by lumens pixel on Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:39 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 12:09 am    Post subject: Re: A summer with one lens: Minolta MD 35-70/3,5 Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

This is also a tribute to a fantastic lens.


Yeah, when I compared the MD-III 3.5/35-70 Macro recently to the Mamyia Sekor E 3.5-4.5/35-70 it was obvious how much better the Minolta is ... very useable on 24 MP FF even at f3.5. Sadly I rarely use the range around 40 ... 45 mm or at 55 ....65 mm, and therefore I usually stick with the 2.8/16-35 & 1.4/50 & 2.8/70-200 combo for "real images". And on the rare occasions when I need that range, I either take the Nikon AiS 3.5/35-70 (no visible distortion over the entire range) or the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm ... But the MD-III 3.5/35-70mm Macro really is a very good lens, especially for its (small) size and constant f3.5 aperture.

S


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:33 am    Post subject: Re: A summer with one lens: Minolta MD 35-70/3,5 Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:

This is also a tribute to a fantastic lens.


Yeah, when I compared the MD-III 3.5/35-70 Macro recently to the Mamyia Sekor E 3.5-4.5/35-70 it was obvious how much better the Minolta is ... very useable on 24 MP FF even at f3.5. Sadly I rarely use the range around 40 ... 45 mm or at 55 ....65 mm, and therefore I usually stick with the 2.8/16-35 & 1.4/50 & 2.8/70-200 combo for "real images". And on the rare occasions when I need that range, I either take the Nikon AiS 3.5/35-70 (no visible distortion over the entire range) or the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm ... But the MD-III 3.5/35-70mm Macro really is a very good lens, especially for its (small) size and constant f3.5 aperture.

S


I find myself taking a lot of pics at the 40 to 45mm focal, hence my pleasure using the MD 45 2,0. But the zoom allows for occasional portraits which is very useful. As you say, the quality is high and modern computations probably do not deliver better quality considering size and weight. I have never tried the Nikon you mention since I am trying to avoid investing in another system.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Three on the top.

Trois au sommet | Three on the top by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Very nice shots, for stitching ,are you using a tripod to do the shots at the same level?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 3:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1

Very nice. Minolta did very very well with their mid range zooms. My favorite "cheap lens" is the 35-70 f4 AF. Can be had for 20 dollars if you are patient. Some of my favorite travel photos have been taken with that lens.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Like 1

Very nice. Minolta did very very well with their mid range zooms. My favorite "cheap lens" is the 35-70 f4 AF. Can be had for 20 dollars if you are patient. Some of my favorite travel photos have been taken with that lens.


Good you mention that one ...! Actually I have been using it occasionally back in the days at the Minolta 9000, mostly with Kodak Technical Pan high-res film (easily can compete with 24 MP FF) and a red filter, for landscape purposes. Very good lens as well (an initially pretty expensive); I should compare it with the said MD-III 3.5/35-70 and Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm.

S


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 4:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
Very nice shots, for stitching ,are you using a tripod to do the shots at the same level?


Thank you Kiddo.

Stitching is handheld. Precision is not critical in the absence of a close foreground. However I do pivot the camera/lens combo on my finger placed just behind the aperture ring. I have determined that with most of my lenses that is close enough to the nodal point of the lens (more complex considering a zoom but that is better approximation than nothing).

It is not so simple to maintain the combo at the same inclination and, when stitching, I loose some of the upper and lower parts of the images. But if you do it carefully that remains acceptable.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
jamaeolus wrote:
Like 1

Very nice. Minolta did very very well with their mid range zooms. My favorite "cheap lens" is the 35-70 f4 AF. Can be had for 20 dollars if you are patient. Some of my favorite travel photos have been taken with that lens.


I do not own that one. I have not invested in the Minolta A lenses and sometimes have second thoughts about it. Prices are very interesting since the system is dead. I guess that with a full manual (including aperture) adapter one could build a very cheap system.

I wonder if manual focusing with the A lenses is acceptable or if the travel of the ring is too short and does not provide for good accuracy. That would go against the purpose.

I could break the bank for a LA-EA3 adapter but would be frustrated if manual focusing with non internal motor AF lenses is bad.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
jamaeolus wrote:
Like 1

Very nice. Minolta did very very well with their mid range zooms. My favorite "cheap lens" is the 35-70 f4 AF. Can be had for 20 dollars if you are patient. Some of my favorite travel photos have been taken with that lens.


Good you mention that one ...! Actually I have been using it occasionally back in the days at the Minolta 9000, mostly with Kodak Technical Pan high-res film (easily can compete with 24 MP FF) and a red filter, for landscape purposes. Very good lens as well (an initially pretty expensive); I should compare it with the said MD-III 3.5/35-70 and Nikkor AiS 3.5/35-70mm.

S


Would read the comparison with great interest.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

I do not own that one. I have not invested in the Minolta A lenses and sometimes have second thoughts about it. Prices are very interesting since the system is dead. I guess that with a full manual (including aperture) adapter one could build a very cheap system.

Minolta AF stuff really is cheap these days. Early A-mount lenses from the "beercan" series usually are made mainly from metal (exceptions are 4/24-50, 4/35-70 and 4.5/100-200). The cheaper primes have some plastics outside (e. g. 2.8/28, 2/35, 1.7/50, 1.4/50, 2.8/135) but still mainly are made of metal. All bayonet mounts are metal.

Otherwise the later G zoom lenses are really nice as well (3.5/17-35 G, 2.8/28-70 G, 2.8/80-200 G). Full metal, heavy, and nearly as good as their Zeiss / Sony G successors.

lumens pixel wrote:
I wonder if manual focusing with the A lenses is acceptable or if the travel of the ring is too short and does not provide for good accuracy. That would go against the purpose.

All "beercan" series of lenses as well as the G zooms mentioned above have their focusing rings directly coupled with the focusing threads - which means that there's no play and woble as with many later AF Nikkors. While those later AF Nikkors (e. g. AF Micro Nikkor 2.8/60mm, AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm and AF Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED) have much broader AF rings than their "beercan-Minolta" counterparts, those Nikkor-rings have lots of play in MF mode which, for me, is an absolute no-go. Be aware that many later Minolta AF lenses have the same problem (AF 2.8/50 Macro II and AF 2.8/100 Macro II ome to my mind, but also Sony Zeiss ZA 1.8/135 ...). I myself have been using the MinAF system for decades, ususally in AF mode, but never had problem with focusing them manually.

HOWEVER - the experience of manually focusing a Minolta MC-X or Leica R lens, of course, is completely different.

lumens pixel wrote:
I could break the bank for a LA-EA3 adapter but would be frustrated if manual focusing with non internal motor AF lenses is bad.
Depends on why you are taking pictures. If the image itself has priority, I myself work with AF lenses and AF SLRs. If playing with the lenses (=focusing & setting the aperture) is an importantpart of the fun, then it may be better to stick with Minolta MC-X / Leica R / Zeiss CY stuff. Nikkors, Canon (n)FDs and Hexanons don't feel that good to me ... (just talking about the mechanical properties of the lens barrels, not about resolution and the like)

S


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:

All "beercan" series of lenses as well as the G zooms mentioned above have their focusing rings directly coupled with the focusing threads - which means that there's no play and woble as with many later AF Nikkors. While those later AF Nikkors (e. g. AF Micro Nikkor 2.8/60mm, AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm and AF Nikkor 2.8/180mm ED) have much broader AF rings than their "beercan-Minolta" counterparts, those Nikkor-rings have lots of play in MF mode which, for me, is an absolute no-go. Be aware that many later Minolta AF lenses have the same problem (AF 2.8/50 Macro II and AF 2.8/100 Macro II ome to my mind, but also Sony Zeiss ZA 1.8/135 ...). I myself have been using the MinAF system for decades, ususally in AF mode, but never had problem with focusing them manually.
S


A classification of the Minolta A lenses that focuses nicely manually would certainly be of interest. Or a list of those that does not, upon which is the shortest.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 7:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Very nice shots, for stitching ,are you using a tripod to do the shots at the same level?


Thank you Kiddo.

Stitching is handheld. Precision is not critical in the absence of a close foreground. However I do pivot the camera/lens combo on my finger placed just behind the aperture ring. I have determined that with most of my lenses that is close enough to the nodal point of the lens (more complex considering a zoom but that is better approximation than nothing).

It is not so simple to maintain the combo at the same inclination and, when stitching, I loose some of the upper and lower parts of the images. But if you do it carefully that remains acceptable.


This is a favourite method of mine as well for landscape, which works in a surprising amount of situations. There's something about the panoramic frame that really delivers an excellent reminder of what it was like to be there on the day. Not to mention far more resolution and image quality than is available just from using an ultra wide angle and cropping.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
in landscapes it seems to work very nice, what about arquitecture?


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
in landscapes it seems to work very nice, what about arquitecture?


It works as well. No problem.


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 8:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alun Thomas wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
kiddo wrote:
Very nice shots, for stitching ,are you using a tripod to do the shots at the same level?


Thank you Kiddo.

Stitching is handheld. Precision is not critical in the absence of a close foreground. However I do pivot the camera/lens combo on my finger placed just behind the aperture ring. I have determined that with most of my lenses that is close enough to the nodal point of the lens (more complex considering a zoom but that is better approximation than nothing).

It is not so simple to maintain the combo at the same inclination and, when stitching, I loose some of the upper and lower parts of the images. But if you do it carefully that remains acceptable.


This is a favourite method of mine as well for landscape, which works in a surprising amount of situations. There's something about the panoramic frame that really delivers an excellent reminder of what it was like to be there on the day. Not to mention far more resolution and image quality than is available just from using an ultra wide angle and cropping.


Yes. Even a lowly camera will deliver middle format or even bigger sensor quality provided you can add the adequate number of frames. Everyone should get acquainted with this technique which completely levels gear differences and leaves you with framing and post processing challenges.

Last edited by lumens pixel on Sat Oct 21, 2023 10:04 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Oct 21, 2023 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

Yes. Even a lowly camera will deliver middle format or even bigger sensor quality provided you can add the adequate number of frames. Everyone should get acquainted with this technique which completely levels gear differences and lives you with framing and post processing challenges.


Some years ago I thought to "upgrade" my Sony A900 system to 54 MP by using the Zoerk tilt/shift adapter for Mamiya 645 lenses. It allows for +/- 15mm shifting, resulting in an image of 36x54mm or, using 24 MP FF cameras, 54 MP images. Using the A7RII would even result in 96 mp images.

Stitching of course isn't really a problem - apart from the data size an, especially for landscapes, and movements within the image ... !!

Heck, the resolution of such images can be "outlandish" - recently I tried to shoot a landscape photo with the Sekor C 5.6/00 ULD; at a distance of about 1-2 km (rougly one mile) each single blade of grass was visible on the 43 MP images. Which in turn gave problems to the stitching software ... since all those blades have been moving between the shots. Architecture may be more viable.

S


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Like 1 Like 1


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 8:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
It's a fantastic lens (and I had such bad luck to buy it twice on eBay, and both times have to send it back because they weren't as "mint" as described; far from it). I'll definitely buy a well kept sample to keep.
It is true that its range is a bit tricky, I wish it started from 28mm, with great performance starting at 35mm or before. Other than that it's almost perfect for me. Even if I wasn't to consider it a zoom, but a 40mm
prime for example, I'd like to have one. It renders beautifully and I prefer it compared to primes (stopped down, bokeh is a bit meh) like Minolta 45mm.
When edges and corners aren't that important or rich with detail I found it perfectly usable at 35mm as well (or if I composed in 4x5 or 4x3 aspect ratio), from 40mm to 70mm it's a great lens; with distortion outside
of "sweet spot" range being the only slight downside compared to well corrected primes. Of course, I'm talking about landscapes and other kinds of work where bokeh isn't the primary concern.
Whilst I've had it I've tried it as a macro lens, combining its "macro" mode with achromatic close up add-ons; it was fun. Like I said, the bokeh is nothing special wide open, but it can sometimes look cool
(almost Trioplan like). At F5.6 it's perfectly "normal".
This lens would pair nicely with the Minolta 75-150mm F4. If only the 24-35mm lens was as good (I haven't tried it) that would be such a great trio for traveling.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dejan wrote:
It's a fantastic lens (and I had such bad luck to buy it twice on eBay, and both times have to send it back because they weren't as "mint" as described; far from it). I'll definitely buy a well kept sample to keep.
It is true that its range is a bit tricky, I wish it started from 28mm, with great performance starting at 35mm or before. Other than that it's almost perfect for me. Even if I wasn't to consider it a zoom, but a 40mm
prime for example, I'd like to have one. It renders beautifully and I prefer it compared to primes (stopped down, bokeh is a bit meh) like Minolta 45mm.
When edges and corners aren't that important or rich with detail I found it perfectly usable at 35mm as well (or if I composed in 4x5 or 4x3 aspect ratio), from 40mm to 70mm it's a great lens; with distortion outside
of "sweet spot" range being the only slight downside compared to well corrected primes. Of course, I'm talking about landscapes and other kinds of work where bokeh isn't the primary concern.
Whilst I've had it I've tried it as a macro lens, combining its "macro" mode with achromatic close up add-ons; it was fun. Like I said, the bokeh is nothing special wide open, but it can sometimes look cool
(almost Trioplan like). At F5.6 it's perfectly "normal".
This lens would pair nicely with the Minolta 75-150mm F4. If only the 24-35mm lens was as good (I haven't tried it) that would be such a great trio for traveling.


I have red a lot about imperfections in the corners at 35mm. And I subscribed since my copy was in the same league wide open (much better@5,6).

However I ended up shimming my adapter approximately adding layers of tape until I hit precisely infinity on some of my most demanding Minolta lenses. Situation improved and I thought I was there.

Much later I bought a palmer that allows a 10 micron precision and I checked the adapter again. I was short by 60 microns. I added two layers of tape and I ended up "longer" by 20 microns. It is not possible to obtain higher precision with tape since the worst quality (thinner) tape you could find is about 40 microns thickness.

Believe it or not my corners are much better. I would not say perfect but there is such an improvement compared to what I thought was a shimmed adapter that I could not believe.

I have also tried the MD 16mm fisheye with the corrected adapter and I was more than happy with the improvements.

Needless to say you also need to check from time to time the back screws of the lens mount and the bayonet on the camera itself.

Morale: If you do not want or cannot check your adapters do not use zooms or fixed focal lenses with floating groups. You will be plenty happy with all the other lenses.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dejan wrote:

It is true that its range is a bit tricky, I wish it started from 28mm, with great performance starting at 35mm or before. Other than that it's almost perfect for me.


Maybe have a look on the MD 28-85 3,5 4,5. I bought and resold two copies. It was nice between 35 and 60 but bad in the corners everywhere else. Note that this was before shimming the adapter and I am always on the verge of buying another copy again.

What refrains me is the test on the Kurtmunger website on a Sony A900 with the A version that is supposed to be the same optical computation. I expect the A900 to have a perfect register distance so if the angles were bad the only cause would be the computation itself or a problem in the zoom sample. I have no clue here.

Nevertheless, of both copies I owned central sharpness was exceptional and colours perfect.

I can recommend the Tamron 27A that has very even sharpness performance and very high quality if stopped down f1,5.

But you will not get Minolta colours and "airiness" unless you process the file which means shooting raw, that is not a problem for me.


Dejan wrote:
It renders beautifully and I prefer it compared to primes (stopped down, bokeh is a bit meh) like Minolta 45mm.


I praise very high the MD 45mm 2,0 that reaches unbelievable levels of micro-contrast and has very good sharpness provided you stop it down by 1,5 stops also. There is field curvature but you would not notice it by f5,6.


Dejan wrote:
This lens would pair nicely with the Minolta 75-150mm F4. If only the 24-35mm lens was as good (I haven't tried it) that would be such a great trio for traveling.


The 75-150 is a top notch zoom. The 24-35 is not bad if you have nothing critical in the corners. It is quite sharp one stop closed but has a lot of field curvature and you need f6,7 to be safe. Curiously there was no significant improvements in the corners with the shimmed adapter and I wonder if the zoom is as much "floating" as the 35-70. Note that best quality range on my sample is 24-30mm where it really matters. Closer to 35 I would shift to the 35-70. Colors and contrast are fantastic as well so a trinity set of zooms might be a very sound option.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Dejan wrote:
If only the 24-35mm lens was as good (I haven't tried it) that would be such a great trio for traveling.

THat one isn't bad at all, especially comparing it to contemporary "superwide" zooms (well, 24mm usually was considered "superwide" back then). It's a pretty sophisticated construction with ten lenses.

S


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 8:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have no complaints personally about the 24-35, very capable little lens. Maybe I have a very good copy.

Another more radical leightweight travel option is to pair only the 24-35 and 75-150 and omit the 35-70 (I know, heresy given the topic here Wink ). You won't get macro but you can throw in one (or two) of Minolta's achromatic 49mm close-up lenses to give you close-up capability at virtually no extra size/weight.

Obviously you then will forgo the 35-75 focal range, but I have found that in practice that is the range where a little footwork and re-positioning often works well enough as an alternative to a change perspective (but only just).


PostPosted: Tue Oct 24, 2023 9:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:

Morale: If you do not want or cannot check your adapters do not use zooms or fixed focal lenses with floating groups. You will be plenty happy with all the other lenses.


Happened to me with a MinAF=>Sony E adapter last year. I had bought a used (rare) Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM onlline,
and when I picked it up I quickly checked its perfromance using the A7II with said adapter. Performance wasn't bad at all, also in the corners,
also at f2.8. However it was of an varifocal lens than a zoom!! Focusing at f=200mm resulted in completely unsharp images at f=70mm,
and vice versa. I was perplexed, but decided to take the lens nevertheless (well, rare and nice looking it was).

At home, mounting it to my A900 series of cameras, there was no trace of "varifocal" behaviour. The lens was perfectly fine,
and compared side-by-side to my Sony AL 2.8/70-200mm G it was even slightly better.

Well, size matters, sometimes*. At least when it comes to adapters.

S


* sometimes, even with zooms and floating focusing lenses, it seems not to matter at all ...!


PostPosted: Wed Oct 25, 2023 11:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:

Morale: If you do not want or cannot check your adapters do not use zooms or fixed focal lenses with floating groups. You will be plenty happy with all the other lenses.


Happened to me with a MinAF=>Sony E adapter last year. I had bought a used (rare) Minolta AF 2.8/70-200mm APO G SSM onlline,
and when I picked it up I quickly checked its perfromance using the A7II with said adapter. Performance wasn't bad at all, also in the corners,
also at f2.8. However it was of an varifocal lens than a zoom!! Focusing at f=200mm resulted in completely unsharp images at f=70mm,
and vice versa. I was perplexed, but decided to take the lens nevertheless (well, rare and nice looking it was).

At home, mounting it to my A900 series of cameras, there was no trace of "varifocal" behaviour. The lens was perfectly fine,
and compared side-by-side to my Sony AL 2.8/70-200mm G it was even slightly better.

Well, size matters, sometimes*. At least when it comes to adapters.

S


* sometimes, even with zooms and floating focusing lenses, it seems not to matter at all ...!


Another thing to keep in mind with adapters that are marginally too short: whilst the lens can still be focused all the way out to infinity (and beyond Wink ), the hyperfocal distance markings on the lens will be off (actually the distance markings on the focus scale are off, but it has the same impact). If you use the near and far hyperfocal distance markings, keep in mind that those markings may be shifted (by as much as two aperture stops based on some low-quality out-of-factory adapters I have seen).

The same applies to adapters that are too long, but usually those will be unacceptable to the user anyway as the lens won't reach infinity in the first place.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2