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

Leica-Minolta collaboration
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 9:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Excalibur wrote:
Wow that's a blow for the Leica fanatics in that some Minolta lenses are the same and just as good, also some Leica lenses were designed by Minolta.


Very Happy - yes, it probably will get the genuflectors and fanboys (whoops - sorry - should say 'fanpersons') grinding their teeth and going into denial about it. Some will mutter about Leitz having to re-engineer the Minolta designs to make them 'good enough', ignoring the reality that the company was perforce employing lateral strategies to make up for deficiencies in R&D and poor understanding of the way the photo market was evolving. By the 1980s the Leitz photo division was in nearly as dire straits as Zeiss Oberkochen's had been back in the early 70s - their catalogues both populated with stuff fewer and fewer people wanted . . .

It's somewhat ironic that the camera firms Leitz and Zeiss chose as collaborators (Minolta and Yashica) have themselves now vanished whilst their once-struggling partners have survived.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
scsambrook wrote:
Excalibur wrote:
Wow that's a blow for the Leica fanatics in that some Minolta lenses are the same and just as good, also some Leica lenses were designed by Minolta.


Very Happy - yes, it probably will get the genuflectors and fanboys (whoops - sorry - should say 'fanpersons') grinding their teeth and going into denial about it. Some will mutter about Leitz having to re-engineer the Minolta designs to make them 'good enough', ignoring the reality that the company was perforce employing lateral strategies to make up for deficiencies in R&D and poor understanding of the way the photo market was evolving. By the 1980s the Leitz photo division was in nearly as dire straits as Zeiss Oberkochen's had been back in the early 70s - their catalogues both populated with stuff fewer and fewer people wanted . . .

It's somewhat ironic that the camera firms Leitz and Zeiss chose as collaborators (Minolta and Yashica) have themselves now vanished whilst their once-struggling partners have survived.


All the debate about lenses (or any subject) reminds me of a debate on another forum about who invented\designed what, and you could go back thousands of years in that for example Leitz couldn't have made lenses if brass\steel\plastics\screw thread\glass\measuring equipment\lathes and so on had not been invented\discovered.... and it goes on even down to who first made a simple one element lens Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not being a Leica fanatic, but the fact that some of Leica lenses originated at Minolta is in no way a blow to the Leitz superiority theory. One can easily envision Leica having far more stringent QC requirement than Minolta and therefore selecting the best performing copies at the quality control stage. The situation is not unlike modern industrial production, where almost everything is manufactured in China, but there is a big difference between the stuff sold under Sony label and no-name garbage.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I'd say the difference in QC between companies like Minolta and Konica and their German counterparts like Leitz and Zeiss is extremely exaggerated, just more fanboy BS to justify the higher prices. Over 50 Konica lenses have passed through my hands, not one was inferior and Konica were the choice of the Japanese govt to measure all others by.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'd say the difference in QC between companies like Minolta and Konica and their German counterparts like Leitz and Zeiss is extremely exaggerated, just more fanboy BS to justify the higher prices. Over 50 Konica lenses have passed through my hands, not one was inferior and Konica were the choice of the Japanese govt to measure all others by.


Personally I am more than happy with quality of Japanese lenses, that's why most of my favorite lenses are Japanese. However, let me play devil's advocate here...

Didn't you have some Canon FD lemons? Canon is certainly on the same level as Konica and Minolta, so one might argue that there are occasional QC issues even with top Japanese brands. Then, recall that at some point in time Minolta started slashing elements in wide angle lenses for cost saving purposes, which resulted in inferior performance, and Konica did likewise. As far as I recall Zeiss and Leica never resorted to such measures.

From a personal experience all Leitz lenses that I have/had were actually very nice (and I had only relatively inexpensive ones). Perhaps they are not a cut above the opposition optically, but they all have been very well made mechanically, and the rendering is very charming. That's not enough to entice me to pay for old Summicron 10-20x the price of Minolta MD 50 f2, but I would pay for it some reasonable premium over Minolta (say 2-3x).


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well, I wouldn't put the Canon FD lenses on par with Konica or Minolta. The cheaper ones - 1.8/50, 2.8/35, 3.5/135, I think those are inferior to their Konica/Minolta equivalents. Of course, the better FD lenses like the 2/35 and 2.5/135 are very good, but the base level I just don't rate very highly. They were cheaper than Konica and Minolta andthat is why Canon had such great success - they realised the market for cheaper but still capable stuff was the best way to grow their business. So yes, the better FD lenses are comparable, but the base level isn't as good.

I honestly think German quality being better is a myth, same as it is in cars. Mercedes, for example, are crap compared to Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda in their quality. The C-class for example, is very poor on corrosion, they rot easily, the suspension droplinks wear out early, the engine mounts are poorly engineered and need replacing often at the first major service, as well as a host of other quality problems. Then there's the A-class, which is one of the most unreliable cars of recent years. Toyota, Nissan etc, their quality even on their cheapest models is far better, they just go and go and rarely suffer issues that are common in other country's cars. The Japanese were so far ahead in the quality stakes that the competition had to copy them, Ford bought Mazda in the mid 90s just to get their hands on their TQM techniques (Total Quality Management) and had to retrain their entire workforce upto Mazda standards just to survive.

I wouldn't spend 2x as much as a Toyota or Nissan on a Mercedes same as I wouldn't spend 2x as much as a Konica or Minolta on a Leica. The extra value just isn't there, it's illusory, you're paying for the badge.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Well, I wouldn't put the Canon FD lenses on par with Konica or Minolta. The cheaper ones - 1.8/50, 2.8/35, 3.5/135, I think those are inferior to their Konica/Minolta equivalents. Of course, the better FD lenses like the 2/35 and 2.5/135 are very good, but the base level I just don't rate very highly. They were cheaper than Konica and Minolta andthat is why Canon had such great success - they realised the market for cheaper but still capable stuff was the best way to grow their business. So yes, the better FD lenses are comparable, but the base level isn't as good.



Well, your opinion is like that precisely because you've had some FD lemons. I have quite a number of lenses of all 3, the overall quality is about the same, I wouldn't put any of those 3 above the others. If anything, I have a preference for Canon FD, but that's subjective stuff, objectively there is not much to separate them.

Canon lenses being cheaper is a myth. Here's a 1978 price list courtesy of our own Jussi, it tells the story. Canon is definitely the most expensive of the 3. Sample prices:
Rokkor MD 28/f2.8 = $128 ($78 for Celtic version). Cheapest body w lens: SR-T 201 w MD 50/1.7 = $203
Konica AR 28/f3.5 = $130 ($66.50 for Hexar version). Cheapest body w lens: TC v Hexanon 50/1.7=$196.50
Canon FD 28/f2.8 SC= $129 (no budget version). Cheapest body w lens: FTB-N w FD 50/1.8= $ 219

I am not entirely sure why Canon prevailed decisively on the amateur market, but the cheapness is not it. As it's plain to see one could buy a significantly cheaper system using Hexar and Celtic lenses with Konica and Minolta, respectively. Konica was let down by body quality, but Minolta bodies were quite solid...


Adorama (March 1978) price list by Nesster, on Flickr


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All 15 or so FD lenses I've had were lemons? Yeah, right. The FD 1.8/50 is a good example, I've had 5 or 6 copies of that, it's markedly inferior to the Konica and Minolta 1.7/50s, doesn't become acceptably sharp until f4 and doesn't become really sharp until f5.6. The FD 2.8/28 is markedly inferior to the Konica and Minolta 3.5/28s too, particularly in the CA it exhibits on high contrast edges and it's colour rendition.

In England in the late 80s and early 90s, Konica and Minolta were more expensive than Canon.

Anyways, let's not bother arguing, we'll never agree.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
All 15 or so FD lenses I've had were lemons? Yeah, right. The FD 1.8/50 is a good example, I've had 5 or 6 copies of that, it's markedly inferior to the Konica and Minolta 1.7/50s, doesn't become acceptably sharp until f4 and doesn't become really sharp until f5.6. The FD 2.8/28 is markedly inferior to the Konica and Minolta 3.5/28s too, particularly in the CA it exhibits on high contrast edges and it's colour rendition..


You do realize that there must be some explanation for this phenomenon, other than FD lenses being outright crap, don't you? For I don't see that in my lenses, and other people here don't seem to come forward with experiences similar to yours. Also it's hard to imagine Canon selling millions of crap lenses, while much better Konica and Minolta sitting unsold for the similar price...


Quote:

Anyways, let's not bother arguing, we'll never agree


Yeah, that's for sure. We've been at it for a couple of years already, I think Laughing


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Well I don't know of a Canon crap prime lens for results, maybe there are some moans about the plastic construction on some lenses, but I can name a couple of inferior zooms.......was Canon mentioned in the crap lens thread Question
If you had a poll on whether you prefer a Canon 50mm or Domiplan....any bets on the result. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 10:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Because we've all become 'international' we now get to see and use some of the stuff that countries other than our own native countries used as the mainstream popular stuff. I remember going to America and Canada 40 years ago with a Canon A1 and a bunch of lenses and being practically mobbed by keen amateur photographers who were living in the land where Minolta was king, and I'd never seen a Minolta until I went across the Atlantic. So the marketing was probably the deciding factor in the price / quality ratio. I think the FD range is excellent in build quality and optics, certainly equal to Minolta ( I don't have Nikon or Konica to compare )
Canon was certainly guilty of making cheaper and lighter lenses as they moved to EOS, but generally for kit lenses and the amateur market, which they fought fiercely for and won. Smaller, lighter and more appealing lenses, kit zooms being the classic example, were what sold in millions. Canon gave the people what they wanted, and the other manufacturers did the same.
40 years ago the camera shops around here had Canon and Nikon, maybe a Pentax. You would have to visit every camera shop of a big town to find an Olympus. It's only now we get to compare them, and perhaps the different markets did dictate the acceptable quality that was delivered?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Of course, the better FD lenses like the 2/35 and 2.5/135 are very good, but the base level I just don't rate very highly. They were cheaper than Konica and Minolta andthat is why Canon had such great success - they realised the market for cheaper but still capable stuff was the best way to grow their business.


I always thought Canons major success came with the AE-1. Are you sure low end lenses played a big role there?


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2013 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I must remind you all that i was merely trying to focus this here thread
on compiling information on the Leica-Minolta collaboration.

(...)


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
I must remind you all that i was merely trying to focus this here thread
on compiling information on the Leica-Minolta collaboration.

(...)


Thanks to Mir for the tactful reprimand - but perhaps the question of relative quality between the two firms' collaborative outcomes isn't entirely out of place here.

Ian asserted that "the difference in QC between companies like Minolta [ . . . ] and their German counterparts like Leitz and Zeiss is extremely exaggerated, just more fanboy BS to justify the higher prices". So far as the "fanboys" go, he may have a point. But, he's quite wrong if he really does think that there are no differences in photo-equipment firms' quality control standards between high-volume price-sensitive products and "high-end" items where the selling price isn't the most important thing.

Whatever Ian chooses to think, far more care went into assembling all Leitz lenses in the 1970s and 80s than into the vast majority of Minolta or, at the risk of straying off-field, other Japanese lenses. The same was true of the Zeiss lenses that were made in Germany for the Hasselblad and other larger format cameras. A firm like Minolta which mass-produced lenses in volumes unknown to Leitz (or Zeiss Oberkochen) simply could not afford to carry out measurements and checks in the way that Leitz did. The economics were compelling, reinforced by a marketing rationale based on the assessment that people buying a Minolta camera and/or lenses were highly unlikely to be as critical of outcomes as the buyer of Leica or Hasselblad equipment. A substantial component of the high prices of Leitz and Zeiss lenses comes from the quality control procedures in their manufacturing processes. However, we must remember that the contemporary 'high-end' lenses sold by Japanese firms at that time were disproportionately more expensive than their 'mainstream' optics. Why? Because the more complex designs aimed at a more critical clientele needed more care in their production and the extra costs showed up in the final selling price - even though those prices were still much lower than their German competitors.

To try to reassure Ian that i'm not a ZeiLeica fanboy, let me say that I believe the ability of a firm like Minolta (or any other company) to churn out first-rate lenses in their thousands every month, year in, year out, is actually a greater and generally more useful achievement than making small numbers of slightly-better-than-first-rate lenses to satisfy a small market willing to pay astronomically high prices for them. Generally, Japanese makers did a far, far better job of designing cameras and lenses for economical production at all levels of quality than their German counterparts. The Japanese-made lenses for the CL and CLE simply weren't inferior to the German ones. The guys in Wetzlar had different visions of perfection than the chaps in Japan Wink


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The volume manufacturers would lower the quality with the expectation that some would be returned under warranty, and the companies didn't argue about that they just exchanged the product. The savings on quality far outweighed the cost of the few exchange items, but they could only do that with very large sales items, so Canon, Nikon and the other big manufacturers did just that for the volume sales, and for the lower sales items - the faster more pro' lenses - they had to maintain the quality.

Leica insisted on high quality and Minolta were obviously capable of providing it. And I can't imagine any manufacturing company running two lines, with different quality levels, to make the same components. It's just easier and cheaper to make them all good and take a hit on the margins - which are being subsidised by selling to another company anyway. I'm sure this is why the 35-70 / 3.5 is such a great lens, Minolta could, and did, achieve the best quality in a mass produced lens.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
The volume manufacturers would lower the quality with the expectation that some would be returned under warranty, and the companies didn't argue about that they just exchanged the product. The savings on quality far outweighed the cost of the few exchange items, but they could only do that with very large sales items, so Canon, Nikon and the other big manufacturers did just that for the volume sales, and for the lower sales items - the faster more pro' lenses - they had to maintain the quality.

Leica insisted on high quality and Minolta were obviously capable of providing it. And I can't imagine any manufacturing company running two lines, with different quality levels, to make the same components. It's just easier and cheaper to make them all good and take a hit on the margins - which are being subsidised by selling to another company anyway. I'm sure this is why the 35-70 / 3.5 is such a great lens, Minolta could, and did, achieve the best quality in a mass produced lens.


I had some Leica lenses, a lot of M and a bit less R. Never saw a lemon leica lens.

In Minolta SR mount the same, except the last 4,5/300 IF version that has a CA excesive for the brand. Altough some MC lenses tend to have visible CA (they are not apo, of course). Not lemon at all.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 7:10 pm    Post subject: not answering to the original headline Reply with quote
Leitz/ Leica did have strict quality control on bought-in optics according to some ephemeral sources. The Leicina cine cameras at one point used Scneider 8-40mm optics . They- or Schneider- gave up because a very large proportion were rejected.

Back to the thread, I have found the Minolta 90mm for the CLR a modified MC variant of the C-Elmar, (identified by the serial n. on the lens barrel, and not on the front ring like the Wetzlar made CL optics) entirely usable.

p.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 17, 2013 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
According to German "Fotomagazin" 7/1991 the Sigma UC MF 3.5-4.5/28-70 is optically identical to the Leica Vario-Elmar-R 3.5-4.5/28-70. At the time, the R lens sold for around 1600 DM, the Sigma for 250 DM.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 12:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting how people twist my words. I didn't say Canon FD lenses were crap, I said that the cheaper ones were inferior to the Konica and Minolta equivalents, which is very different to saying they are crap.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 10:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Interesting how people twist my words. I didn't say Canon FD lenses were crap, I said that the cheaper ones were inferior to the Konica and Minolta equivalents, which is very different to saying they are crap.


Maybe you should start another thread......"Canon ver other lenses...opinions? "


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 6:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Because I don't care. I have all the lenses I need and apart from a tiny handful, there isn't really much I want. I can't think of any Canon FD lenses I would want, I hate the FD mount, it's really annoying to use and all five Canon AE-1s I've had broke, so I have no interest in the FD system at all, I don't think it's crap, but i don't think it's got anything to offer that I don't already have and prefer for several reasons.

I just wanted to point out that you were putting the word 'crap' in my mouth, something you shouldn't have done because it was far from what I actually said. You should apologise really.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 7:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Returning to the subject of Leica, I've just got 90mm f4 Elmar from 1938. In order to check the performance, I've decided to do a ridiculous test and shoot it against Contax G Carl Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f2.8. Here are the results (click on the picture for full size).

#1 Leitz Elmar 90mm f4 @ f4

#2 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f2.8 @ f4

#3 Leitz Elmar 90mm f4 @ f4 lightly processed (just my standard tonal curve and exposure adjustment)

#4 Leitz Elmar 90 mm f4 @ f4 100% crop

#5 Carl Zeiss Sonnar 90mm f2.8 @ f4 100% crop


There is no doubt that Sonnar wins it, but the difference is not huge. Also keep in mind:


    * Sonnar is one of the best 90mm lenses regardless of make and price
    * There is more than 50 years of development and life between those 2 lenses
    * Sonnar is in perfect shape, Leitz is quite banged up and has cleaning marks on the front element
    * Leitz is wide open @f4, while Sonnar is already stopped down.
    * 90mm Elmar is one of the few disrespected Leitz lenses


I think it's a testament to how ridiculously good those lenses are, when even a 70 year old beater can hold its own in technical quality against essentially modern optics like Contax G Sonnar.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 8:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Throw in a cheap lens like the common Tokina 4/100 or the Jupiter-9 2/85, I bet they would perform as well as the Leitz.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I wouldn't put the Canon FD lenses on par (...) those are inferior (...) the base level I just don't rate very highly (...) cheaper ... and that is why Canon had such great success (...) the base level isn't as good. (...) All 15 or so FD lenses I've had were lemons? Yeah, right. (...) I've had 5 or 6 copies of that, it's markedly inferior (...) I hate the FD mount, it's really annoying to use (...) all five Canon AE-1s I've had broke (...)


Your point is clear, thank you.

Also you did non explicitly call Canon lenses "crap". You were refering to Mercedes in that case ("Mercedes, for example, are crap compared to Toyota, Nissan, Honda, Mazda").


PostPosted: Wed Dec 18, 2013 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
Throw in a cheap lens like the common Tokina 4/100 or the Jupiter-9 2/85, I bet they would perform as well as the Leitz.


Most likely they would, at least a good copy would. However, what is a good copy of J-9? It's Zeiss Sonnar, so why should it be any worse?

Moreover, Elmar is an inexpensive lens, I doubt J-9 is cheaper on average. For what it's worth, I've bought this Elmar for about half price of my J-9. Then, you've got to take age into account, I think we are talking good 15 years between this Elmar and earliest J-9s, at least double that with respect to Tokinas.

I have to say that I'm consistently impressed with Leitz lenses that I get, and I only acquire stuff that any true Leica fanatic would reject as bottom of the barrel dregs unworthy of attention.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4