Minolta MD 50mm 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.0 - are tested, again...

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Hello,
mflenses-forum contains a lot of themes about Minolta Rokkors fifties, but just a few about MD - latest generation for SR-mount (aka plain MD, New MD, N-MD, MD III)
So I've started the new theme - at least it will be something like a reminder about that Minolta did not stop SR-development at Rokkors and created even better things.

Here the list of reviews of all MD 50mm lenses (except Macro version):
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.2
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.4
Minolta MD 50mm f/1.7
Minolta MD 50mm f/2.0

One MD 50mm has been excluded: Minolta MD 50mm f/3.5.
(Total conclusion for each lens will be added later in separated article, but I think that test-results is enough)

And total comparison in the one article:
Minolta MD fifties battle
(Include Minolta MD 50mm f/3.5)

It also a micro-PR of site, but my main goal is enough simple - I just finished this tests and would like to share the information with someone who also likes Minolta

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

I have a recent vintage Minolta MD 50/1.4 and 50/2. I don't know precisely which model or models they are, nonetheless, I am curious as to your opinions and/or results with regard to these two lenses. I also own an MC 50/1.7, which I suspect has the same optical formula as the early Rokkor X MD 50/1.7.

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4073 Location: Switzerland

The MD-III set of normal lenses is - apart from the MD-III 1.7/50mm, which is a bit weak (and weaker then its precedessor) - a very capable set of 50mm lenses.

The f1.2 and f1.4 were released as MD-II in 1978, and the later MD-III was just a cosmetical update. The f1.2 and the f1.4 were developped together, by the same person. Not surprisingly, the f1.2 variant uses glass with higher refracive index than the f1.4 variant (average of all seven lenses nD=1.77 vs 1.75 with the f1.4 variant), and the average dispersion of the f1.2 lens is a bit higher than of the f11.4 variant (Abbe number of 40.9 vs 41.3). As a result, the f1.2 lens has a bit more field curvature and astigmatism than the f1.4 sibling (both measured wide open). Both lenses have 2% distortion.

There was also a 45mm f1.8 variant, which was never released. Its performance was slightly inferior to the f1.2 and f1.4 variants.

The MD-III 50mm f2 lens comes from a different developper, and it should not be confused with the earlier MC/MD-I 2/50mm. This later MD-III is well known for being a high performance "zero distortion lens" (well, about 0.1% to be precise ...). Its average Abbe number is in the range of 45, for a better color correction. Its general performance (spherical aberrations, astigmatism) does closely match the above mentioned f1.2 and f1.4 lenses. It certainly is a better lens than the earlier MD-II 2/45mm.

Stephan

marcusBMG · Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1318 Location: Conwy N Wales

Very diligent and well presented results tf - great effort on your part, I'm impressed.

tb_a · Expire: 2019-08-28

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Thank you all for the good words. I'm glad to hear that this results can be usable.

cooltouch · Joined: 15 Jan 2009 Posts: 9096 Location: Houston, Texas

tf or Stephan, is there any truth to the rumor that the Minolta 50/2 was essentially a Japanese Summicron?

jamaeolus · Expire: 2015-08-20

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

sergun · Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:57 am Post subject:

Today I got a Minolta MD-III 50mm f2.0. A couple of test frames ) wide open

Distance 0.75 (0.45 minimum)

stevemark · Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 4073 Location: Switzerland

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

There is a lot of nonsense spoken about these lenses when words and phrases like 'weak' and 'poor performer' are bandied about.

Plain fact is, all of the Minolta 50s are excellent lenses and more than capable of producing excellent results, none of them are weak, poor or any other exaggerated criticism.

The differences between them are often minuscule, barely discernible and then only when pixel peeping, corner squinting and being far too pedantic; in real world usage, they are all more than capable and time spent agonising over minutiae of their technical performance would be better spent actually using the damn things for their intended purpose.

DigiChromeEd · Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland

memetph · Joined: 01 Dec 2013 Posts: 940 Location: Poland

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

I do appreciate your work in comparing them though, thankyou. It reinforces the truism that pretty much all 50s are good enough, maybe all 50s that don't say Domiplan on them, in fact! Wink

wildlight images · Joined: 27 Aug 2013 Posts: 56

"rumor....essentially a Japanese Summicron?"

Ifapotamus

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Bonus track:

Short battle - resolution only - Legend vs. another Legend Smile

Minolta MC 58mm f/1.2 vs. Minolta MD 50mm f/1.2

sergun · Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:04 am Post subject:

Minolta MD-III 50mm f2.0 wide open

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

One more odd comparison with 50mm MD lens - test of combination Minolta MD 50mm F1.4 + Minolta MD 2x Tele Converter 300s vs. Minolta MD 100mm F2.5 (and some another MDs)

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

tf
Thanks for good work
Why not full review 300 s with long tele like 200 mm or 300 mm?
As you conclude it is not really worth doubling a 50 mm when a 100 mm is so cheap

But Minolta does not offer cheap and easy to find 400 or 600 mm MD
and 200mm 2.8 + 300 s gives you 400mm 5.6

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Antoine, thank you, I understand.
Actually, Minolta offered quite cheap and easy to find MD RF 500mm F8, and I think this lens would be better than any combinations of another primes with 300S.

And for for long lenses converter 300L is needed, not 300S

Anyway, yes, lenses up to 200mm can be used with 300S - if I remember restrictions right, but combination of MD200/2.8 + 300S for me looks absolutely unusable in real life independently of anything. Finally - I haven't tripod for 400mm shooting Smile

Antoine · Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London

Indeed, you are right 500mm f8 is a great lens (compact, no significant CA,...) although has some limitations (bokey, can't close to increase depth of field)

Your are directionally correct on use of long tele although the cameras sensors have improved a lot the quality of images at high ISO, so the use of long tele handheld has been extended and maybe a tripod is not always needed.

But yes, the proportion of keepers is low (with added problem of focusing properly).

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

To don't make another theme, I'll post link here: one another review - Minolta MC Rokkor-PG 58mm 1:1.2
Not about MD, not 50mm, but Minolta Smile

tf · Joined: 29 Sep 2017 Posts: 162

Another one battle of fifties - Minolta MD 50/1.4 vs Canon LTM 50/1.4 vs Serenar 50/1.8 vs Serenar 50/1.5 aka Canon Sonnar vs Minolta Chiyoko 50/2 vs Minolta Chiyoda Kogaku 50/1.8
- resolution comparison on infinity distance
MD won of course, but I think that LTM lenses are interesting very much