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

Minolta MD lenses
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 3:21 pm    Post subject: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep?


PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a few MD zooms and none suffer from creep. Great lenses. Like 1 small


PostPosted: Sat May 27, 2017 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Minolta was a first tier lens maker, so good that Leica collaborated with them and even adopted at least one Minolta lens to be sold under the Leica label.

That said, these are now older lenses with who knows what treatment in the past. It is possible to get a lens that doesn't perform at its best any longer. Caveat emptor.


PostPosted: Sun May 28, 2017 7:10 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
kyrcy wrote:
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep?


I do like those Minolta rokkor. Here are some pictures with a MD ROKKOR 200 F/4 on a Sony a6000... (the only PP is histogram adjust and some cropping to show the details the lens can capture)
#1


#2


#3


#4


PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 8:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Beautiful!


PostPosted: Mon May 29, 2017 9:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aeropic
That MD ROKKOR 200 F/4 has a good reputation, your excellent pictures show us why. I've got the 3.5 which I like a lot, maybe there's not much difference?


PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Actually, there are 2 different 200mm f 4: one heavy rokkor 520 g (the 2.8 is 700 g) and one lighter (MD II rokkorand MD) which is only 400g and shorter.
I wonder which one was used for by aeropic.


PostPosted: Tue May 30, 2017 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Antoine : My MD ROKKOR 200 f/4 is the big one. It weights 600g including the sony adaptor.
@Lloydy : I had a look to your gallery. You do marvels with the 58 f/1.4 .... I like the Austin 7 special. Those Minolta lens are great when in good hands Wink
@both: thanks for your kind words


PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:39 am    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
kyrcy wrote:
How is the quality of Minolta MD lenses? Do they suffer from zoom creep?

During the past years, i have tested (and to some extent also used) about 125 different manual Minolta lenses. In addition i know quite a few lenses from the other "big two" (Canon and Nikon).
Very generally speaking, Minolta MD lenses are optically on par with their Canon and Nikon MF counterparts from the same time. Mechanically, today (after 30-50 years of use) they usually are superior to the CaNikons. There are a few exceptions, notably in the field of apochromatic super-tele lenses - there is simply no Minolta MD 2.8/300, 2.8/400 or 4/600mm, but one can find a Canon/Nikon MF 2.8/300mm, 2.8/400mm or a Nikon 4/600mm.

A few remarks about the Minolta MD zooms:

MD-II 4/24-50mm: very well built, but not as good as the best conteporary primes. MD-III may be better. Two ring zoom, no zoom creep.

MD-III 3.5/24-35mm: very sophisticated construction, small, lightweight, similar performance as the above 4/24-35mm. Two ring zoom, no zoom creep. Personally, I prefer the larger nFD 3.5/20-35mm L.

MD-II 3.5/35-70mm: quite OK, but not very good - neither corner resolution nor distortion are really convincing (several samples tested)

MD-III 3.5/35-70mm and MD-III 3.5/35-70mm Macro: visibly better than the previous MD-II version. Good corner resolution. Clearly better than the Nikkor 43-86mm, but clearly inferior to the class-leading Nikkor 3.5/35-70mm [62mm Filter].

Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/28-85mm: relatively new design with aspherical lenses. Wide open strong vignetting, otherwise excellent lens for its time. No zoom creep.

Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.8/28-70mm: late MD budget lens, excellent build quality, very good overall detail resolution, relatively high distortion. No zoom creep.

Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.

Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-135mm : not as common as the MD 35-105mm lenses, with similar performance. Very good for its time.

Minolta MD 4.5/80-200mm: early construction (1973) with lower performance than the later 4.5/75-200mm and 4/70-210mm. The Nikkor AiS (!) 4.5/80-200mm is better.

Minolta MD 4.5/75-200mm: visibly better than 4.5/80-200mm, but often oily / sticky aperture.

Minolta MD 4/70-210mm: faster and better design with less lenses (12 instead of 15), computed in cooperation with Leitz. Very good lens for its time. Similar overall performance as the AiS Nikkor 4.5/80-200mm. The Canon nFD 4/80-200mm L has visibly crisper color rendition, however!

Minolta MD 5.6/100-300mm: low contrast and mushy colors at f5.6 and f8, images don't have the classical Minolta look. I suspect it to be a third party computation. No recommended.

If you have particular questions about other MD lenses i'll try to answer them. Quite a lot of information can be found also on my website:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/slrs
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 5:39 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
Quite a lot of information can be found also on my website:

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive


Stephan


Hi Stephan, very very interesting website you get! Thanks for the link Like 1

I could not resist to have a look to the MD 200 f/4 and I'm very happy with what I read :
" At least the first invoice (delivered as MC and as MD) can be convincing at 16MP APS-C as well as at 24MP and 36 MP full format: The performance of the lens is close to the legendary Minolta AF 2.8 / 200mm APO G. Fading increases The detail resolution is no longer worth mentioning, only the microcontrast in the slabs is slightly better at f5.6. Even at f11, the performance decreases slightly again. This makes the 4/200 mm in the focal length range between 135 mm and 300 mm the best Minolta lens in the SR system.

I love this lens even more
Tuzki with lens

Last edited by aeropic on Fri Jun 02, 2017 6:55 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 31, 2017 10:21 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:


Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.

Stephan


Stephan: The Monolta AF 35-105 also has two versions with the first of the two being the better. Do you know how they relate to the MF versions?


PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:53 am    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
[quote="stevemark"]
kyrcy wrote:

Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.

I do not understand. Better than the first version or the second ? My examples with 35-70 macro , 75-150mm and 28mm.




PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thank you Stephan!
As I understood, two lenses, MD 35-70 f3,5 Macro and MD 70-210 f4, are definitely designed with Leitz cooperation using computer.
Both lenses were marketed as "Leica" and "Minolta" for those two brands accordingly. The prices on today second hand market are 10 to 1, for the names only!
I have both 35-70 f3,5 micro and MD 70-210 f4, the first one is a lens for everyday use on Sony A7R II and very often only lens I taking with me for all occasions.
Are there any more Leica/Minolta glass around? At the topic "Leica/Minolta collaboration" the picture showed Vario Elmar 70-200 f4,5 and it MD variation as a same lens.

Last edited by Paulius on Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:45 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Paulius wrote:
Thank you Stephan!
As I understood, two lenses, MD 35-70 f3,5 Macro and MD 70-210 f4, are definitely designed with Leitz cooperation using computer.
Both lenses were marketed as "Leica" and "Minolta" for those two brands accordingly. The prices on today second hand market are 10 to 1, for the names only!
I have both 35-70 f3,5 micro and MD 70-210 f4, the first one is lens for everyday use on Sony A7R II and very often only lens I taking with me for all occasions.
Are there any more Leica/Minolta glass around? At the topic "Leica/Minolta collaboration" the picture showed Vario Elmar 70-200 f4,5 and it MD variation as a same lens.


The ones I know for sure:

MC-X W.Rokkor-SI 24mm F2.8 and MC-X (I presume) 16mm F2.8 Fisheye, Leitz Telyt-S 800/6.3 for Minolta, Minolta RF 800/8 for Leica, MD 35-70/4 and Leitz Photar 12/1.9 and 25/2.5... http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

EDIT. More are discussed here before: http://forum.mflenses.com/leica-minolta-collaboration-t63389.html

Last edited by Teemō on Thu Jun 01, 2017 4:22 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 3:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:23 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
aeropic wrote:
stevemark wrote:
Quite a lot of information can be found also on my website:

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive


Stephan


Hi Stephan, very very interesting website you get! Thanks for the link Like 1

I could not resist to have a look to the MD 400 f/2 and I'm very happy with what I read :
" At least the first invoice (delivered as MC and as MD) can be convincing at 16MP APS-C as well as at 24MP and 36 MP full format: The performance of the lens is close to the legendary Minolta AF 2.8 / 200mm APO G. Fading increases The detail resolution is no longer worth mentioning, only the microcontrast in the slabs is slightly better at f5.6. Even at f11, the performance decreases slightly again. This makes the 4/200 mm in the focal length range between 135 mm and 300 mm the best Minolta lens in the SR system.


Tuzki with lens


I know i SHOULD try to translate my texts into English ... !!


PostPosted: Thu Jun 01, 2017 7:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta MD lenses Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
stevemark wrote:


Minolta MD-III 3.5-4.5/35-105mm : Two versions.
First version [16 lenses] has the same optical constrution as the Tokina 35-105mm, but better coating and obviously tighter manufacturing tolerances, which leads to cleary superior performance of the Minolta sibling. Very good lens.
Second version [14 lenses] probably a Minolta computation, slightly superior to the previous version, very good overall performance. No zoom creep.

Stephan


Stephan: The Monolta AF 35-105 also has two versions with the first of the two being the better. Do you know how they relate to the MF versions?


Yep. The second computation of the MD-III 35-105mm is identical to the first (full metal!) version of the Minolta AF 3.5-4.5/35-105mm.

Stephan


PostPosted: Fri Jun 02, 2017 3:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I rate latest Minolta MD primes to equal or sometimes even better than Carl Zeiss.


PostPosted: Wed Jun 07, 2017 5:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Attila wrote:
I rate latest Minolta MD primes to equal or sometimes even better than Carl Zeiss.


You're right if

a) the Minolta lens was (at the time!) a new computation and
b) the corresponding Zeiss C/Y lens was an older design

If, however, the Zeiss design is from the same time period (or even newer) than the Minolta MD-III lens, the Zeiss clearly wins.

A few examples (tests on 24MP full frame):

* MD-III 2.8/24mm (1981) vs Zeiss CY 2.8/25mm ("old" Zeiss design from the 1960s): Zeiss has less CA, and more field curvature than the newer Minolta MD-III; overall similar performance

* MD-III 2.8/28mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/28mm: Overall similar performance

* MD-III 1.4/50mm vs Zeiss CY 1.4/50mm: Similar performance; Zeiss may be a trace better

* MD-III 2.8/135mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/135mm: Zeiss is clearly better, especially at f2.8 (better corners, less CAs), even though the Zeiss design is a decade older than the Minolta

* Minolta MD-III 4/70-210mm (1983) vs Zeiss 3.5/70-210mm (1979): Zeiss has less CAs and better corner resolution; the newer Zeiss CY 4/80-200mm is even better (the latter was calculated by Kölsch, later responsible at Leica for lenses such as the 2.8/70-180mm APO. Compare the lens sections of the CY 4/80-200mm and the Leica R 2.8/70-180mm ...)

* Minolta MD 2.8/20mm vs Zeiss CY 2.8/21mm: The Zeiss is clearly superior

I regularly use the CY PC Distagon 2.8/35mm (Shift lens), but i've never used the corresponding Minolta 2.8/35mm Shift, so i can't comment on them. I have used the Zeiss 2.8/16mm Fisheye, and it performs similarly to the older 2.8716mm Fiseheye from Minolta. Whether it outperforms the newer MD-III 2.8/16mm Fisheye i can't say.

I don't know other Zeiss CY lenses. Maybe someone with more experience than me can write a bit more about them ...? I would, however, not hesitate to assume that CY lenses such as the Distagon 1.4/35mm aspherical, the APO Sonnar 2/200mm or the Apo Tele Tessar 2.8/300 are far superior to the corresponding (slower) Minolta MD-III designs, which i know from my own experience. The same is probably true for the CY 3.4/35-70mm.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2025 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have come back, via a search, 18 years, trying to find any mention of the Minolta MD 50mm f2.

Here is a shot at f11 on my Sony A7r3.

I think it is a fantastic lens.

Image cropped ca 50%. I could not upload the 1024 pixel version. I had to reduce it to 1000, presumably because of the amount of detail making the file too large.

Westfield




And another, same problem!:

Yes, f8 would have been OK but there were lots of people moving around, or just standing in the wrong place, and he who hesitates loses the shot. Smile

Triumph TR6




Last edited by e6filmuser on Wed Apr 16, 2025 8:21 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 15, 2025 8:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:
I have come back, via a search, 18 years, trying to find any mention of the Minolta MD 50mm f2.

Here is a shot at f11 on my Sony A7r3.

I think it is a fantastic lens.



MD-I or MD-III?

The two lenses have a differing optical computation. The MD-III - in spite of being a "budget" lens and clearly being desribed as such in the corresponding patent - indeed is a very good lens: relatively low lateral CAs (less than the MD-III 1.4/50 and MD-III 1.2/50), nearly free from distortion (0.1%), and with excellent corner resolution when stopped down to f5.6. And small and lightweight, as well as cheap ...

S


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
e6filmuser wrote:
I have come back, via a search, 18 years, trying to find any mention of the Minolta MD 50mm f2.

Here is a shot at f11 on my Sony A7r3.

I think it is a fantastic lens.



MD-I or MD-III?

The two lenses have a differing optical computation. The MD-III - in spite of being a "budget" lens and clearly being desribed as such in the corresponding patent - indeed is a very good lens: relatively low lateral CAs (less than the MD-III 1.4/50 and MD-III 1.2/50), nearly free from distortion (0.1%), and with excellent corner resolution when stopped down to f5.6. And small and lightweight, as well as cheap ...

S


Thanks for the info.

No marks on the lens "II" or "III" so I assume "I".


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 10:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
e6filmuser wrote:


Thanks for the info.

No marks on the lens "II" or "III" so I assume "I".


Sorry, but your assumption is wrong.

There are no I, II, III markings on the lens, it is a categorization of Minolta enthusiasts.

If you have a MD Minolta 50mm f1:2 you have a generation III lens.

BG

P.S. Has anyone out there any information about stevemark?

He has nothing posted for a long time here and also his Website does not work anymore.

Hallo stevemark, I hope its all ok on you.

Sorry, I saw that he leaves a post yesterday.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 10:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
This site:
http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

Has a full set of lenses and the theoretic text from the front ring on the lenses.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 16, 2025 11:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:

P.S. Has anyone out there any information about stevemark?

He has nothing posted for a long time here and also his Website does not work anymore.

Hallo stevemark, I hope its all ok on you.

Sorry, I saw that he leaves a post yesterday.

Yes, I contacted him about that a little while ago.

He's fine but his website isn't. I'll leave it to him to explain if he wants to, but I can understand that he was a bit fed-up and didn't post for a while.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2