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 MDIII 50/1,4
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2025 8:23 pm    Post subject: MINOLTA MDIII 50/1,4 Reply with quote
I want to know how many Lp/mm resolves the Minolta MDIII 50/1,4, to compare it with the AF version.

Where can I find that information?


PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2025 9:52 pm    Post subject: Re: MINOLTA MDIII 50/1,4 Reply with quote
papasito wrote:
I want to know how many Lp/mm resolves the Minolta MDIII 50/1,4, to compare it with the AF version.

Where can I find that information?


"Lp/mm" information was considered unreliable even back in the days, especially if "measured" on film without accurate documentation of films & developers used, contrast levels of the target (1:10? 1:1000? both, and others, were used), contrast level on the film for a positive result, etc.

Measured MTF graphs are much more reliable.

That said, the MD-III and the AF have the same optical computation, as far as I know.
I can provide a few RAW data files of images taken with both lenses side-by-side (PM me your email adress).

S


PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2025 11:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Not exactly but closest to your request https://pbase.com/kkawakami/rokkor_lens_resolutions


PostPosted: Wed Feb 05, 2025 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
Not exactly but closest to your request https://pbase.com/kkawakami/rokkor_lens_resolutions


there is a outstanding MD 1.7 version compared with planar 1.7, nFD 1.8 - did you guys get same results on that 1.7 version? i assume it might me the last it came out


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Not exactly but closest to your request https://pbase.com/kkawakami/rokkor_lens_resolutions


there is a outstanding MD 1.7 version compared with planar 1.7, nFD 1.8 - did you guys get same results on that 1.7 version? i assume it might me the last it came out


I do not know if the MD 1,7 is an outstanding lens (mine is MD II) since I do not own the Nikon and the planar. However it is a very good lens. In some aspects inferior to the MDIII 50 1,4 (less microcontrast and perceived sharpness that you would perceive in jpeg) but up to the task with very little post treatment. Note that you share the same perceived sharpness of the 1,4 with a half stop difference if you are not interested in post processing. Sharpness of MDIII 50 2,0 is closer to 1,4 but bokeh is somewhat harsher due to increased contrast.

However 1,7 it is as good or better than 1,4 in the angles and shares the same nice bokeh. It has a lot of spherical aberration at 1,7 but closing to approx 2,0 reduces significantly the problem. It is quite easy to find an intermediate position between 1,7 and 2,8, no need to de-click.

Prices are ridiculously low considering the quality and this is one of my favourite lenses in bad weather or in situations where I do not wish to expose high value gear. It is so ubiquitous that I would not mind replacing it. The best lens being the one you can always have with you.


Some pics around f2,0:

Cerisier - Printemps 2023 by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Rosier | Rosebush by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


You will note on the second pic that is taken quite close to minimum focus distance how good it is without loosing sharpness.

Now close to MFD but f4,0, excellent.

Iris by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


And nothing to be afraid of for landscapes (f4,5 or 5,6)

Les Tours Nuages | The Clouds towers | Paris La Défense by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all of you, guys.


Lumens ´pixel, the paper has the resolution power of the Minoolta "MD50/1,4", and AFAIK only MD 50/1,4 is the MDIII 50. So it is what i look for.

It has more sharpness and contrast than my Zeiss-Sony 55/1,8, with beauty colors too.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The first two examples you have look good, but the second two (the iris and the apartment buildings), look excessively oversharpened in post to the point where it's impossible to make out the native sharpness of the lens. Any chance you could repost the same mages with default/conservative processing settings?

lumens pixel wrote:
kiddo wrote:
lumens pixel wrote:
Not exactly but closest to your request https://pbase.com/kkawakami/rokkor_lens_resolutions


there is a outstanding MD 1.7 version compared with planar 1.7, nFD 1.8 - did you guys get same results on that 1.7 version? i assume it might me the last it came out


I do not know if the MD 1,7 is an outstanding lens (mine is MD II) since I do not own the Nikon and the planar. However it is a very good lens. In some aspects inferior to the MDIII 50 1,4 (less microcontrast and perceived sharpness that you would perceive in jpeg) but up to the task with very little post treatment. Note that you share the same perceived sharpness of the 1,4 with a half stop difference if you are not interested in post processing. Sharpness of MDIII 50 2,0 is closer to 1,4 but bokeh is somewhat harsher due to increased contrast.

However 1,7 it is as good or better than 1,4 in the angles and shares the same nice bokeh. It has a lot of spherical aberration at 1,7 but closing to approx 2,0 reduces significantly the problem. It is quite easy to find an intermediate position between 1,7 and 2,8, no need to de-click.

Prices are ridiculously low considering the quality and this is one of my favourite lenses in bad weather or in situations where I do not wish to expose high value gear. It is so ubiquitous that I would not mind replacing it. The best lens being the one you can always have with you.


Some pics around f2,0:

Cerisier - Printemps 2023 by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Rosier | Rosebush by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


You will note on the second pic that is taken quite close to minimum focus distance how good it is without loosing sharpness.

Now close to MFD but f4,0, excellent.

Iris by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


And nothing to be afraid of for landscapes (f4,5 or 5,6)

Les Tours Nuages | The Clouds towers | Paris La Défense by lumens pixel, sur Flickr


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 8:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
The first two examples you have look good, but the second two (the iris and the apartment buildings), look excessively oversharpened in post to the point where it's impossible to make out the native sharpness of the lens. Any chance you could repost the same mages with default/conservative processing settings?


I have given up commenting such images in terms of "lens performance". The largest version of the iris image, for instance, is 3 MP (and that includes the large white border); the images itself is about 2 MP.

Anything & any lens will look good at 2 MP, especially if aggressively sharpened.

I remember well my very first series of "digital" lens tests, back in 2004, using one the first Minolta Dynax 7D in Switzerland (6MP APS-C, corresponding to 13.5MP FF). It was resulting in uniform sharpness for nearly all vintage MinAF lenses at all apertures ...

That said, I really like the images themselves, but they don't reveal much about the potential of the lens used!

S


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 9:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Did not retrieved all the pics yet but here are two unsharpened 100% crops.








Let me know your thoughts.


PostPosted: Thu Feb 06, 2025 10:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
BrianSVP wrote:
The first two examples you have look good, but the second two (the iris and the apartment buildings), look excessively oversharpened in post to the point where it's impossible to make out the native sharpness of the lens. Any chance you could repost the same mages with default/conservative processing settings?


These are not oversharpened if you take my word. There might be substantial work on contrast and local contrast but I do not think this is oversharpening.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:


there is a outstanding MD 1.7 version compared with planar 1.7, nFD 1.8 - did you guys get same results on that 1.7 version? i assume it might me the last it came out


I've been using the MD III 50 mm f/1.7 once or twice and I was very surprised by the image quality which is even rivaling with that of my samples of the Contax and Rollei Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/1.7 or 1.8 while being clearly undervalued in the second-hand marketplace.


PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 1:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Alsatian2017 wrote:
kiddo wrote:


there is a outstanding MD 1.7 version compared with planar 1.7, nFD 1.8 - did you guys get same results on that 1.7 version? i assume it might me the last it came out


I've been using the MD III 50 mm f/1.7 once or twice and I was very surprised by the image quality which is even rivaling with that of my samples of the Contax and Rollei Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm f/1.7 or 1.8 while being clearly undervalued in the second-hand marketplace.

[So, That great quality is also found in the AF 50/1.7. Another underrated one?

Last edited by papasito on Sun Feb 09, 2025 10:37 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Another 100% crop from the towers shot. Unsharpened and without local contrast.

Image is quite homogeneous so take my word also here, quite the same on other parts of the image.

For whatever reason, the image looks a little bit better on the RAW editor.



PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Same. With sharpening and local contrast.

Again image quality does not match the RAW editor. I do not think one would claim oversharpening comparing both images.





A little better using Flickr as storage (do not know why...)

DSC09992 crop 2 by lumens pixel, sur Flickr

Last edited by lumens pixel on Fri Feb 07, 2025 3:57 pm; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Now the cherry tree. Without sharpening nor local contrast.

Note that only one flower is exactly in focus, the one inside the triangle between the branches closer to the internal angle.

By the way, this is f2,0...




PostPosted: Fri Feb 07, 2025 4:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
And the rosebush. No sharpening etc...




PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2025 5:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
stevemark wrote:
I have given up commenting such images in terms of "lens performance". The largest version of the iris image, for instance, is 3 MP (and that includes the large white border); the images itself is about 2 MP.

Anything & any lens will look good at 2 MP, especially if aggressively sharpened.


You can stop right there. All the tests and charts and graphs in the world are kind of meaningless when compared against the beauty of a well composed, exposed and printed image. And you don't need a whole lot of resolution for that, or the bestest, most sharpest, most exotic lens. A $10 Minolta 50mm f1.7 will provide all the performance you need to make beautiful images.


PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2025 8:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Misunderstanding from my side - posting deleted Wink

S

Last edited by stevemark on Mon Feb 10, 2025 12:52 am; edited 2 times in total


PostPosted: Sun Feb 09, 2025 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bet Gaeger’s intent was to say that a humble 50 1,7 would suffice for a pic in this focal range. Sure other focal lengths are much needed for the kind of photo you take.

Personally I realise that most of my needs are covered between 28 and 100 ad half of these are served enough with Minolta's 45mm which sticks to my field of view.

However I am content when I engage in one lens sorties with a different focal length like for example 200mm to force my eyes to see differently.

That is the behaviour of an amateur where you are committed to a result and use all available tools to succeed.

And you do well.


PostPosted: Mon Feb 10, 2025 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lumens pixel wrote:
I bet Gaeger’s intent was to say that a humble 50 1,7 would suffice for a pic in this focal range. Sure other focal lengths are much needed for the kind of photo you take.

Personally I realise that most of my needs are covered between 28 and 100 ad half of these are served enough with Minolta's 45mm which sticks to my field of view.

However I am content when I engage in one lens sorties with a different focal length like for example 200mm to force my eyes to see differently.

That is the behaviour of an amateur where you are committed to a result and use all available tools to succeed.

And you do well.


@ geger / lumens: SORRY if I misunderstood!!

Yes, I can quite agree to what you wrote, and that's why I rarely did any tests of normal lenses. Most double gauss vintage normal lenses from the 1970s and the 1980s are very similar in their performance when stopped down. They are absolutely sufficient for 24MP FF at f5.6 and beyond, and they often are very good even when using 50 MP FF cameras (f8 usually being the optimum).

As usual I'm talking about landscape type photos here; others have much more experience when it comes to portrait, macro and available light.

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1