Tamron SP 35-80 CF vs Minolta MD 35-70 3.5

[Nesster]

These two lenses are both high quality 'one lens does it all' normal zooms from the '80s. So I figured I'd compare the two, first externally and give my impressions... then I'd go out and shoot test shots with each, and see if my impressions bear out. I expect I'll be wrong on some things

I've had the Tamron SP 35-80 2.8-3.8 CF (01a) since new around '84, and it's been on every SLR I have, film and digital, so I should know the lens. The Minolta MD 35-70 3.5 I've had since April 10 this year, or 20 full days and three rolls of film.


Creampuff pics cameras by Nesster, on Flickr


Black and Silver by Nesster, on Flickr

I had an amusing time looking for the Adaptall for MD I knew I had... somewhere. I discovered a TX MD mount. The MD Adaptall box had a Fujica AX mount in it. I was starting to thing I was mistaken, until there, at the end of the 90/2.5, was the Minolta MD Adaptall! So I could proceed with the plan.

So what distinguishes the two in photographically significant ways?

The Tamron has a 62mm filter, Minolta 55mm. I give advantage Minolta, 62mm is large and e.g. the polarizer for it was expensive. More lenses have 55mm and I can always step up to a 58mm and share with e.g. the P645.

Both have macro functions, and pretty decent ones at that. The Minolta has a push button gizmo that gives 1:7 - 1:4 magnification at 70mm. The Tamron has its Close Focus thing- as you crank the lens closer it also zooms longer, sleeplessly reaching 1:2.5 magnification. For 20+ of the years I've had this lens, I haven't yearned for a 'real' macro - it is good. (After 20 years, I bought... let's call it 3 true macro lenses.) The benefit of CF is that you can focus very close non-macro style, which to me is a big win. Advantage Tamron, but the Minolta is by no means far behind.

The Minolta's smaller though not a whole lot lighter. Both feel nice on the Minolta bodies I have. The Minolta's constant aperture is nice, though the Tamron doesn't get overly slow in the long end and has that 2.8 maximum at 35mm. I like the look of the Minolta from the front (not a big fan of the Tamron stealth look) and the look of the Tamron from the top (not a big fan of the two buttons on the Minolta). Call this a toss-up.

I don't think there's much else physical to worry about. How about my impression of the image quality. (Here's where I'll end up eating crow.)

The Tamron has very good resolution, near prime level, but lower contrast and color. Maybe the 62mm front glass gets too much veiling flare? The tutu of a shade they sold as an accessory is pretty much useless, by the way. There's barrel distortion at 35mm, which I happen to think is cute and lovable. I would call the Tamron's basic signature as 'natural' sharpness but a bit thin overall.

The Minolta is thicker: more contrast, more color, more sharpness. Probably the resolution is somewhere what the Tamron does, or maybe the density of image is trading off some resolution. The film shots have been very snappy. Bokeh I'd say is slightly on the harsh side of neutral, though it can get a bit busy, in the way lenses that emphasize 'sharp' tend to do. By comparison I'd call Tamron a bit smoother, though its bokeh has never called attention to it, good or bad.

So there you have it: I expect the images to be of comparable resolution, the Tamron with a thinner, less aggressive look, while the Minolta will tend to show off sharpness and color.

My plan is to shoot a roll or two of film, alternating the two lenses, with a couple of more carefully set up comparison shots. I hope I'll be able to keep track of which is which!

[LucisPictor]

Very interesting!

[Ivan Lee]

I just bought the Minolta 35-70 3.5, I'm still waiting it to arrive... I've read somewhere that this lens has something to do with Leica... do you know if that's true?

[koji]

Forget the resolution tables, just look MTF graphs please.

(click to enlarge)

Distortion legend:
A: Spherical aberration (both 35 and 70mm)
B: Astigmatism (both 35 and 70mm)
C: Distortion (both 35 and 70mm)

At 35mm end, the lens performs quite good. (Early in the morning, light was not great.)
MTF says 70mm end is better, but do not have an example. Sorry.

(mine is Leica Vario-Elmar-R 35-70 which Minolta made, maybe coating might be different than Minolta's)

According to the resolution tables, at 35mm end the lens performs no difference between the cases of
"the center is the best" and "the average of the entire frame is the best" of the resolution.

[koji]

[Nesster]

Yes this lens is something special... here are some samples with color film
http://forum.mflenses.com/superia-400-md-35-70-t38680.html

and B&W
http://forum.mflenses.com/minolta-md-3-5-35-70-fuji-neopan-400-t38501.html

I know also Bill (Katastrofo) bought one or two of these... I'm too tired today to take samples, hope to do so with the two (7 has some b&w, 5 has some color)... results next week

ps. while I was looking for the Minolta adaptall, I got scared: I have 3 Pentax K-a adapters, 2 K adapters, an ES-2 and a M42, plus a N-AI and the Fuji Ax. I sent T4 Exakta and M42 adapters to Bill( with a 105), but I still have them for Nikon and Pentax and Pentax ES and some others... I really didn't know I had so many different ones.

[Nesster]

I'm still digesting all the information - is this a great place or what!

The Minolta does have barrel distortion at 35mm - judging from this photo it may even have more than the Tamron:

Westbound, Newark Broad St by Nesster, on Flickr

[Seele]

[koji]

I don't know about the version differences, mine does not have a macro
mode, which is the oldest model I think. The supplied MTF graphs are for
the oldest version, which was also made for Leitz.

[Nesster]

Here's the Tulips in the Window torture test - back lit detail at 70mm, f/4, 1/1000 sec on the Minolta XE-5 and Fuji Superia 400, CVS scan.

Just a couple of notes- no, I don't think the CVS scan is the ultimate. No, the focus could be different between the shots. However, I carefully focused both on the same thing... and there's a second set, shot at f/5.6, in reverse order, where I took the lenses off between, which show consistent results.

This is a torture test I like to do as it shows some lens characteristics pretty clearly.


The Tulip Test - Tamron by Nesster, on Flickr


The Tulip Test - Minolta by Nesster, on Flickr


150% crops of the CVS scan


The Tulip Test - Minolta 150% by Nesster, on Flickr


The Tulip Test - Tamron - 150% by Nesster, on Flickr

[Nesster]

The One Finger or Two test: 35mm, f/3.5, /15 sec, XE-5, Fuji Superia 400, CVS scan.

On this one I don't have a control; so it is possible the result is due to slightly different focus, sharpness wise. But I'm looking at color and how light gradation is handled as well, and any distortion vs. ceiling and (out of focus) counter.

One finger = Minolta, file ends in number 14. Two fingers = Tamron, file ends in number 13. These are mflenses uploads so you should get a larger image by clicking on these.




150% detail, right edge of frame - Minolta, then Tamron

[Nesster]

35mm outdoor scene, f/11... there's not much to choose here, save the Minolta may have a smidge more color and is a bit warmer, the Tamron a bit more magenta but to my eye perhaps better green?


The Lawn Test - Minolta by Nesster, on Flickr


The Lawn Test - Tamron by Nesster, on Flickr


At any rate, my surprises: the Minolta is better with close up, much sharper than the Tamron, and with less color fringing. The two are nearly identical when it comes to distortion at 35mm, though I'm thinking that Tamron has a slight advantage in some other aspects, not enough to make a distinction.

There was one shot that I proceeded to screw up, I was kneeling over a bed of tulips, with the fountain and park behind them - the idea was to be at f/5.6 and have the fountain and park be out of focus, at 50mm. Tamron first, there was a clear drop off in DOF in the viewfinder.

When I put the Minolta on, I had to double check I wasn't stopped down or something: the overall image in the view finder did not go out of focus as deeply as the Tammy. I may have screwed up by closing the Minolta down another stop... to get the same shutter speed as the Tamron... but the result looks like the Minolta is both stopped down AND has a higher shutter speed. This is photographically significant - I'll want to try this again to see if there's something consistent going on.

Minolta

Tamron

[Nesster]

I want to investigate the 50mm dof thing more... and I'm thinking that for close ups, perhaps something is going on with the Tamron, as there's a dead spot in the zoom just around 70mm - the lens gets longer when zooming in either direction, and for a wee space nothing happens. There may be a preferred way to set 70mm, e.g. from the 80mm direction vs the wider end. At any rate, if this turns out to be the case it is definitiely photographically useful info (though except to match zoom, I'd just as soon crank it to 80mm...)

[Katastrofo]

Judging by the very first pic, the cat knows who the winner is!

Leica did grab the first version off of Minolta's plate, and only the first
wore the Leica badge. All three are supposed to have the same optical
formula if not mistaken.

The Minolta is much better in the last two, and does look like you used a
faster shutter speed to catch more droplet detail.

Can't wait to try the two lenses I have, how do you like the XE-5?

[Nesster]

[Katastrofo]

It takes the LR44/SR44 batts? One thing you forgot, the XE7 comes in black
and you would look much sleeker with an all-black camera and lens. Of
course, some extra mousse in your hair might help compensate...

[Nesster]

Yes, but to my surprise the panda look of the 5 is actually pretty fetching in real life. Or at least distracting

I'll have to think about that - wearing moose horns would distract people from the camera


Oh, the batteries: yes it uses these modern ones. The SRT 201 doesn't, yet much to my surprise it meters well in lower light with a modern battery, but when you get to the sunny 16 range it starts to indicate under exposure (i.e. over read), which once I figured out is easy enough to take into account. Simply don't set it above sunny 16 dispite what the meter says!

[Katastrofo]

Thanks, will be looking for the XE5. I guess with the panda look you like
2-tone wing-tipped shoes as well.

[Nesster]

LOL Really if a 7 falls in your lap don't kick it off. But the law of Second Best Camera Model applies: usually you pay much less for a 7 than a 7. In the X series I'd totally get the X570 before the X700, not just due to cost but because it does manual exposure better.

The 35-70 is an amazing lens and available for so little money for what you get... it's worth the Minolta film detour. I wonder what digital cameras go with it - probably only those miniature mirrorless things or maybe a Canon?

It is better than the Tammy, though the Tammy will mount on just about anything... apart from a couple of follow up investigations, the verdict does seem clear.


tulips alive by Nesster, on Flickr



BTW, I observed some ebay insanity. I'm keeping an eye out for the Rokkor 58/1.4 just because of the cool focal length. One just ended at $113 plus shipping, while a few minutes before a SRT-101 with the same lens went unbid at $30.

ps. the first gizmo I bought for Minolta is a M42 adapter, at the camera show. heh heh.

[koji]

Bill, XE-7 needs LR44x2 or SR44x2.



I wanted buy an MD 50/1.7, but the body came with it.
It looks sexy actually, eh?

[Nesster]

These are pretty and butch at the same time

Apart from the electronics, the XE series seems to suffer from the self time lever (and the on-off one) breaking. Mine did, I superglued it back (and won't use it) but I think last night I dreamt that it fell off again and disappeared into a camera bag

[Katastrofo]

Look at that 3D look with the tulips! Yeah, like I said, I've owned 2
of the 35-80 SP lenses, but there is something more with this Minolta in how
it renders colors/contrast, too.

Koji, yes, if I see one with the 1.7/50, will go for it even with all of Jussi's
warnings, how like Cassandra he is... That particular 50 prime is a
great performer.

[nemesis101]

The Minolta will fit the Olympus E1 / E3 / E5 and most others without any trouble, and also the E300 / E330 and Panasonic L1 with a fraction of a mm of the actuating pin filed down.. really a TINY amount as it just catches the mirror box on the latter cameras...


Doug

PS I had a raft of recent posts with LOADS of tulips taken with the 01A on a Pentax istD...

[Nesster]