two minolta's 50mm F1.7

[nurkov]

I just acquired second 50mm and have no chance to compare them on digital, film only and that's just to say is not very convenient. So surely somebody on this forum had both, Attila probably ?

So which one is better?
1. Minolta MD 50mm F1.7 , on the left
2. Minolta MC Rokkor-PF 50mm F1.7, on the right

What PF stands for? Which one should I keep?

[iangreenhalgh1]

PF is the code for how many elements and groups. I had an older version of the PF you have and it was a superb lens, one of the better 50s for SR I have tried. I expect these two are the same optically just updated in materials used for the barrel and coatings.

[nurkov]

ok the newer one is much smaller as well and can focus at slightly shorter distance

[TrueLoveOne]

I have both as well, never compared them to be honest. What Ian says, that is exactly what i have been thinking all the time...

P = 5 groups, F = 6 elements, and so has the MD, so it's probably true.

[kyonthinh]

The left one has a tab for X-600, I think that is the lastest MD 50 1.7 from Minolta, but I could be wrong, since I have 2 different 50 1.7 with the tab .
By the colour and sharpness, I found out that my MC lenses render color more beautiful than plain MD lenses. The new coating from plain MD lenses, I think it has more CA and not as sharp as double coat in MC.

[dnas]

I've never physically compared the two to see if they are optically the same, but the construction is very different.

The MC is built in the traditional way, with lens elements and locking rings. The MD has groups that are molded together with plastic. What this means is that if there is fungus on an MC, you can completely disassemble and clean those elements. But with the MD, if the fungus is between the elements in a group, you are out of luck!!

Not for the F1.7, but here is a comparison of the MC & MD F1.4:

http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s2.htm

[fermy]

What Ian and TrueLoveOne say is 100% correct. And you should keep the one that you like better

[TrueLoveOne]

Now, another MD 50mm popped my mind.... and i do have it, sitting on an un-used Minolta X-300.

It's the 50mm f/2.0 version. I looked up the build (6/5), and it is the same as the f/1.7 versions. Now i wonder: why did they make another, and slower, version of the 50??
This is a very nice list b.t.w. : http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/body_li.html

Anybody ever compared it to an f/1.7 version?

[nurkov]

[kyonthinh]

[DR.JUAN]

The md 50/1,7 Is the best of all 1,7 normals of minolta. More contrast and redolution power than previous ones.

Generaly, the md has more contrast than the mc versions.

Not always have more resolution power


The plain md is better than the md rokkor. The mc should be better than the last.

[nurkov]

[TrueLoveOne]

Well yes, that is what i was thinking about doing, and then compare all 3, so i'd take the 50 f/2.0 and test it as well, i have never used it!

I need some time to do this... so it will most probably have to wait untill somewhere next week.....

[nurkov]

that's ok no problem and thanks