Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 v. smc Pentax-A 35-70/4.0

[peterqd]

Like Lloydy, Excal. and Edgar and a few others, I am a real fan of the Minolta MD 35-70 constant aperture zoom. We've seen
many shots taken with it so it doesn't need any more introduction from me. But I'm building up a set of nice Pentax K lenses
to use mainly on film and I got to wondering if the Pentax version of this lens was at all comparable. Here's what I found.



Both lenses have constant aperture at all zoom settings. The max aperture is f/3.5 for the Minolta and f/4.0 for the
Pentax, which makes very little difference in use. They both have rotating front elements, which can be a nuisance when
using a polarising filter. These are the other physical differences:



The Pentax is appreciably smaller and lighter. It has a moulded plastic focus grip rather than the rubber on the MD, giving
it a more plasticky feel, but it still feels much better quality than the awful non-SMC Pentax zooms. The MD has
a macro mode, with max. magnification marked as 1:4. However, the minimum focus distance is a whopping 800mm,
compared to the Pentax's 250mm, and this means the Pentax can actually achieve a very favourable 1:2.7 magnification.

Here are the results, Minolta follwed by Pentax each time (click on images for full size versions):

1 70mm at f/8



2 70mm wide open



3 70mm at MFD (MD in macro mode)



4 trying to induce CA (max aperture, slightly OOF)



5 35mm infinity at f/22



More pics later comparing barrel distortion.

[iangreenhalgh1]

They both look decent, but I see nothing to persuade me they are as good as a good prime, and the size is a bit much for a NEX I think, so I think a 50mm prime is always going to be my preference over a 35-70.

They do both look quite a bit sharper than the Konica 35-70 I have, the later plastic version. The earlier metal 3.5/35-70 Konica is much better but mine sadly has a scratch the size of the grand canyon on the front.

[Lloydy]

There's a lot of contenders in this short zoom range, and my favourite is the MD 35-70 / 3.5, like Peters. I haven't got the Pentax lens, but I have got a Vivitar and a Tamron 17A , both 3.5's, and I've also got the Minolta AF version, which I've never used, and I don't have a Minolta AF to NEX adapter. ( Should I get the expensive LA-EA1 adapter ? )

The Pentax is impressive, they are different but neither is 'bad' compared to the other. I like this lens on a NEX, I think it's a perfect size - any smaller and people with big hands struggle with tiny lenses. And the focal length is good, the macro is good. Neither will ever match the performance of a dedicated macro lens, that's a certainty. But these lenses will capture the opportunity shot while you are out without a bag of gear, and do a very decent job of it.
I'll take the Minolta, Vivitar and Tamron out for walk sometime soon, it'll be interesting to compare them with the Pentax.

I prefer the Minolta to the Pentax, but the Pentax is impressive for the 'macro' shot.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I still haven't found a zoom I liked enough to use instead of primes, but I'm still looking. I want one for those times when you can only carry one lens. I have the superb Konica Zoom-Hexanon UC 45-100 which is as good as most primes, but it's a bit heavy thing and not wide enough. Another copy of the Konica 3.5/35-70 would be nice, but not a common or cheap item and again, big and heavy.

I almost bought a Tamron SP 24-50 yesterday but it had fungus and I'm not confident about cleaning a complicated zoom. I've got my eye on a Komuranon 3.5/24-50 too but can't find any info or image samples, and the price he wants for it, I need to know how it performs before forking out.

[peterqd]

[hifisapi]

It should be noted that the pentax allows close focusing without having to activate a macro mode.
For this reason and the mfd it offers, it makes a nice general purpose product photography lens.

[peterqd]

[iangreenhalgh1]

For use on a Pentax, you could try one of these:

Ricoh Rikenon P Zoom 35-70 3.4-4.5





I just bought one yesterday for 99p, looks like it's never been used and really is tiny, it's a two-touch too, which I much prefer to a one-touch.

I'll give it a whirl to see if it's a suitable walkaround lens for the NEX, but if it's not as good as a prime, it's not good enough, so my hopes are only middling.

[hifisapi]

WARNING rikenon P lenses will jam on pentax dslr bodies

[peterqd]

[hifisapi]

[iangreenhalgh1]

[Lloydy]

Damn, I've got too many lenses..... I've just remembered that I've also got a Pentax F 35-70 / 3.5-4.5 autofocus, and that is a whole lot better than the Pentax 18-55 kit lens - which has a very good reputation for a kit lens. This is my 'go to lens' for my K10 everytime.

Like I said earlier, it's a great range, it's popular. And the manufacturers obviously realised this and made these good zooms alongside the cheaper ones. These constant ap' with macro / close focus zooms were aimed at the enthusiast, maybe not the pro ? market and were built to a standard rather than a price. I think it was a fiercely contested market as well, which is why Vivitar, Tamron, Sigma and all the other third party manufacturers joined the party.

[invisible]

Love these comparisons, always a pleasure to see the images side by side.

Is there any difference, in terms of image quality, between the Minolta MD 35-70 f/3.5 with macro feature versus the version without the macro feature?

[iangreenhalgh1]

[DigiChromeEd]

[Lloydy]

[iangreenhalgh1]

I agree. There was also a correlation between cost and performance. The lenses that performed the best were also the most expensive, and a cheaper item like the Sigma XQ 39-80 was close to the foot of the table. Now we can afford to buy the top lenses that were extremely pricey when new, so we're lucky.

[Excalibur]

[Lloydy]

I think the variable aperture MD 35-70 lacked the 'macro' feature and was obviously variable aperture, both things that would reduce the price and probably increase the market share. What I don't know is whether the glass was the same ? Was the budget lens actually a great performer alongside the more expensive one with two additional features ? It would be really interesting to see the sales figures of these lenses.

[iangreenhalgh1]

I reckon the variable aperture one will be less good, almost every maker offered a cheaper standard zoom, in Konica's case, the small cheap plastic 35-70 is a good lens but not as good as the 3.5/35-70 which was more expensive. Olympus offered a 3.6 constant and a variable too, and canon had a faster more expensive one and a cheaper slower one.

Personally, I think it's a crying shame they stopped giving us superb 50mm primes as the kit lens and instead gave us a zoom. I'm pretty sure Canon deliberately made the kit lenses they were selling with the film EOS models so bad that customers immediately bought a better lens, thus giving Canon another sale and more profit. The Canon kit lenses of the EOS film era are so bad I really think they must have been a deliberate sales ploy.

[Excalibur]

[Lloydy]

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-35-70mm-F4-Zoom-Lens.html

The Pentax gets a good review from the faithful. It's a lens I shall get if I see one at the right price.