Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4 vs S-M-C Takumar 150mm f/4

[caspert79]

Comparison between the Minolta MD 75-150mm f/4 vs Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 150mm f/4 @ 150mm.
I like both lenses, especially for trips and hiking. The Minolta is a very good performer, compact and light to carry around. It's also very versatile being a zoom lens. Sometimes I like to take a fast lens with me in the short tele range, so the Minolta becomes obsolete. In that case, the Takumar is ideal as a complementation, being very compact with still a reasonably long focal length. But does it hold up to the excellent Minolta?

Note: there are 2 different types of Takumar 150/4. The Super-Multi-Coated version is always the last (and best) version. The Super Takumar comes with either the old or the new formula.

It was partly cloudy today, and it somewhat affects some of the images.

First, infinity:
WeilandComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Center performance is very comparable. The Takumar reaches about-perfect corners 1 stop earlier than the Minolta.

Bokeh test:
bokehcomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

The Takumar's bokeh seems a little softer wide open. No shocking difference. Better bokeh test are probably possible.

Another resolution test, this time only center crop.
First an overview of the image:

BuildingsOverview by devoscasper, on Flickr

Then, the 100% crops:
BuildingsCropcomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr

Both lenses are pretty sharp at the tested apertures. No significant difference IMO.
I also noticed how easy these lenses are to focus accurately; some excellent engineering from both manufacturers.

Conclusion: the Takumar seems to hold up very good with the Minolta, at least in my test.

[blotafton]

Nice test thanks for posting!

[visualopsins]

[caspert79]

[stevemark]

[Antoine]

Means a zoom is as good as a fixed focal?

[caspert79]

[stevemark]

[D1N0]

Most 135mm's were cheap offerings for the masses. Zooms in the seventies were expensive pieces of cutting edge optical technology. Totally undeservedly now they can be found at the bottom of the barrel.

[RokkorDoctor]

Time is also a factor. Contrast may have been better preserved on heavily used fixed 135mm lenses compared to heavily used tele-zooms. Some tele-zooms have a tendency to suck in dust; after decades of use a fixed 135mm may be substantially cleaner on the inside than an equally heavily used tele-zoom.

It all depends on the model; some zooms breathe more air than others when zooming/focusing. The Minolta 75-150/4 has only little internal volume change when focusing, and virtually none when zooming; they tend to still be very clean on the inside.