Top 10 Minolta legacy lenses!

Started Apr 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
havoc315 Veteran Member • Posts: 4,580
Re: on Nex C3, 3264 pixel width is full resolution

RussellInCincinnati wrote:

hav: Bad contrast.

Do you have side by side examples of the same-aperture bad contrast of this lens, versus some other of its focal length?

I'll post some later.

As an example, on New Year's eve, I started the evening shooting with the Minolta 50/1.7... I was pretty unhappy with it.  I switched to the Minolta 35-105 3.5-4.5 and got much sharper and much better contrast results.  Sharper results from a zoom than from a prime.. that is saying a lot.

hav: For a prime, it has a lot distortion.

Am still hoping you can link us to all those sub-$1000-dollar 50mm F/1.7 fixed-focal length full frame lenses, with significantly less than the Minolta's 0.4% distortion...or at least a photo where the Minolta's distortion was noticeable.

When using a fixed 50mm lens, I usually stick with the Minolta 50mm 2.8 macro.  I paid $160 for mine.  I believe the distortion is rated at 0.18% -- so about half the distortion of the 50/1.7.  I never did find it noticeable on APS-C, but I am noticing it around the edges on full frame.

Now if you absolutely need the 1.7 aperture instead of 2.8.. certainly the Minolta remains a good value.  But as already said, you need to stop it down for better results... so if you are comparing 2.8 to 2.8, I'd much rather have the macro lens.

hav: Yes, when used properly, with good post processing [it's ok],

Now am getting interested in linking to those other lenses, that give good results with poor post-processing.

Point is, other lenses give me much better results straight out of the camera, or with less post processing.

hav: ...But I would never use it as a model of Minolta lenses.

Good, would just as soon people continue to think that the Minolta AF 50/1.7 is a terrible lens. Let's also agree that the Minolta AF 85/1.4's corner resolution at wide apertures is really bad, too.

hav: Your picture [above]...full resolution would be better.

Hmm, the Nex C3 native sensor resolution is 3264 tall by 4912 pixels wide. The photo above is slightly cropped at the top to 3264x4472, but it is indeed displaying the camera's "full resolution" in the ordinary meaning of the phrase.

My apologies, I couldn't initially see the full resolution shot.  Now I have been able to click through to it, and it is relatively sharp and contrasty, but doesn't look much better to me than I can get with a kit lens.

hav: Poor contrast

Darn it, note to self: clients want higher contrast portraits.

Higher contrast than I usually get out of this lens.  Again, the other night I was shooting portraits with this lens, and with the 35-105.  With this lens, I had to increase the contrast significantly.  With the 35-105, I was reducing the contrast or leaving it alone.

These are not the best examples, as they have been post-processed.  I've added contrast and sharpening to the 50mm 1.7 lens.

But here are similar shots taken with the 35-105 and with the 50:

The 50mm, significant contrast added in post

The 35-105, at 60mm, minimal post processing

Now, this is not an ideal comparison.  I didn't take these 2 shots under laboratory conditions with the intent to compare them side by side.  They are different ISO, slightly different focal length and aperture.  But the results of the zoom lens are clearly better than the 50mm 1.7.

Maybe this weekend, I will do some identical side by sides, between the 50mm macro and the 50mm 1.7.

I will note this from the photozone review:

The 50mm 2.8 macro, resolution:  (From their review of the Sony macro, which is optically the same as the Minolta)

At 2.8, it's 2177 center and 1973 border.  At f4, it's 2284 center and 2062 borders.

Now the Minolta 50/1.7:

At 2.8, it's 2084 center and 1419 border.  At f4, it's 2236 center and 1629 borders.

Being I shoot with fullframe, that doesn't even measure the worst parts of the frame.  Those are APS-C measurements.  The APS-C border is basically full-frame just off-center.

Anyway, in dead center -- it's clear that the 1.7 is close to the macro.  Close, but a hair behind.  Move away from the center, and the 1.7 trails the 50mm macro significantly.  Not even close.

If you want to spend under $100, the 50 1.7 remains a a great value.  But if you're willing to spend a little more (under $200), and you don't need a 1.7 aperture, you'll get much better overall results from the 50mm macro... and from many many other lenses.

In fact, looking at the photozone results, in terms of resolution, even the cheap basic Sony kit zoom lens, out-resolves the Minolta 50 1.7.

 havoc315's gear list:havoc315's gear list
Sony a6300 Sony a7R III Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS Nikon AF-S Nikkor 18-35mm f/3.5-4.5G ED Sony FE 35mm F2.8 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow