jerryhatrick
Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 6
Many thanks for taking the time to carry out these tests. Much appreciated.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5
- Thread starter ProfHankD
- Start date
jerryhatrick
Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 6
many thanks for these suggestions.
I have been thinking about going the 24mm prime route but I am finding examples to be rather expensive (especially when I already have a Panasonic 25mm F1.7).
My thought process was either the 35-70 with a FL or a 24mm but not both.
I am not familiar with the FD 28-55. How would you rate it against other short zooms?
I need to sort out my whole lens strategy which is currently a bit of a mish mash of manual focus primes and zooms together with a couple of native Panasonic lenses (for the G80). Every time I think I'm getting close to making a decision, up pops another old lens which interests me and I am lured into buying (or at least bidding on!)
Winterfrost
Senior Member
I do use this 35-70/3.5 MD (2nd gen) since the early 90's, mine is from 81 (w/o macro feature - that feature came into the MD III version back into 83, optically they're quite the same exactly otherwise). It's a very good Zoom lens - and it is about 95% equal to the legendary Contax Zeiss 35-70/3.4 which costs a hell lot more - one forum Member here, Marty or how's it's name - did a comparsion 1:1 back into 2016 or so, and one can't say which is which from the samples - just like i've said years before here...because i do own both. Nice bargain, i've paid very much more for my copy, to say it least, 10 times more back then. ;-)Well, I've never tried that one because it has compatibility issues. So I don't know if it is optically junk or not... but I do have 7 different Minolta kit zooms that are all significantly better than ok (a few are optically great -- one of which is great despite being built using silver-painted-plastic with an all plastic bayonet.I had to laugh ....... the Mino AF 35-80 f/4-5.6 "shutter cap" is best forgotten.
Based onto the pictures you've posted here, it does look like your copy seems to suffer from somehow internal haze, or something else...because of the unusual "flat" rendering, with reduced contrast.
I do own two iterations of the 2nd Version (MD-II from 1981 to be exactly, and i can say my copies are about 95% mint like condition - no fungus, no haze, mold, separation, cleaning marks, or whatever - also with the original, "clip-on" lens hood for this lens, attached is a B&W MRC 010 UV F-Pro 55mm UV Filter for Front Element Protection)
best,
Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
Alan WF
Senior Member
Sorry for the delay in replying. I've been away for a few days.
In terms of comparing it to other short zooms, my only other experience is with the New FD 35-70/3.5-4.5. The 35-70 is reputed to be a dog in the frame corners on FF, but in my opinion adequately sharp on MFT and even on MFT with a FR. Both are extremely lightweight, which meshes well with my MFT bodies. I have sometimes though about combining my 28/2.8 on a FR (=20/2) with a 35-70 on a plain adapter. However, I tend to prefer using a 50/1.4 instead of the 35-70.
Regards,
Alan
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/4 on lens, 1/250 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/640 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/125 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/200 sec, ISO 200).
Yes. You can often find a 28/2.8 for about $50-$100, but widening to 24/2.8 typically doubles the price.
I think it's perfectly adequate for a lot of my photography, but everyone has their own standards. See some examples below. Let's be clear, though, I use it because it's convenient and covers a useful range on MFT at a useful aperture (on a FR it gives 20-40 mm at f/2.8ish) and adequate image quality; I don't use it because it is a stunning lens. Like many cheap lenses, it only has 5 aperture blades, so out-of-focus compact highlights appear pentagonal except when the lens is wide open (as can be seen in the last image below). However, it has a useful close focus distance of about 30 cm even at 55 mm, whereas a typical 50 mm would have a close focus distance about twice as long. It is somewhat susceptible to flare, especially on a FR.
In terms of comparing it to other short zooms, my only other experience is with the New FD 35-70/3.5-4.5. The 35-70 is reputed to be a dog in the frame corners on FF, but in my opinion adequately sharp on MFT and even on MFT with a FR. Both are extremely lightweight, which meshes well with my MFT bodies. I have sometimes though about combining my 28/2.8 on a FR (=20/2) with a 35-70 on a plain adapter. However, I tend to prefer using a 50/1.4 instead of the 35-70.
I'm pretty happy with what I have. My prime options in that focal range are a 28/2.8 ($65) on a FR ($150 but there are options at about $80) and a 50/1.4 ($50). My zoom option is this 28-55/3.5-4.5 ($65) on the same FR. The prime option gives me excellent quality at f/2 (since I rarely use the 50/1.4 wide open) and the zoom option gives me adequate quality and convenience at f/2.8ish.
Regards,
Alan
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/4 on lens, 1/250 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/640 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/125 sec, ISO 200).
GM5 with New FD 28-55/3.5-4.5 and Lens Turbo II (f/11 on lens, 1/200 sec, ISO 200).
Winterfrost
Senior Member
Not true. I do own mint copies of the 35-70 and 28-85 Contax Zeiss lenses, both are like primes, when being stopped down a bit. As i said for ages here - the Minolta is 95% the IQ of the Contax, and User Mattieu or how's it spelled here made a comparsion 1:1 between the Zeiss and the Minolta - and guess what? You can't tell from the samples and crops, which lens is which. Same like i said, period. From the 35-70/3.5 MD, i do own two decent iterations.
Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
jerryhatrick
Member
- Messages
- 33
- Reaction score
- 6
Alan,
Very many thanks for the comprehensive reply and photos. Much appreciated.
As I already have a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.4 and the 35-70, I think the time has arrived for me to simply get hold of a FR and really use the lenses I've already got.
If I'm not happy with the results then that is the time to probably do something about it.
Thanks again.
Very many thanks for the comprehensive reply and photos. Much appreciated.
As I already have a 28mm f2.8, a 50mm f1.4 and the 35-70, I think the time has arrived for me to simply get hold of a FR and really use the lenses I've already got.
If I'm not happy with the results then that is the time to probably do something about it.
Thanks again.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
No offense, whileas Sony isn't offering (yet) a decent APS-C Zoom Lens (the "Zeiss" 16-70/4 does have a bad reputation due to corner softness - on many reviews, photozone, ephotozone, dozens of others) i do consider it not a good idea, the A6500 with a Speed Booster Ultra, because - this package costs way much more than a Sony A7 II, which does also feature IBIS, and native focal length, there is no cropfactor because of the FF Sensor. I'd personally never go for a smaller APS-C setup (also way pricey) when there is a FF-Alternative....just my 2 Cents.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
Thanks Matt, that was your link, i was looking for.
As i have had said before, and you've done the tests by yourself last year - they're equal....hence, the Minolta costs a ton less. I am currently happy with my Contax 28-85, which is the 2nd Iteration of this lens, but this time it'll being used onto a native EF Bajonet Mount, for my EOS 5D.PS: ..and thanks for the credit.
I do think at the usual F8-F11 aperture, it's hard to tell a difference, both lenses do have a slight color difference, as for using different glass, and coatings...but both are way good. The Minolta does have the advantage for being smaller, cheaper, and also features 2 rings, is smaller and light, but as negative, does have a plastic construction...which seems to be durable, though. Bottom line - i do keep both, but in the case of an accident, if the unexpected would happen...the Minolta is cheaper to replace...just to keep in mind.Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
M
Mathieu18
Guest
Winterfrost
Senior Member
As for landscape, i do must say, i've never being a "pixel-peeper"...i don't watch my pictures at 200%, even rarely at 100%. I'd be happy to get a keeper from time to time, which counts much more then sharpness at the very edges, etc....i do love Zeiss lenses since my childhood, i've been fascinated by their looks, physical appearance, rings and scales, when i was way little...around 6 to 10...and getting my nose flat onto the shop windows...and thought to myself, one day, i'd own this, and taking pictures as a amateur....and i've started with a compact, that my grandparents had given me, later my mother have had a Olympus XA....and it took some time, until i've had my 1st SLR...well, analogue, right. I've read german photomags, and they've been praising Zeiss for their microcontrast and resolution, that was into my teenage days. Now, i do own a a few C/Y lenses, would love to have the now discountined "Classic" Zeiss Lenses, but they're quite expensive - and there is also no Zoom...Yea, there’s a very slight edge to the Contax, worth it is subjective. There’s often fairly expensive increases for improvements on the margins... I’ve been thinking about trying a 28-85, seems less pricey, I believe mostly due to its size...Thanks Matt, that was your link, i was looking for.
Yea, at landscape apertures neither will make or break a photo, but in general we spend too much time worrying about pixel level sharpness. That said, I think both of these have gotten a little out of hand. I found a good deal around $225 when they were about $300. Now they typically ask $400 plus. The Minolta that used to be $40-$60 is now $100+... they are good optics but...PS: ..and thanks for the credit.
Yes, great deal(s), I have found my Contax 28-85 with a Serial No. into the 81xxxxx range, so from 2004-2005, closer to the end of the production, original box, and i've paid 240, when they're usually around 400-500+ into this condition, plus the addons would cost also, the original contax metal lens hood, etc. I've paid for my 1st minolta that much also, but that was into the 90's....and i got myself a second copy, when the prices have been around 50 EUR, now it's usually double the price...
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
Tested and reviewed - one more article about Minolta MD 35-70 F3.5 with Macro - MDIII
Winterfrost
Senior Member
confused circle
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,932
- Reaction score
- 1,554
What of any of your posts is needed if prior online discussion is an automatic disqualifier?
and that review is weird - Naming a lens? Gravity power?
Last edited:
Winterfrost
Senior Member
Which review is weird, you don't know "The Rokkorfiles"? anyway, forget it. Anyway, i do have this specific MD Zoom for 3 Decades into my hands, so what is your point?
Have Fun!
Marc
Last edited:
John Michael Winterbourne
Senior Member
I think confused circle's main point was that he found this part of your response to TF's recent post a little unnecessary?
"Well, un-needed, there are zillions of MD 35-70/3.5 reviews onto the net, no offense."
Adding a smiley at the end doesn't make much difference in my view. I could be wrong of course.
"Well, un-needed, there are zillions of MD 35-70/3.5 reviews onto the net, no offense."
Adding a smiley at the end doesn't make much difference in my view. I could be wrong of course.
Proplus888
Leading Member
- Messages
- 666
- Reaction score
- 313
I initially thought it was a Japanese thing, until I Googled it and couldn't link the name and the lens....
Winterfrost
Senior Member
My bad, it wasn't negative being meant - it's only, i've read really way much reviews onto the net about this MD Zoom, and all have had being said about it. No offense.
Good Light !
Marc
Stesinou
Leading Member
Really good lens! And for this price... quite excellent.
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I picked one up for about $22 (old x-5x0 camera included!) at an estate sale a couple of weeks ago; looks promising so far, though I haven't done a great job of getting the focus spot-on.
I do kinda like the OOF rendering, honestly...
Last edited:
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum