Stesinou
Leading Member
Good.
-
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
Hi, Just another question, what is the adapter you are using to convert MD mount to E mount? I have an A mount, wondering wether buying MD/ MC lenses make any sense. I bought a mirrorless adapter and all I get it macro focusing upto may be maximum 30 cm.When I bought the Vivitar AF 75-200mm f/4.5 Auto Focus Zoom, a Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 was part of the deal. I find it pretty hard to get excited about 35-70mm zooms, but this one has a very strong reputation and for about $25, it seemed well worth giving it a shot.... So, here it is:
If you look closely at that photo, you can see something funny going on in the glass near the 70mm marking on the front of the lens. It's a branching structure that looks a bit like fungus, but actually looks even more like liquid seeped in and crystalized deposits as it dried. There's a little more of that inside the lens. I could get upset about it -- it is enough to potentially reduce contrast a little and the eBay seller did call this lens "excellent" -- but the seller didn't say the lens was "clean and clear" and I didn't explicitly ask, so I blame my lapse of judgement when I saw the interesting combo at a good price.... Anyway, I can probably clean it if it seems worthwhile.
This lens has three versions (and this link also has a very complete review of the 3rd). The first is the one Leica also sold, but seems to be the optically weakest of the three. The second and third seem to differ only in that the third has a "1:4 macro" mode, which would be handy given the longish close focus without it. My copy is the second version... and a very clean copy is most aspects. There's plastic here, but the build quality is very good with the usual Minolta smoothness for the focus. The zoom is not as smooth and relatively disappointing, but isn't really bad and doesn't creep; the odd thing is that you turn a plastic collar to extend the lens from 70mm to 35mm. Yeah, it's much longer at 35mm than at 70mm. It's not a huge lens, but it is bigger than average for this zoom range... then again, it's also faster than average at a constant f/3.5.
So, how the image quality? Well, most reviewers say it's at least as good as primes in its range. The review I cited above seems right -- my second version performs very much like the third version he reviewed (although bokeh seem better on mine) -- and I agree that it's not better than good primes in it's range overall, but it beats bad ones and is competitive with good ones at similar aperture values. Let's review a few key points using out-of-camera JPEG shots on my Sony A7RII.
First, contrast at infinity definitely increases, especially around 70mm, if you stop down a bit from f/3.5. For example, at 70mm:
70mm @ f/3.5
70mm @ f/8
Wow! At f/8 this is truly excellent. It's actually pretty sharp at f/3.5, but contrast and color are, well, meh. The focus in the following shots at 35mm is different, but it's pretty clear that f/3.5 is better at 35mm... but f/8 is still better:
35mm @ f/3.5
35mm @ f/8
If you haven't gotten the idea yet, it's simply: f/8 is excellent!
Ok, so we've got an excellent landscape lens. That's good, but how general-purpose is it? Well, a big part of that would be how it handles flare:
35mm @ f/3.5
That's the sun reflecting off my pond. There is a local reduction in contrast, but it's just around where the bright spot is. If you look closely, there's a little structured flare at the left top too... but it's not all that bright and still has a fairly soft edge. In sum, this is an excellent performance for a vintage lens with glass at the front and no hood; it is much better than I expected. Unlike most of my Canon FD/FDn lenses, I'd trust this to handle most lighting without nasty flare surprises.
How about distortion and vignetting? Not bad distortion and not much vignetting, but we have some at 35mm:
35mm @ f/3.5
At 35mm, even f/3.5 is giving a very pleasant rendering, although it's pretty clear that vignetting is significant. That vignetting is actually still in the easy-to-fix range, but by f/8 it's gone anyway.
I have to say that I like the rendering of this lens a lot more than most similar zooms. Here are a couple more unprocessed OOC JPEGs:
70mm @ f/8
That's sharp where it should be and nicely, smoothly, soft where it is out of focus. In fact, I love this rendering. Here's a 100% crop from another shot of that tree:
100% crop from 70mm @ f/8
To me, that looks just about perfect.
So, what's the overall verdict? This is a lens deserving of its reputation. It certainly doesn't render like a zoom lens that's been around for three decades. The 35-70mm range isn't much, and f/3.5 isn't very fast, but it's consistently very nice. It does compete well with primes, but doesn't beat most until f/8, where it becomes exceptionally good at all focal lengths. In sum, it's a hard lens to beat for 35-70mm landscapes, and solid as a one lens only choice. However, I do think the 1:4 macro of the third version is worth looking for, because close focus isn't close enough.
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Sadly, it's probably not worthwhile. Macro lenses do macro better and glass adapters (1.2X teleconverters) tend to degrade IQ enough to make a great lens little more than good. For example, my Minolta 28mm f/2.5 on a glass adapter was just a tad better than the kit zoom on my A350, but it was one of the sharpest lenses on my NEX-5.
Before I moved to E mount, I used A mount (and still very rarely do). A mount is great for getting AF lenses cheap. M42 can be adapted without glass, and there are some great lenses in that mount, but they tend to be a little older and pricier than Minolta MC/MD or Canon FL/FD/FDn. Takumar, Zeiss, and some Vivitar are your friends in A mount.
Lightshow
Veteran Member
It's not weak at all, this comes from the Leica purists that don't like it cuz it's not a true Leica...When I bought the Vivitar AF 75-200mm f/4.5 Auto Focus Zoom, a Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 was part of the deal. I find it pretty hard to get excited about 35-70mm zooms, but this one has a very strong reputation and for about $25, it seemed well worth giving it a shot.... So, here it is:
If you look closely at that photo, you can see something funny going on in the glass near the 70mm marking on the front of the lens. It's a branching structure that looks a bit like fungus, but actually looks even more like liquid seeped in and crystalized deposits as it dried. There's a little more of that inside the lens. I could get upset about it -- it is enough to potentially reduce contrast a little and the eBay seller did call this lens "excellent" -- but the seller didn't say the lens was "clean and clear" and I didn't explicitly ask, so I blame my lapse of judgement when I saw the interesting combo at a good price.... Anyway, I can probably clean it if it seems worthwhile.
This lens has three versions (and this link also has a very complete review of the 3rd). The first is the one Leica also sold, but seems to be the optically weakest of the three.
I think it performs quite well.
Leica R 35-70/3.4 on my A7r
--The second and third seem to differ only in that the third has a "1:4 macro" mode, which would be handy given the longish close focus without it. My copy is the second version... and a very clean copy is most aspects. There's plastic here, but the build quality is very good with the usual Minolta smoothness for the focus. The zoom is not as smooth and relatively disappointing, but isn't really bad and doesn't creep; the odd thing is that you turn a plastic collar to extend the lens from 70mm to 35mm. Yeah, it's much longer at 35mm than at 70mm. It's not a huge lens, but it is bigger than average for this zoom range... then again, it's also faster than average at a constant f/3.5.
So, how the image quality? Well, most reviewers say it's at least as good as primes in its range. The review I cited above seems right -- my second version performs very much like the third version he reviewed (although bokeh seem better on mine) -- and I agree that it's not better than good primes in it's range overall, but it beats bad ones and is competitive with good ones at similar aperture values. Let's review a few key points using out-of-camera JPEG shots on my Sony A7RII.
First, contrast at infinity definitely increases, especially around 70mm, if you stop down a bit from f/3.5. For example, at 70mm:
70mm @ f/3.5
70mm @ f/8
Wow! At f/8 this is truly excellent. It's actually pretty sharp at f/3.5, but contrast and color are, well, meh. The focus in the following shots at 35mm is different, but it's pretty clear that f/3.5 is better at 35mm... but f/8 is still better:
35mm @ f/3.5
35mm @ f/8
If you haven't gotten the idea yet, it's simply: f/8 is excellent!
Ok, so we've got an excellent landscape lens. That's good, but how general-purpose is it? Well, a big part of that would be how it handles flare:
35mm @ f/3.5
That's the sun reflecting off my pond. There is a local reduction in contrast, but it's just around where the bright spot is. If you look closely, there's a little structured flare at the left top too... but it's not all that bright and still has a fairly soft edge. In sum, this is an excellent performance for a vintage lens with glass at the front and no hood; it is much better than I expected. Unlike most of my Canon FD/FDn lenses, I'd trust this to handle most lighting without nasty flare surprises.
How about distortion and vignetting? Not bad distortion and not much vignetting, but we have some at 35mm:
35mm @ f/3.5
At 35mm, even f/3.5 is giving a very pleasant rendering, although it's pretty clear that vignetting is significant. That vignetting is actually still in the easy-to-fix range, but by f/8 it's gone anyway.
I have to say that I like the rendering of this lens a lot more than most similar zooms. Here are a couple more unprocessed OOC JPEGs:
70mm @ f/8
That's sharp where it should be and nicely, smoothly, soft where it is out of focus. In fact, I love this rendering. Here's a 100% crop from another shot of that tree:
100% crop from 70mm @ f/8
To me, that looks just about perfect.
So, what's the overall verdict? This is a lens deserving of its reputation. It certainly doesn't render like a zoom lens that's been around for three decades. The 35-70mm range isn't much, and f/3.5 isn't very fast, but it's consistently very nice. It does compete well with primes, but doesn't beat most until f/8, where it becomes exceptionally good at all focal lengths. In sum, it's a hard lens to beat for 35-70mm landscapes, and solid as a one lens only choice. However, I do think the 1:4 macro of the third version is worth looking for, because close focus isn't close enough.
A Manual Focus Junky...
One photographers junk lens is an artists favorite tool.
####Where's my FF NEX-7 ?????
Firmware request:
-A button map for toggling the EVF & LCD
-Still waiting for the minimum shutter speed with auto ISO for my NEX-7 and A7r. I know it will never happen.
-Customize the display screen layout, I'd love to have both Histogram and level at the same time.
-More peaking options, being able to set peaking sensitivity and a threshold level.
-An RGB overlay on the histogram -An option to return the focus assist zoom to one button press
-An option to return to how the NEX-7 handled playback, ie. center button to zoom, then you could use the control dial to zoom in and out, then center button to exit the zoom mode.
Lightshow
Veteran Member
The FD SSC 24/2.8 is wonderful on crop.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/lightshow-photography/tags/canonfdssc2428/
You could also try the nFD 20-35/3.5L
Manual for when you want it, AF for when you don't, makes sense to me.
LBA
Last edited:
Hi, sorry for resurrecting this post... I have two copies of this lovely lens: a "rokkor" and a md non macro. The minimum focus distance is high, so I was wondering if the purchase of the macro version is justified to shoot portraits or is only useful for insect, flowers etc Thanks
Letsgokoulos
Senior Member
The macro version of the Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f3.5 only gives you a magnification of 1:4 which is not enough for bugs and real macro photography. But it brings down the minimum focusing distance from 0.8m in normal usage to about 0.25m in close focus mode. It also is a constant f3.5 focus wide open from 35 to 70mm.
My personal opinion is that I would not have purchased any of the other versions without the macro option. This really adds versatility to the lens, which otherwise would not be so attractive to me because of its limited focal range...
Marc
Travis Butler
Senior Member
For the OP, this is about as close as I could get with M4/3:
Pen-F, Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro
Not bad, but not really macro.
I do very much like the lens, though.
--
Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_prof67/ Warning: Heavy Learning in progress.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
The Rokkor Version is the oldest, MD-I not MD-II or MD-III, hence before '81 being made, it's build quality is better - but the IQ is lower than into the MD II/III (1981 - non macro, 1983 - with macro) Version....Sources are saying, the non-macro version is being sharper.
Check out Artaphot, for instance.
Good Light!
Thank you all. I know that MD II should be the most defined, but the minimum focus distance is sometimes limiting. The following images were taken at 70mm f3.5: in the first the distance is not sufficient and it is not sharp. The second is ok but the subject is even further away.
Does the Macro function allow you to frame an image like the third one? Thanks again.
Does the Macro function allow you to frame an image like the third one? Thanks again.
Volker G
Forum Enthusiast
Im not sure if this story about better IQ in the second and third versions is really true. Personnally, i owned several copies of versions 1 and 2 and i couldn't find any difference in terms of resolution and contrast. As for my only third version (Macro) lens, it was inferior at 35 mm and near the image borders on full frame - nethertheless, i think it's just a matter of having found a badly centered copy - in theory, the IQ obtained with the three of them should be pretty much the same...
Last edited:
Yes
With the macro version you can focus to minimum focus distance at 70mm, push the little button on the zoom ring and start to engage the 'macro' function. It will give you progressively closer focusing without needing to fully engage up to the 1:7 setting.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/
Last edited:
Winterfrost
Senior Member
See here:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive/186-minolta-35-70mm-f35
I've made a small typo into my writing above - it must read, the *best* version is always the MD III, which was without macro (81, and with macro into 83) I do have 2 copies of that 35-70 3.5 MDIII, w/o macro, one bought ca. 93, whileas the other one off ebay some 5-6 years ago.
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
Volker G
Forum Enthusiast
I know Stephan Koellikers website and refer to it whenever i neeed to know more about Minolta lenses. So i highly respect his opinion. But since i started photography in the early eighties and having been a gear head since then, reading everything i could about lenses, i doubt the story of two optical formulas in the three versions of the 35-70. So, until somebody really proves otherwise, i'll keep believing that Minolta merely changed the mechanical side of the 35-70 MD's ;-)
Letsgokoulos
Senior Member
I agree that there most likely are no optical differences, except maybe for coatings (?). I believe the main changes were cosmetic and mechanical for the macro version.
Marc
Winterfrost
Senior Member
I shoot since 1987 for my fun & hobby, and i've read all reviews i could find about a specific lens or body i was interested into before buying them. ;-)
About this Minolta Zoom, read other reviews, the MD-III is for sure the optically better 35-70. I also enjoy much my 35-70 ML, but these ones are rarely today, and some jerks on ebay pushed to prices within this year 5-10 times from what was being ordinary...i would never buy something from guys like these. I've written some years here ago into the adapted lens talk forum, this MD 35-70 3.5 is 95% of the IQ from the Contax Zeiss 35-70 3.4, and Matt Parvin (here named Matthieu08 or so) even then got interested and made some 1:1 comparsion shots - they're both equally the same from IQ, like i said, it's a give & take. But one thing is real, the Leica-R 35-70 F4 is even a tad better, but worlds more expensive. ;-) Nowadays, i am not into 35mm much, as a prime, yes, my prefered focal length - but not as a zoom, because i do want/need 24mm wideangle. ;-)
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
I've had version III with macro for years and have been very happy with it. Just checked ebay to see current prices for other versions with no real intention of buying another and...
I was a bit surprised to find non-macro versions seem to have 6 aperture blades? I haven't checked all the listings but is that correct? Never having owned any other version, I always assumed that they all had 7.
I find the 7 blades in my lens much more preferable (quite nice 14 point sunstars) but is that the only version with 7 blades or is that the spec for all v.III lenses?
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/
I was a bit surprised to find non-macro versions seem to have 6 aperture blades? I haven't checked all the listings but is that correct? Never having owned any other version, I always assumed that they all had 7.
I find the 7 blades in my lens much more preferable (quite nice 14 point sunstars) but is that the only version with 7 blades or is that the spec for all v.III lenses?
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/simonol/
Last edited:
Volker G
Forum Enthusiast
I can't remember if the 3. version has 7 aperture blades (you're the one to check with yours) but i checked my 1st and 2nd version lenses and they have 6 blade apertures.
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum