-
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
keysersoeze
Member
- Messages
- 16
- Reaction score
- 11
Me too
sven karma
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,218
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,388
Well, I picked up one of these puppies in a local furniture recycling place yesterday at rather a good price:
No macro, far as I can tell.
Adapter arrived this afternoon. Seems like a more than decent lens, the ungenerous rangefinder-esque mfd being its only immediately apparent crime.
The way the zoom works has me slightly puzzled, my (admittedly limited) experience of zoom lenses is that they tend to be at their shortest at their widest (35/3.5) and longest at their most telephoto (70-3.5), but this lens does things the other way round.
No macro, far as I can tell.
Adapter arrived this afternoon. Seems like a more than decent lens, the ungenerous rangefinder-esque mfd being its only immediately apparent crime.
The way the zoom works has me slightly puzzled, my (admittedly limited) experience of zoom lenses is that they tend to be at their shortest at their widest (35/3.5) and longest at their most telephoto (70-3.5), but this lens does things the other way round.
Belgarchi
Senior Member
Very interesting review, thanks!
Something puzzles me: it seems that the whole image at 70mm and f/8.0 is more pink than the others.
Is it due to a 'mistake' of auto white balance of the camera, or the lens? Why is it happening only at 70mm and f/8.0?
Something puzzles me: it seems that the whole image at 70mm and f/8.0 is more pink than the others.
Is it due to a 'mistake' of auto white balance of the camera, or the lens? Why is it happening only at 70mm and f/8.0?
ProfHankD
Veteran Member
Good call. Actually, it happens at 35mm too.
Basically, it's got a bit more red and a lot more blue when stopped down. The red is a tad unusual, but it's pretty common that lenses get more blue when stopped down....
backsidewalkaround
Leading Member
I've been interested in trying this lens for a while now, but mostly for my peace of mind since I own the CY and the Tamron SP 2.8-3.8/35-80. The latter is in a similar price range and has a similar reputation.
Does any owner of the MD 35-70 also own the Tamron lens?
If so, how do they compare?
Does any owner of the MD 35-70 also own the Tamron lens?
If so, how do they compare?
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I have both, though I can't currently find my copy of the MD and I haven't shot with the Tamron very much.
With those caveats in mind - I haven't been able to shoot them side-by-side yet - I currently give the MD the edge. In my shooting with the Tamron so far, I've had several pics where the shot looked good in the viewfinder or on the back LCD, peaking heavily when I focused, but the pic itself turned out mushy/out-of-focus when I got back home and loaded it on the computer.
It might just be my technique; I might simply need to practice with the lens more. (It doesn't help that my copy came with the Adaptall-2 to FD mount adapter, when FD is my least favorite mount; I do have some other Tamrons and could swap out the adapter, but that would leave the other lens in FD mount...)
The Tamron is also somewhat larger than the MD, and I prefer the MD's aperture ring (the link with the Adaptall-2 adapter makes the aperture somewhat fussy on all the Adaptall lenses I have).
backsidewalkaround
Leading Member
Thanks, Travis,
I might have to try the MD then, although I can't quite believe what you're saying about the Tamron. I have that lens and I think it is really good, especially stopped down a little: Very sharp and contrasty, great Macro mode (if I recall correctly up to 1:2.5).
Do you know that K&F makes an adaptall-Adapter (at least for Sony E) that makes the adaptall-plates obsolete? On it you can directly use adaptall lenses without another adaptall-mount-adapter.
I don't have the Tamron 01A but have used the MD 35-75mm for years and it's always my walkabout lens when I don't really know what I'm going to shoot. I also have the Adaptall 35-70mm (17A) which was too cheap to resist, has a better 'macro' function and IQ only just behind the Minolta but is rarely used.
You mention that you own the C/Y - do you mean the Contax 35-70mm f3.4?
If you have the Contax, there was a direct comparison on here a few years ago from a user who's since deleted their account and, unfortunately, all associated images. The Contax was shown to be ever-so-slightly sharper than the Minolta iirc but not enough to notice without pixel-peeping. It's a lens with a great reputation and a price tag to match.
The Minolta is smaller, lighter and significantly cheaper but if you've already got the Contax and don't find it too large/heavy then I'm not sure you'd gain much from the MD. ;-)
Last edited:
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I freely admit my technique might be at fault.
And it was definitely contrasty, I liked that. My problem was that in things like landscape shots of distant trees, or some closeup shots of flowers, I thought I was getting sharp shots from the peaking, but they turned out less sharp than I would have expected. A couple of examples:
E-M1, Tamron SP 35-80 01A
Hm... I have one of those for my Tamron 500mm 55BB mirror lens, but the adapter doesn't have the bits to engage the aperture mechanism; not a problem on the 55BB, but I wasn't sure how it would work with the Adaptall lenses that have aperture control.
--
Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_prof67/ Warning: Heavy Learning in progress.
backsidewalkaround
Leading Member
Travis, thanks for the sample shots. I do own the 01A, though, just not the MD to compare it to. So I know what the 01A can do. If you want to do more shots it would be great if you tried to do some side by side shooting with both lenses.I freely admit my technique might be at fault.
E-M1, Tamron SP 35-80 01A
Hm... I have one of those for my Tamron 500mm 55BB mirror lens, but the adapter doesn't have the bits to engage the aperture mechanism; not a problem on the 55BB, but I wasn't sure how it would work with the Adaptall lenses that have aperture control.
You can use the K&F adaptall adapter also for the 01A. The only thing it needs to do is press the lever inside the mount in order for the aperture to work. On my adapter it works without any problems.
The special "pins" from the adaptall-plate are needed to convert the aperture mechanism to the new mount. This isn't necessary anymore when you're using the K&F adapter.
About your images:
I find your shots quite sharp actually, only you can't see it properly, because they're underexposed by two stops and aditionally in the image of the trees there's plenty of sky in the image which causes the medium brightness to be quite high. The camera exposes accordingly (too short). For the trees this means that they're way underexposed and they appear to be muddy and not sharp.
Are you using a RAW converter program? Then it makes sense to take such an underexposed image, because you have a beautifully exposed sky and you can recover the dark areas.
One more thing: May I ask how you write the lens data into your images?
Last edited:
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I'd love to, as soon as I can find my MD 35-70. ^^;; It went missing 2-3 months ago; I took it out of my camera bag 2-3 months ago to make room for another lens I was testing out, and I haven't seen it since.Travis, thanks for the sample shots. I do own the 01A, though, just not the MD to compare it to. So I know what the 01A can do. If you want to do more shots it would be great if you tried to do some side by side shooting with both lenses.I freely admit my technique might be at fault.
Hm... I have one of those for my Tamron 500mm 55BB mirror lens, but the adapter doesn't have the bits to engage the aperture mechanism; not a problem on the 55BB, but I wasn't sure how it would work with the Adaptall lenses that have aperture control.
I'm guessing it fell under one of the seats in my car, or got buried in one of the bags of misc. camera stuff that I picked up in estate sale bundles, and I've been traveling so much lately that I haven't had time to dig for it. Ahh, OK. I'll have to give it a try, then. I did end up picking up an Adaptall-MD plate when I stopped by a local camera shop today (after taking my car to the bodyshop next door - long story), so I can try that one as well.
Yup, I normally use On1 Photo Raw; I also have Capture One Pro, and used that to process the images this time around, in case that helped the look. In this case, I didn't try to tweak the exposure at all, but just exported them with default settings.
I did just go back in and try boosting the shadows on the first pic in Capture One (I remember trying that in On1 and not being impressed with the results); it helps some, but not really enough:
The Pen-F and E-M1 Mk II let you set up 10 saved profiles including the lens name, focal length, and aperture; that's what I normally use. For cameras that don't support that, Graphic Converter lets you edit and batch replace both the basic EXIF fields and a number of the extended fields. The interface isn't terribly friendly, but it's better than any of the alternatives I've tried.
--
Flickr at https://www.flickr.com/photos/the_prof67/ Warning: Heavy Learning in progress.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
Sven,Well, I picked up one of these puppies in a local furniture recycling place yesterday at rather a good price:
No macro, far as I can tell.
Adapter arrived this afternoon. Seems like a more than decent lens, the ungenerous rangefinder-esque mfd being its only immediately apparent crime.
The way the zoom works has me slightly puzzled, my (admittedly limited) experience of zoom lenses is that they tend to be at their shortest at their widest (35/3.5) and longest at their most telephoto (70-3.5), but this lens does things the other way round.
great samples! But why resurrecting on old thread from the dead? ;-)
The Minolta MD III 35-70 F3.5 (wheter with 1:4 Macro feature or not) is up to ca. 90-95% the IQ of the Contax 35-70/3.4 Zoom Lens.
I've said this decades before, and i stand my ground. Forum Member Matt Parvin hereby made a 1:1 samples comparsion some years ago - as proof, and it correlates fine with my statement.
Sometimes, the Zeiss does have a subtle edge, sometimes you can't tell the difference between them, because they're too equal.
The Minolta is cheapskate vs. the Zeiss, and the build quality can't match the Vario Sonnar. The only difference between the MD III 35-70/3.5 and MD III 35-70/3.5 Macro is, besides the 1:4 Marco feature - the latter one does have 7 Aperture blades the non-macro does have 6 Aperture blades.
It's all being said about the Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Zoom, a hell time ago. ;-)
Edit, i've found the Link, but Matt had deleted that Page some time ago, it seems....sad but true...it was here: http://www.mattparvin.com/blog
Good Light,
Marc
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
backsidewalkaround
Leading Member
Oh, you must be swimming in lenses, if a big chunk of glass and metal goes missing like thatI'd love to, as soon as I can find my MD 35-70. ^^;; It went missing 2-3 months ago; I took it out of my camera bag 2-3 months ago to make room for another lens I was testing out, and I haven't seen it since.
. I'll still appreciate it when you find it again.
I actually prefer the K&F, because it's one layer of adapters less and chances are that it's more precise that way.
You're right, this one doesn't really get much better. It's probably because it was underexposed in the first place and also the light, as beautiful as it is, isn't the right one for sharpness comparisons. Normally it doesn't need to be either. The mood isn't captured in the leavesYup, I normally use On1 Photo Raw; I also have Capture One Pro, and used that to process the images this time around, in case that helped the look. In this case, I didn't try to tweak the exposure at all, but just exported them with default settings.
I did just go back in and try boosting the shadows on the first pic in Capture One (I remember trying that in On1 and not being impressed with the results); it helps some, but not really enough:
.Thanks I'll look for that one and give it a try.
Travis Butler
Senior Member
Eheh. Kansas City seems to be a particularly fruitful place to find vintage lenses at garage and estate sales; just today I saw a Rokkor-X 50/1.7, MD Celtic 28/2.8, and an OM 50/1.4, which I passed on because I already have good copies of all of them (3 of the 50/1.4). I wish I had a good way to share things like that with the people here. ;_;Oh, you must be swimming in lenses, if a big chunk of glass and metal goes missing like thatI'd love to, as soon as I can find my MD 35-70. ^^;; It went missing 2-3 months ago; I took it out of my camera bag 2-3 months ago to make room for another lens I was testing out, and I haven't seen it since.
I'll still appreciate it when you find it again.
On the negative side, I've had to do so much traveling on family business in the last month+ that my car has gotten filled up with Stuff, and I haven't had time to clean it out yet. So it could be buried.
When I do get it found, comparison shots will be on the list.
Would you be interested in pics with the MD 35-105? That one I do have in front of me.<nod> Yeah... as a general rule, I do as well. And it'd certainly be nice to eliminate the fiddly bits for passing along the aperture settings from the lens through the adapter.
backsidewalkaround
Leading Member
Man, I'd love to find some garage sales here. There simply aren't any. I have to buy everyting on ebay, where you can never get anything for cheap.
I hope you'll find the time soon, for your own and the lenses' sake.
I'm actually just taking matters into my own hands now. I talked a friend from a German forum into borrowing me his MD 35-70 lens. He'll send it to me soon, so I'll be able to add it to my comparison of normal zooms at TheOtherSideOfBokeh.When I do get it found, comparison shots will be on the list.
Sample pictures of any good lens will always interest me, so don't let me stop you, if you think the 35-105 is worth it.
Travis Butler
Senior Member
I can stop by today and see if they’re still there, if you want!
It’s supposed to warm up into the upper 50s F by the end of the week; hopefully the snow will have melted by then and I can safely stack stuff alongside the car without it getting wet.
Good luck!I'm actually just taking matters into my own hands now. I talked a friend from a German forum into borrowing me his MD 35-70 lens. He'll send it to me soon, so I'll be able to add it to my comparison of normal zooms at TheOtherSideOfBokeh.When I do get it found, comparison shots will be on the list.
If I have a chance this weekend, I will!
sven karma
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,218
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 1,388
>
The Minolta's build quality seems decent enough, and brings its weight down to a point where I won't think twice about taking it out whenever. Shame that comparison page is down. Not having seen the sun here since getting the Minolta, I've not had much chance to stop it down, and apart from the vignetting wide open sometimes being a bit in your face I like it a lot.
Thanks! Didn't strike me as that old a thread ha.
The Minolta's build quality seems decent enough, and brings its weight down to a point where I won't think twice about taking it out whenever. Shame that comparison page is down. Not having seen the sun here since getting the Minolta, I've not had much chance to stop it down, and apart from the vignetting wide open sometimes being a bit in your face I like it a lot.
Winterfrost
Senior Member
Hi Guys,
here's the Catch:
The MD III 35-70/3.5 do have the same Optics, (Macro & Non-macro) but the latter one is a bit less sharp, than the Non-Macro, into my tests, i've made a hell long time ago. Reviews onto the web also say the same.
The Macro Version does have 1:4 Macro (which wouldn't make it to the term "Macro" for my taste), but does have a 7-Blades Aperture, so for you Sunstar Fans, this is the correct Lens for you ! The Non-Macro version does have 6 Aperture Blades, albeit is a bit sharper ! Remember, when you get this Lens, there is a special, supplied Lens Hood.
Good Light.
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
here's the Catch:
The MD III 35-70/3.5 do have the same Optics, (Macro & Non-macro) but the latter one is a bit less sharp, than the Non-Macro, into my tests, i've made a hell long time ago. Reviews onto the web also say the same.
The Macro Version does have 1:4 Macro (which wouldn't make it to the term "Macro" for my taste), but does have a 7-Blades Aperture, so for you Sunstar Fans, this is the correct Lens for you ! The Non-Macro version does have 6 Aperture Blades, albeit is a bit sharper ! Remember, when you get this Lens, there is a special, supplied Lens Hood.
Good Light.
--
"The Best Camera is the One That's with You" ~ Chase Jarvis
Last edited:
Winterfrost
Senior Member
User Matt Parvin made a 1:1 comparsion here, also on my Request, and mentioned me there, because he owned both the MD III 35-70/3.5 and the mightly Contax 35-70/3.4 like myself, and i've said the Minolta (MD III) gives 90-95% the IQ of the Contax, but is smaller, lighter, cheaper, and a Two-Touch Zoom, not one Ring to rule them all....err, i do prefer a separate Aperture Ring & Focus Ring, not these Push-Pull Zooms, like the Contax.
Matts Samples proved exactly this, what i am saying for decades. It's sometimes way hard, to tell which is the Minolta, and which is the Contax. Into ordinary prints, it doesn't matter at all.
Marc
Similar threads
- User review
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum