A little 85mm comparison: Minolta 1.7/85, 2/85 and others

[Phillip Reeve]

I just posted a little comparison of several 85mm lenses. I though it might be interesting for some of you.

 

 

Bokeh1 by reevedata, on Flickr

 

f2center by reevedata, on Flickr

 

f8center by reevedata, on Flickr

 

f8corner by reevedata, on Flickr

[Steve C]

Interesting,at brief face value the MD f2 wins. I'm not convinced by Samyang, possibly too much batch variation as there are god examples to be found.

[Phillip Reeve]

Interesting,at brief face value the MD f2 wins. I'm not convinced by Samyang, possibly too much batch variation as there are god examples to be found.

I think any of these lenses could be your personal winner, depending on your needs.

Mine would be the Tokina or Minolta 1.7/85

 

From what I have read from other people about the Samyang I think my copy isn't a bad copy, but if you have a link to better examples please show them.

 

Phillip

[Vivek]

My favorite (I do not have any of the lenses you reviewed, except the ATX 90/2.5 and the original Viv S1 90/2.5) is the OM 85/2.

It is for the size and weight and the fact that it is a Sonnar clone.  It isn't based on the sharpness (the Contac G 90/2.8 is sharper).

 

As usual, your format and presentation is very good.

[tedbahas]

Love it! I have the MD 2.0 and love it. Have any of you shot the MC rokkor 35mm? I just picked one up off eBay for around 50.00. I love the 35mm focal length. I had it on my leica X1 and fell in love with it.

[Phillip Reeve]

Love it! I have the MD 2.0 and love it. Have any of you shot the MC rokkor 35mm? I just picked one up off eBay for around 50.00. I love the 35mm focal length. I had it on my leica X1 and fell in love with it.

There are several Minolta MC 35's, which one are you referring to? I use the MD 2.8/35 which is optiall identical to later MC designs and I like it a lot.

[tedbahas]

I think I have the 5 element one coming its a 2.8

[addicted2light]

Love it! I have the MD 2.0 and love it. Have any of you shot the MC rokkor 35mm? I just picked one up off eBay for around 50.00. I love the 35mm focal length. I had it on my leica X1 and fell in love with it.

 

Hi, you can check a few test of various Minolta lenses, included several 35mm, on this site (no relation whatsoever with the guy):

 

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche

 

It's in German, but a few articles are available in English as well, and for the others the pictures are self-explanatory (and you can always use Google translation, obviously).

 

Enjoy.

[addicted2light]

I just posted a little comparison of several 85mm lenses. I though it might be interesting for some of you.

 

Hi, great review!

 

I can see on your site you've tested a pretty extensive selection of Minolta glass.

 

Did you, by any chance, had the opportunity to try the 100/2,5 MD (versions 4 or 5, with 5 elements in 5 groups and 55mm filters) and the 24-50/4 MD?

 

Thanks,

[Phillip Reeve]

Hi, great review!

 

I can see on your site you've tested a pretty extensive selection of Minolta glass.

 

Did you, by any chance, had the opportunity to try the 100/2,5 MD (versions 4 or 5, with 5 elements in 5 groups and 55mm filters) and the 24-50/4 MD?

 

Thanks,

I have had the MD 2.5/100 for a short time but I sold it because I already had a MC 2.5/100 which has a little bit nicer built quality. The MD is a little bit contrastier at f/2.5 and has a shorter minimal focusing distance (1m vs 1.2m). Optically I found very little difference between both versions. The 2.5/100 is oen of the most attractive Minolta lenses in my eyes, it is sharp from f/2.5 and very sharp stopped down, bokeh is among the besto of all Minolta lenses.

 

I have a copy of the 4/24-50 but so far I wasn't impressed.

[addicted2light]

I have had the MD 2.5/100 for a short time but I sold it because I already had a MC 2.5/100 which has a little bit nicer built quality. The MD is a little bit contrastier at f/2.5 and has a shorter minimal focusing distance (1m vs 1.2m). Optically I found very little difference between both versions. The 2.5/100 is oen of the most attractive Minolta lenses in my eyes, it is sharp from f/2.5 and very sharp stopped down, bokeh is among the besto of all Minolta lenses.

 

I have a copy of the 4/24-50 but so far I wasn't impressed.

 

Thank you for taking the time to satisfy my curiosity   

 

I'm considering the 100 exactly because of the beautiful (to my eyes, at least) bokeh it produces, especially considering that I mean to pair it to my MC 35/1.8 (another bokeh monster, IMHO). Besides, photographing almost exclusively in bw the low contrast of these old glories is a plus, in my book.

 

That the 24-50 isn't as good as the internet buzz has made it is a pity. I was searching for an alternative to my Yashica ML 28-85 that, while practically sharp as a prime lens over 90% of the frame, has a pretty idiotic system because of which you have to switch to macro mode and a second focusing gear to go under 1.7 meters...