Jump to content

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

Phillip Reeve

By Phillip Reeve,
in Legacy Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

Phillip Reeve Collaborator

Phillip Reeve

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phillip Reeve Collaborator

Phillip Reeve

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
addicted2light Experienced

addicted2light

Posted
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
addicted2light Experienced

addicted2light

Posted
Posted

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,

Link to post
Share on other sites
Phillip Reeve Collaborator

Phillip Reeve

Posted
  • Author
Posted

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
addicted2light Experienced

addicted2light

Posted
Posted

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...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • Pieter
      Blurry images on Sony 70-350

      By Pieter · Posted

      I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • Cameratose
      Blurry images on Sony 70-350

      By Cameratose · Posted

      That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • broz_tito
      Blurry images on Sony 70-350

      By broz_tito · Posted

      Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...