A Zoom to Cherish

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>I'm not usually the greatest fan of zoom lenses, but I have to rate this one up there with the better ones. It's the Minolta MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>I had the lens sitting around, attached to a Minolta XG-M that had recently arrived, when a Leica-enthusiast friend spotted it and remarked that it reminded him of his Leitz Vario-Elmar of the same specifications.That rang a vague sort of bell, and I started roaming the Internet in search of information. There's not a lot out there, but what I found is interesting. It may not all be correct, and I'd welcome any correction or further information from better-informed members.<br /> <br />This lens was issued as a kit lens for some of the Minolta XD models in the 1980's. This in itself is astonishing, considering the build and optical quality of the lens, when compared to today's "kit" lenses. Later, Minolta released another 35-70mm lens, with variable aperture f/3.5-4.8, the performance of which from all accounts is mediocre by comparison with this model. The later versions of this lens, including this copy, have a macro capability wherein the lens allows a maximum aperture of f/4.5. It's a very nicely built lens, buttery-smooth in all operations with brilliantly clear glass. A two-touch zoom, it maintains focus through it's zoom range.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>History is where the interest dwells. In 1972 Leitz approached Minolta regarding the production of "R"series lenses for the new Leciaflex SL2. Minolta, one of the few lens-makers to control the manufacture of their lenses right through from the production of glass, had apparently impressed the men from Leitz with the quality of some of the latest Minolta releases. Co-operation developed, and a joint program of lens development ensued, lasting until the mid-'80's. Not only were new lenses developed for Leitz, but some existing Minolta products were re-badged under the Leitz banner, with no alteration to manufacturing design and standards. One of these was the original MD Zoom Rokkor 35-70 f/3.5, this situation continuing as the lens evolved. While Leitz set up additional quality control, apparently the results differed very little from Minolta's. To quote the very knowledgeable Olaf Ulrich in a post on photography-forums.com :<br /> <br />".... the original non-macro MD Zoom Rokkor is at least as good as the later plain MD versions, of which some have the additional 'macro' close-focus feature and some have not. The first version, with the Rokkor name and without close-focus feature, is the one originally provided to Leitz as the Vario-Elmar-R 35-70 mm 1:3.5. So were the later constant-speed versions, but not the still-later variable-speed version."<br /> <br />While I can't confirm the following, several reputable sources have stated that in the 1980's this lens featured in the well-known "Praktis Test " formulated by Walter E. Schon, winning in it's class against competitors including lenses from Zeiss, Canon, Nikon and Olympus. Several Leitz lenses were licenced to Minolta, and were produced with Minolta mounts but still bearing the Leitz name. After the association ended, Leitz apparently continued to manufacture a small number of some lenses, until Minolta was no longer able to supply the special glass.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>So there we have it. It would seem that this little zoom has an interesting pedigree. But then, we aficionados all know just how good Minolta glass is... I felt duty-bound to put it through it's paces, so I fitted it to the old X300 in the pic and shot off a Fuji Superia 200. (That X300 is a nice little camera, but more of that in a future post...) The lens is a delight to use, and the results were what one would expect, very sharp and contrasty with very little distortion throughout the zoom range. Oh, if only today's "cheap" lenses were as good...Here are a few samples, scans from the Frontier.</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.2</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.3</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.4</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.5</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.6</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.7</p><div></div>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>No.8</p><div></div>

[Karim Ghantous]

<blockquote>

<p>Oh, if only today's "cheap" lenses were as good</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's 'progress' for you! I think that photographers are getting less fussy about what really matters and more fussy about stupid BS like HD video. I blame the joint effort of the self-righteous 'just go out and shoot' brigade and the smug 'post-processing fixes everything and by the way I still want the latest camera' gang.</p>

<p>Anyway... thanks for the post. :-)</p>

[paul_wheatland]

<p>I get the same results with an ancient Tamron BBAR adapt-all lens 35 to 70 f3.5 with 3-1 macro capability. It's actually one of my favorite travel lenses using this one lens on Nikon, Leicaflex, Canon FD and Pentax m42.</p>

[richterjw]

<p>Thanks for the enjoyable history. And Nos. 2 and 6 were lovely.</p>

[subbarayan_prasanna]

<p>I have used a 35-70 Nikkor and a 35-70 Vivitar; both came as Kit lenses with the respective cameras. Both perform excellently; and, yes I was surprised just as you are. Some of the present day built-in zooms on the digital cameras [not the DSLR kits] seem to be equally good if not better. Nice post, Thank you. sp.</p>

[John Seaman]

<p>Many thanks for the write up. I had the non macro version of this lens from new in the early 1980's - I've still got it - and was struck by the image quality although I wasn't then aware of it's history. I recall the price was around £130 - expensive! I've since acquired the macro version. I think another result of the Leica tie-up was the 70-210 F4 MD, which I never had but on Saturday was lucky enough to get a perfect copy with original hood on a local market stall - the optics of this lens being later used in the autofocus "beercan".</p>

[david_l3]

<p>That's an excellent report on an underdog lens with an interesting connection to Leica. The pictures are very nice and show how great the lens performs. During the short time I had Minolta equipment I was highly impressed with some of the MD lenses. </p>

[User_502260]

<p>I have this 35-70 and like it very much. With the bright viewfinder of the X-700 and a grid or plain matte screen the lens is usable even in low light. I would like to get the previous 35-70 without the close-up feature just to see how good it is. I mostly use single focal length lenses but occasionally I will carry the 35-70 MD, the 70-210/4 MD and a 24/2 Vivitar.</p>

[Lou_Meluso]

<p>Mighty clean looking optic and your results tell the tale. Crisp, colorful and reasonably rectilinear. I was never a fan of this focal length. I recall these were referred to as "super normal" lenses. I found them never to be wide or long enough to be useful in the face of other lenses. My opinion was echoed by Herbert Keppler's article about them in POP Photo many years ago.</p>

<p>However, since getting an Olympus 35-70mm f/3.6, this past winter, I appreciate them more now as a decent walking around type lens, which I think was the intent. Being free helped but I was very pleased with the performance too. Your's clearly looks like a good one as well.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>The results are crisp and sharp, and the lens was put to good use by you.</p>

<p>I don't have much experience with Minolta lenses and cameras, but no one could argue with the results you've got here. Well done.</p>

[chuck_foreman1]

Great thing happen when you put the right glass in the right hands.. Memorial is a great photo.. Enter it somewhere!!

[mike_wagner6]

<p>Very nice results. The 35-70 mm range seems to among the Rodney Dangerfields of lenses. I don't now if that translates into Kiwi. I only have one and it is an FD. It seems to work fine, but seems limited compared to a 28-70 or 28-85, so it usually gets left behind.</p>

<p>On the Branch Line photo, the track arrangement to the left of the main line looks like it was put down by someone under the influence. Can you explain? I always enjoy your fine work.</p>

[rick_drawbridge]

<p>Thanks for the responses! <strong>John</strong>, I see both you and <strong>Jeff</strong> now have the MD 70-210 f/4; I've never used the lens but it comes with a great reputation. Thanks, <strong>Louis</strong>, and I agree with your analysis; it's a "handy" lens rather than the one I'd select if I had a mission in mind. <strong>SP</strong>, some of the new digital zoom lenses <em>are</em> just superb; one of my sons produces magnificent images from a camera about half the size of our Prakticas. <strong>Mike</strong>, the old tracks have probably lain untouched for several decades, those sidings being part of an abandoned goods yard. Even the main track looks a little worrisome...And yes, the implications of "Rodney Dangerfield" is understood! </p>

<p>Thanks <strong>Chuck</strong>, <strong>Jeremy</strong> and <strong>David</strong>; I'm pleased you liked the pics. I've used the Tamron lens you mention, <strong>Paul</strong>, and very fine it is. Minoltas never got the applause they deserved, <strong>JDM</strong> , and it's only in hindsight that I really appreciate the fine quality and innovation inherent in their products. <strong>Karim</strong>, much of what you say I agree with, especially regarding the unleashed forces of HD video...</p>

 

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Rick,</p>

<p>Nice lens and you have put it to good use. I bought my first zoom in the early '80s. By then they were using computers to design them and the results, as long as the zoom ratio was narrow, were quite good. </p>

<p>I found a Modern Photography magazine test from August 1984. Here is the first part.</p><div></div>

[marc_bergman1]

<p>Here is the second part of the test.</p><div></div>