Minolta AF 35-70mm f/4 ... leica design? Yay or Nay...

[ricardovaste]

:-D Hello again,

 

I just did a straight swap for my 28-80mm lens [those 'not-so-good ones' that

come with a new minolta body] for a 35-70mm f/4 macro + hood. Good lens?

couldnt find much on it on here, did find a couple and they were positive. I

figure its got to be sharper than the one i exchanged. I did find more on the

MD 35-70mm f/3.5 which is recognized as one of the lenses designed [?] by

leica during 'that' period. Is this the AF version which was done between

leica and minolta or is it simply a decent lens made just by minolta 20years

ago?

 

Would be nice to have some input on this.

 

Thanks,

 

Richard<div></div>

[peterblaise]

.

 

You tell us - how do they compare for you?

 

CLick!

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[ricardovaste]

havent finished the roll yet peter! :-) just wondering if i should expect similar results [excellent sharpness] at 8"x6" that i do with the 70-210 f4. i'll post a comparison when i get a scanner though...

[sam_marsh1]

I've got one of these and it's one of my favourite lenses to use. I don't think it's super-sharp wide open, but I've taken some gorgeous photos with it stopped down a little. I also find the zoom range really nice to work with: the fact that it's a little restrictive means I work harder on composition.

 

As for the Leica-input, I can't remember what I heard but I think it may be the same optically as the MD one that you mention (did I read that f3.5 was stretching the point a little, and that it was more like f4 wide-open? I can't remember).

 

Have fun with it!

[peterblaise]

.

 

Haven't finished the ROLL?!? yet?!?

 

ROLL?!?

 

You mean FILM?

 

What's that?

 

=8^o

 

Once you get a scanner, you can also get Dxo and PixelGenius/nikSharpener and then I think just about ANY capture will produce GREAT 8x6", though 9.9x6.6" is ~1" margins on 11x8.5" paper, and that's the "frameable" size I use.

 

I don't think penultimate lens "sharpness" is as important as it used to be, and especially in smaller prints or with larger dot printers (say, 1,200 to 2,400 dpi 4-color inkjets), that CAPTURE sharpness is the decisive factor since the image goes through so much processing post-capture.

 

Even Nikon says that ALL their lenses can print to the same image size at equivalent capture apertures and there's scant few if anyone who can tell which lens took which picture. Okay, we're talkin' REAL lenses from Minolta and their once-upon-a-time subsidiary, Leitz, but I tend to concur with Nikon - sharpness is a primal fallacy, and so many other criteria may be of equal or greater importance or contribution to capturing compelling pictures that to forsake a supposedly lesser lens because someone somewhere claimed an MTF or SQF test called it less sharp than another lens is just gettin' in our own way!

 

Anyway, regardless of digital or film capture, once in the digital "darkroom":

 

http://www.dxo.com/

 

http://www.pixelgenius.com/

 

http://www.niksoftware.com/

 

... and SO many other tools that far exceed, in my estimation, the supposed values and difference between the sharpest lens "out there" and the lenses we already own or can afford!

 

I find it laughable that all the chat is about the upcoming Sony Alpha Zeiss-source lenses and nary a word about the superlative Sony Alpha Minolta-source lenses ... shame, since the continuation of the Minolta Alpha lenses catalogue is what impresses me. 16mm, 135mm STF, 500mm Reflex auto focus, 24-105mm and so on ... the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 series was legend, to bad it's not included, but it probably was ONLY hand built in Japan and they did not expect to transfer it's construction to China, but the Zeiss calibrating and testing machinery IS ready for transport, so China it is, and anything hand built in Japan is OUT!

 

 

What DOES bother me, though, is that at

 

http://b2b.sony.com/Solutions/subcategory/category/digital-imaging/digital-still-cameras

 

http :// b2b.sony . com/Solutions/subcategory/category/digital-imaging/digital-still-cameras

 

... Sony does NOT list the Sony Alpha A100?!? But they do list the cheapies, and even the by now ancient Sony DSC-F828 and newer but equally anti-shake-LESS Sony DSC-R1?!?

 

Yet?

 

See Sony Alpha lenses at:

 

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=acc_DIAccessories_dslr_lenses&Dept=cameras

 

http :// www.sonystyle . com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?CategoryName=acc_DIAccessories_dslr_lenses&Dept=cameras

 

or

 

http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_style_dslr&ProductSKU=DSLRA100K&TabName=acc&var2=

 

http :// www.sonystyle . com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?CategoryName=dcc_DIDigitalCameras_style_dslr&ProductSKU=DSLRA100K&TabName=acc&var2=

 

... and of course for a deeper, behind the scenes look:

 

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/AMC

 

http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/AMC/lens/index.html

 

... does anyone remember the English language links for equivalent pages?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[theaudiodoc]

Hi Richard,

 

You might try doing a search of forum posts. This topic has been discussed before. The Minolta Leica collaboration occurred during the Rokkor era, but I believe I've read somewhere that the design of many manual focus lens carried over to the AF lenses. I'd have to leave that to the experts on this subject though. Here's a thread I started on this topic: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00GhCG&tag=

Here are some user reviews of the 35-70: http://dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=39

 

Peter's right, ultimately you need to try the lens and see how your results compare to the 28-80 kit lens.

 

Re: 24-50mm vs. 24-105mm lens. I shot quite a bit with both lenses while visiting Germany, but I haven't had time to post results , but I can tell you that so far I'm very pleased with the 24-105.

 

Robert

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for the input Sam, Peter and Robert. To summarize:

 

 

*** I shouldnt rely on opinions on different lenses

 

 

*** better off getting a good deal on a lens and testing it yourself and then you can sell without losing too much money if it doesnt reach the standard you want

 

 

 

Sam, i also prefer working with the smaller focal range because it makes you work harder for the picture. Which i also obviously found using the 50mm f/1.7 MD lens

 

Robert, thanks for the update on that 24-105mm lens. I'll look forward to anything else you have to say about it.

 

The reviews on dyxum sound OK. Obviously not an outstanding lens but those reviews dont say anything too bad.

 

On the scanning point. Won't be doing digital for a couple of years yet probably [or more] so the only way to share photos [on here and with family and friends] is getting a film scanner... The prices are definately out of my reach. However, I've seen a few advertisements for scanning slides and negatives locally for cheap price [25p each on 4800dpi scanner]. Sounds like a good offer i'll try soon. They offer to scan 4 frames for free to see if you like the quality which ill try.

 

Also, yes Peter, usually when i make a reference to 'ROLL' on photo.net im talking about a roll of film and not a roll of bread. Easy mistake though, i often fool myself with that one. :-D

The 85mm 1.4 lens that you mentioned [one that commmon folk like me can only dream of] i saw that there is a zeiss-sony version made - do you not expect this to perform the same or better?

 

Thanks for the advice,

Richard

[peterblaise]

.

 

"...The 85mm 1.4 lens that you mentioned [one that commmon folk like me can only dream of] i saw that there is a zeiss-sony version made - do you not expect this to perform the same or better? ..."

 

I only feel sad that the venerable Minolta version is now retired.

 

Here's MY history of the Minolta 35-70:

 

From September, 1978, Minolta released a series of three f/3.5 versions, ALL 365 grams (big and heavy), all 8 elements in 7 groups:

 

- Minolta Zoom Rokkor 35-70mm f/3.5 MD, 1m close focus, 65.5mm across, September 1978, expensive

 

- Minolta Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 MD, 1m close focus, 65.5mm across, May 1981, cheaper

 

- Minolta Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 MD, 0.8m close focus, 68.5mm across, undated?, bigger, yet cheaper still

 

Then came AF in February 1985:

 

- Minolta AF Zoom 35-70mm f/4, 6 elements in 6 groups, 1m close focus, 52mm across, 255 grams (small and light!), February 1985, cheapest yet.

 

By 1985 the Leitz/Minolta connection was pretty over, so any Leitz participation in the unique design of the 1985 Minolta AF 35-70 lens is probably unsupportable.

 

Of course the most famous Leitz/Minolta collaboration was revealed in the markings on the Leitz Minolta CL camera (November 1973) culminating in the Minolta CLE (February 1981) which shared much in common with the 1977 Minolta XG-E - with the CLE introducing TTL (Through The Lens) OTF (Off The Film) exposure, Minolta's invention and patent. Minolta and Leitz worked together from, what, 1971 to 1980? Minolta also built pocket zoom point-and-shoot cameras for Leitz! Hey, don't laugh - today, as a backup FILM camera, I LOVE my Minolta Capios/Freedom/Zoom cameras and their (molded?) aspherical lenses - quite sharp and accurate!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

Source: mostly from reading everything, but recently referring to Japanese publication ISBN 4870999234

[ricardovaste]

Thanks for that peter it was very interesting to know. If i were to go for the MD version i assume i should go for the last one with the closer focusing... or would that be past the days of leitz influence... or is this question unanswerable as we dont know the when the last one was release. Nevermind, thanks for the help. I'll post some pictures for comparison between the 70-210 [one that im assured is form the leitz/minolta collaboration] and the 35-70 when i finish a couple of 'rolls'! :-D

Richard

[peterblaise]

.

 

My point is that the one's POSSIBLY influenced by Leitz (not Leica, subtle but different) were the older, MANUAL FOCUS lenses, big and heavy, with 8 elements in 7 groups.

 

The AUTO FOCUS lens you inquired about is small and light, 6 elements in 6 groups, and appears to be totally unrelated in design to the earlier lenses.

 

Did Leitz participate in the earlier MANUAL FOCUS design? Probably not.

 

Did Leitz participate in the later AUTO FOCUS design? Definitely not.

 

Does it matter?

 

Not to me.

 

The ONLY Leitz/Leica stuff I use is a small mini table top tripod "for compact camera -- 14320". Nice! Carry it with me everywhere! See

 

http://www.shopping.com/xPO-Leica_Leica_Mini_Tripod

 

http://photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=005F6T&tag=

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Minolta Rokkor Alpha DiMage Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

[bill_thorlin]

Richard - do not be concerned - that old roll of film still has a role to play for many of us :)

 

As for the 24-105 - it may not be the sharpest lens in the bag and it may not be too happy at 24 with a circular polarising filter on and it might have a somewhat quirky lens hood but it is a very good all round everyday lens that gives you wide range without going in to a ridiculous range. If I were to take one lens around a city and to cover portraits at the same time with the option for wide landscapes then it is the one I would choose. You cannot have it all but this one makes a pretty good stab at it and it represents pretty fair value for money.

[sam_marsh1]

If this is correct, here's a good guide to the 35-70mm MD lenses: http://members.aol.com/xkaes/287035.htm . It sounds like it was all Minolta made but Leica approved.

[narayana_sharma]

<p>Hi All<br>

I am using 35-70mmf4 with Maxxum 7000. I got some good macro shots (manual) and some 35mm shots also. Very crisp and sharp.</p>

<p>Narayana Sharma</p>

[Mike Gammill]

The 35-70 f4 has a molded hybrid aspherical element which I think is different from anything Leitz produced at the time.

The cheapie 28-80 f4-5.6 and 35-80 f4-5.6 were only average at best. Like other camera makers Minolta had to offer

cheap kit lenses to attract customers to its entry level SLRs. FWIW, the original 28-85 f3.5-4.5 was pretty good. When we

sold Minoltas I tested a kit 28-80 against Sigmas version and found the Sigma lens better. YMMV.

[Mike Gammill]

In my lengthy ramble I missed the point of the original question. Yes, the 35-70 f4 is a decent enough performer.