How Good are Minolta MD-series Lenses?

[Steve Smith]

all I worry about is if my work is good enough to justify my owning them

If I worried about that I would have to sell everything I own!


Steve.

 

[benjiboy]

If I worried about that I would have to sell everything I own!


Steve.

my work has never been critisized for the image quality, only the content, it's not so much the lens that's important, but what you decide to point it at.

 

[MrFatPooh]

i Have just got hold of an x 370, 50mm MD Rokkor 1.7, not developed any film yet but so far its a nice camera, nice bright view finder.

 

[Christopher Walrath]

Minolta cameras are a nice line. And the Rokkor lenses are sweet. That's for sure.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

It would not be me not to pick up an old thread , but this one seems to be 'the' thread about Minolta manual focus SLRs and lenses.

Since longer time I keep looking into 35mm manual focus SLR systems and was mostly attracted by Contax C/Y and Nikon F systems, but have just somehow come across very positive comments on Minolta MD glass. So I have read a bit about it and it just might be and interesting system for me - in particular X-500 (570) accompanied with 20/2.8 , 35/1.8 and 85/2.0 (none of which are easy to find) and maybe also (even for the start) the 35-70/3.5 or even the 24-50.

I would like to ask about your opinion on the above quoted lenses.

In particular I am curios about the 35-70, because as far as I know Minolta produced the first generation of Leica R 35-70/3.5. This lens was later updated to 35-70/4 - which is supposed to be much better than f/3.5 (which is, based on what I read, just OK) version. Now - I would not be surprised that the MD 35-70/3.5 would be the same design as the Leica R. So - where is the truth?

 

[Rol_Lei Nut]

In particular I am curios about the 35-70, because as far as I know Minolta produced the first generation of Leica R 35-70/3.5. This lens was later updated to 35-70/4 - which is supposed to be much better than f/3.5 (which is, based on what I read, just OK) version. Now - I would not be surprised that the MD 35-70/3.5 would be the same design as the Leica R. So - where is the truth?

Leica used several Minolta designed and produced lenses at one point.
The ones made for Leica were supposedly made to tighter tolerances and/or better QC, though Leica famously rejected nearly an entire shipment of lenses for not being up to standard.

So the MD 35-70/3.5 is most likely optically the "same" as the Leica version and a good sample should be equally good (or equally "just OK"), while a poorer sample would offer significantly worse performance.

Maybe not much help in evaluating your prospective MD 35-70/3.5, but hopefully some "truth" was supplied...

 

[dynachrome]

I have two examples of the last 35-70/3.5 MD. It's the one which has the button and ring for the close-up range. I don't know whether this is the one with the same formula as the Leica zoom but it's quite sharp.

 

[Aristophanes]

It would not be me not to pick up an old thread , but this one seems to be 'the' thread about Minolta manual focus SLRs and lenses.

Since longer time I keep looking into 35mm manual focus SLR systems and was mostly attracted by Contax C/Y and Nikon F systems, but have just somehow come across very positive comments on Minolta MD glass. So I have read a bit about it and it just might be and interesting system for me - in particular X-500 (570) accompanied with 20/2.8 , 35/1.8 and 85/2.0 (none of which are easy to find) and maybe also (even for the start) the 35-70/3.5 or even the 24-50.

I would like to ask about your opinion on the above quoted lenses.

In particular I am curios about the 35-70, because as far as I know Minolta produced the first generation of Leica R 35-70/3.5. This lens was later updated to 35-70/4 - which is supposed to be much better than f/3.5 (which is, based on what I read, just OK) version. Now - I would not be surprised that the MD 35-70/3.5 would be the same design as the Leica R. So - where is the truth?

I regularly use the MD 35-70/3.5 on my X-500. I think it is excellent. It is my go-to lens, always on the camera.

I shoot the MD line of:
24/2.8 (very, very nice)
28/2.8 (small and nimble)
35/2.8 (#2 most used after the 35-70)
50/1.4 (as good a any other brand)
50/2.0 (hugely underrated)
100/2.8 (stellar)
135/3.5 (underrated FL and lens design)
70-210/4.0 (awesome, but requires a tripod or serious bracing)

All are excellent lenses. Rokkor glass was as good as any other.

My theory on glass is that all brands make exceptional product in their respective price points. Branded glass is (almost) always better than third party. There are super high-end pieces (like the uber-fasts you quote) but I find them to be expensive, expensive, expensive, and usually bigger, but optically not any better than modestly slower versions. Every brand has a few less than stellar lenses, and few screamers, but you'd have to shoot on digital 100 shots and go blind pixel peeping to spot differences.

I shoot only colour film on this system: Ektar 100 and Portra 400. Rather than opt for a super-shallow, large lens DOF, I find that at 2.8-4 I get 95% of my isolation, good bokeh, and that 3D effect, but I can get there by rating the Portra at 800-1000, developed normally, and I'm good.

For the 35-70/3.5 there is this review:

http://www.photosig.com/articles/990/article

A couple of 20/2.8's have been on eBay recently. They both went for over $325.

Good luck.

 

[ath]

The MD 35-70/3.5 is a good lens. The only drawback is a quite high distortion.

 

[benjiboy]

I just read through this thread again and on a philosophical point people always to me seem to be asking the wrong question i.e.." is my equipment of a high enough standard to be commensurate with the quality of my work" when the question should be "is my work of such a high standard to justify me owning such excellent gear.

 

[pbromaghin]

Benjiboy, or a little sideways from that - "the quality of my work is not limited by my equipment."

 

[benjiboy]

If you buy a piano you become a piano owner, not a pianist.

 

[pbromaghin]

But if you buy a full-frame dslr you are a wedding photographer.

 

[benjiboy]

But if you buy a full-frame dslr you are a wedding photographer.

No,many beginners deceive themselves and other people they are , but all you are a full frame DSLR owner.

 

[Clay2]

Good thread

Thanks for reviving this thread. I learned a lot reading it. I have 2 SR-T101 bodies and a dozen MC or MD Rokkors, plus a few
third party lenses. Also a Hi-matic7S rangefinder and a plastic X370N.

The X370N has the dreaded capacitor problem, the others light meter problems but I use a hand held meter anyway.

Someone mentioned here that Minolta used acid-core solder which is why the wiring goes bad. I have never heard that
before. By the 1960's Japanese electronic firms would have known better. I think was years of mercury vapour leaking
from the mercury batteries that attacked the solder joints after years of use.

Anyone have other ideas? Slowly replacing wiring to get them back in shape though they work fine manually.

Except locked shutter on X370N, need a capacitor.

Best regards,

/Clay

 

[pbromaghin]

Seriously, I have a x-570 with several prime and zoom Minolta brand lenses. It's a great system and I am right now looking for a spare body, deciding on a 28-70 or 35-80 to complete the lens set, looking for a full set of filters for all the lenses and maybe a power winder. If a capacitor goes bad, it will be fixed, not thrown away.

And the quality of my work is NOT limited by my equipment. It's a much better camera than I am a photographer.

 

[benjiboy]

Seriously, I have a x-570 with several prime and zoom Minolta brand lenses. It's a great system and I am right now looking for a spare body, deciding on a 28-70 or 35-80 to complete the lens set, looking for a full set of filters for all the lenses and maybe a power winder. If a capacitor goes bad, it will be fixed, not thrown away.

And the quality of my work is NOT limited by my equipment. It's a much better camera than I am a photographer.

I've had most of my gear more than twenty years and have been amazed at how much better my cameras and lenses have become since I have used them so much that I am now able to use them without concious thought about operating them, and they are still better cameras than I'm a photographers.
P.S Although I'm not a Minolta user myself I used to sell Minolta lenses and I know they are superb.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Thanks (also for some 'deserved' comments ) I am definitely sure that it is not the gear that limits the quality of my photography (I actually bought several systems to know for sure )

I do realized that I did not really pick cheap lenses with the 20/2.8, 35/1.8 and 85/2.0, but those would really fit the bill, are still rather small and light and, most importantly - they would really give me the range wanted. Price wise - I will watch ebay for a while to get the idea, but as it was noted already - these ones are not cheap (but compare to similar lenses from Zeiss for Contax C/Y and it may not look as bad ...)

If I will go with the X-500 I will probably the the 35-70 zoom as you all guys seem to love it and it can be had nearly for free.

 

[thicktheo]

Matus, do yourself a favour and look for the Minolta XD-7 (XD-11 in the US) instead of the X-500. I am (or used to be) the owner of an old SRT, the X-500, the XG-M and the XD-7. The XD-7 was the last one to join the herd and it instantly overshadowed all the rest - I used to like the X-500 a lot, but now I can't even stand the sound of its mirror.

Oh, and I also have the 35-70/3.5 zoom lens. It might be good, but it still is, well... a zoom lens. Bulky, heavy, not as fast to use as a prime lens, especially if you have action scenes (street photography, reportage). Actually, I only used the 35-70 during a trip to Berlin and then decided it was better to get a 28mm and forget about all the other focal lengths.

Hey, I can even send you my 35-70 if you like (seeing that you are located in Europe, cheap postage).

 

[pbromaghin]

Theo - please tell us more about the XD-7 being better than the X-500. I'm looking for another body and I'd like to know about this one.

 

[thicktheo]

Theo - please tell us more about the XD-7 being better than the X-500. I'm looking for another body and I'd like to know about this one.

The mirror assembly is the main difference. The XD-7's mirror assembly was a design commissioned by Leica for their R4 SLR and then used by Minolta in the XD series. It is considerably quieter than the X-500's one, with less vibration and a more reassuring feeling. Not that the X-500's mirror is loud, but you can see (hear) the difference straight away: the X-500 sounds like a working class hero, the XD-7 sounds like an aristocrat. The same goes for the handling, the body design, the materials used. Moreover, the XD-7 has M, A, S modes and full Auto if you have the corresponding lenses.

I had used the X-500 extensively and was very happy with it, but when I bought the XD-7, I felt like I was discovering 35mm film all over. It may be just a feeling I get when I use it, but that's what good equipment is about, isn't it? To make you enjoy the whole process.

 

[ath]

There are two minor things which I like more on my X700 than on my XD7.
The first is the shutter release. With my my X700 the tripping point is better located; its easy to activate the metering and with a slight press to activate the shutter.
The second is the shutter lag. Releasing the shutter feels more responsive with the X700.

Except from this two things the XD7 is superior in every way. And the shutter is faster than 1/1000 (in AV mode it goes up to 1/1600 or so).

 

[dynachrome]

I have not read anywhere else that a shutter speed higher than 1/1000 is available in any mode with the XD-11/XD-7. If I remember the Maxxum 9xi correctly you could set the sghutter manually to 1/8000 but in Aperture Priorioty mode the shutter speed would go up to 1/12,500. I think Minolta did not want people to shoot too often at 1/12,500 because the shutter couldn't handle it. If you think the XD-11 is at a speed over 1/1000, how do you know what that speed is? I don't have any XD cameras but I have six X-700s and an X-570. For me, the TTL flash system and interchangeable focusing screens are more valuable than having shutter priority automation and a higher flash synch speed. Still, if an XD camera comes my way at a reasonable price I will be tempted.

 

[Matus Kalisky]

Theo - I will check the XD-7 out. But I would like to ask right away - how does the viewfinder and focusing compare between the XD-7 and X-500? What I should watch out for when guying the XD-7?

 

[thicktheo]

how does the viewfinder and focusing compare between the XD-7 and X-500?

I find the X-500 viewfinder maybe a tiny bit brighter than the XD-7's, and the shutter speed scale is a tiny bit easier to read on the X-500. They have a different way of showing the selected speed when this is required (manual mode), the XD-7 shows it next to the aperture readout, the X-500 shows it with a blinking LED light right on the shutter speed scale. I would say that you will not miss anything if you pick one or the other.

What I should watch out for when guying the XD-7?

Watch out for the leatherette - I remember reading that it tends to shrink.

Oh, and if you're doing a direct comparison, I have to mention that the XD-7 uses a vertical titanium shutter (1/100 sync speed) while the X-500 uses a horizontal silk shutter (1/60 sync speed).

In reality both of them will serve you nicely as long as they are in perfect working condition, and their price is about the same in the used market. Apart from all the technical considerations, which one has what, etc, the XD-7 is a by far prettier camera, metal vs plastic, old school design vs early 80s we-discovered-plastic design.