Minolta Teleconverter Question

[dynachrome]

I looked at the list of Minolta manual focus teleconverters at the easypix.de website. It looks to me that the 2X 200L is the same as the 2X 300L except that the 200L is in MC mount while the 300L is in MD mount. Is this correct?

 

[RLangham]

Oof... teleconverters... I have about three teleconverters for Minolta MC/D mount, all third party and all trash, so I wouldn't know about Minolta's OEM teleconverters.

However, knowing the way MC and MD are, there's every possibility that the converters are identical except for that little plastic tab. Minolta did pretty well updating that mount without making huge changes to it.

 

[dynachrome]

I sort of answered my own question when the 200-L arrived. It's in MC mount, which is fine with me. I see from the eazypix.de website that optically, the 200-L is the same as the earlier "apo" model and the 300-L. There are websites which show test results of different Minolta lens and teleconverter combinations. If you are looking at an exotic lens like a 300mm f2 Nikkor and a special teleconverter for it is made by Nikon, you can be sure it will give good results. In most other cases you have to try out the combinations and see how they work. I have OEM teleconverters from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Konica, Ricoh, Bronica and Mamiya. I also have independently made teleconverters and some of them are quite good with the right lenses. Some that I like are the Vivitar 2X Macro Focusing Teleconverter, the Panagor Auto Macro Converter, the Tokina RMC, the Kiron Match Mate and some older 7 element models made by Soligor and Komura. In the Minolta MC and MD eras, Minolta did not have many non-mirror telephoto lenses longer than 300mm. People who wanted OEM lenses longer than that usually had Nikon or Canon cameras. This was partly due to the fact that Nikon and Canon made more long lenses and also to the fact that some Nikon and Canon models had interchangeable focusing screens. Using long and slow lenses with cameras which have fixed split image and/or microprism focusing aids is difficult even in good light.

 

[AgX]

Oof... teleconverters... I have about three teleconverters for Minolta MC/D mount, all third party and all trash, so I wouldn't know about Minolta's OEM teleconverters..

The quality of 3rd party converters varies a lot, typically depending on their design. Thus looking at this is a good approach when buying.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

While optical design may look the same, optical schematic alone does not the full story. While I have a large stable of Minolta lenses I have not used any converters, but I have always regarded Minolta as high quality, often underrated optical manufacturer. If the sold a converter with clear marking which lens it was for, I would not try to question their integrity by stating so. As Agx already stated, 3rd partie converters are all over the place quality wise. Here we're talking top class lens maker. I'd leave t at that, so if Minolt a dedicated one, and yo need it, get it. Surely none of them are expensive by any means these days.

BTW, Minolta had a lot of optical redesigns throughout production. Stating that changing from MC to MD mount was solely about "plastic tab" is not even close to correct.

 

[RLangham]

While optical design may look the same, optical schematic alone does not the full story. While I have a large stable of Minolta lenses I have not used any converters, but I have always regarded Minolta as high quality, often underrated optical manufacturer. If the sold a converter with clear marking which lens it was for, I would not try to question their integrity by stating so. As Agx already stated, 3rd partie converters are all over the place quality wise. Here we're talking top class lens maker. I'd leave t at that, so if Minolt a dedicated one, and yo need it, get it. Surely none of them are expensive by any means these days.

BTW, Minolta had a lot of optical redesigns throughout production. Stating that changing from MC to MD mount was solely about "plastic tab" is not even close to correct.

I never argued that that was the only change from the MC line to the MD line, just the only mechanical one. Obviously they were completely different lines of lenses, but the mounts are identical except for the tab and sometimes a latch to lock the aperture in the smallest aperture stop.

I can conceive of Minolta updating an optically serviceable teleconverter by just adding the mechanism to pass through the tab's position.

Minolta is the company I own the most lenses from... to interpret my comment as dismissing MD entirely is extremely silly.

 

[Deleted member 88956]

I never argued that that was the only change from the MC line to the MD line, just the only mechanical one. Obviously they were completely different lines of lenses, but the mounts are identical except for the tab and sometimes a latch to lock the aperture in the smallest aperture stop.

I can conceive of Minolta updating an optically serviceable teleconverter by just adding the mechanism to pass through the tab's position.

Minolta is the company I own the most lenses from... to interpret my comment as dismissing MD entirely is extremely silly.

At least I did not even try to go into "silly", but that's OK.

 

[dynachrome]

Although this is off of the topic of teleconverters, there was some overlap between Minolta's MC and MD lens lines. The 50/1.7 MC of 1973 was very similar to the 50/1.7 MD of 1977. The optical formula was the same. The later lens had the additional MD tab and a plastic aperture ring. The 50/1.4 MC of 1973 was essentially the same as the first 50/1.4 MD of 1977. The 50/1.4 was later reformulated and made smaller.
Other lenses changed more. The 28/2.5 MC was dropped in favor of a 28/2. The 100/2.5 was reformulated and made smaller as was the 35/1.8. When Pentax went over to the K mount in 1975, it also had many carry-over lenses with the major difference being the lens mount. By 1977 the M lenses appeared and most were reformulated and made smaller.