Tell me about Minolta MD 35-70 3.5

[Hassasin]

To further my last post, to be sure I am referring strictly to the Rokkor/MD 35-70 3.5 with Macro mode, which is the only one I know from that range that happened to be outstanding lens. It develops loose ring, again not sure focus or zoom as I am writing this from memory. Also, if I am not mistaken the problem was with an internal screw loosening up over time, so fairly easy fix (but this needs to be checked to be sure).

It's possible that many of these lenses have already gone through service to take care of the problem. So the main question to ask seller is about any play in the rings. If there are, expect service.

 

[xkaes]

I have 3 with same problem, and what I said about Leica is a well documented story. Once they redesigned the lens, the problem went away. That is easy to find as that is 67mm filter diameter. I cannot say ALL of Minoltas will 100% develop the problem, but what I am referring to is play in focusing or zooming ring ( cannot pull them out now to check which).

All of Minolta's 35-70mm zoom lenses had a 55mm filter thread -- not 67mm.

 

[xkaes]

To further my last post, to be sure I am referring strictly to the Rokkor/MD 35-70 3.5 with Macro mode, which is the only one I know from that range that happened to be outstanding lens. It develops loose ring, again not sure focus or zoom as I am writing this from memory. Also, if I am not mistaken the problem was with an internal screw loosening up over time, so fairly easy fix (but this needs to be checked to be sure).

It's possible that many of these lenses have already gone through service to take care of the problem. So the main question to ask seller is about any play in the rings. If there are, expect service.

You are either talking about the third or fourth version of the 35-70mm. The version that Leica liked was the first version. It did not have a "MACRO" mode -- "Its main limitation is its limited close-focusing ability."

Perhaps you should use the link I provided -- above. Otherwise people will be misinformed.

 

[Hassasin]

You are either talking about the third or fourth version of the 35-70mm. The version that Leica liked was the first version. It did not have a "MACRO" mode -- "Its main limitation is its limited close-focusing ability."

Perhaps you should use the link I provided -- above. Otherwise people will be misinformed.

I referred to the lens that is the one with great optical quality, I am unaware any other "version" matches its quality. I have provided link to which one I meant.

 

[Hassasin]

But upon checking, it does appear Leica version did not have Macro capability, so here you have it: Leica with loose ring, and Minolta with Macro, also loose ring.

Those looking for the better 35-70 R lens need to find one with E67 filter mount.

 

[xkaes]

I referred to the lens that is the one with great optical quality, I am unaware any other "version" matches its quality. I have provided link to which one I meant.

The 35-70mm in the link that you provided is not the Minolta original version. Minolta's original version (the only version that had the ROKKOR label), was the one with the quality that Leica liked so much. So like I said, you are referring to the third or fourth Minolta version.

If you have an original Leitz Vario-Elmar R 35-70 f3.5, and it has a loose ring, then blame Leitz's poor quality control. And if you have a Minolta with MACRO that has a similar problem, don't assume that all the other versions have the same problem. Mine certainly don't.

 

[faberryman]

It is a shame we don't have ready access to all of the lens reviews which appeared in Modern Photography and Popular Photography in the 1970s and 1980s. You would never hear the meaningless word "character" uttered by, for example, Herbert Keppler. Just the measurements.

 

[xkaes]

It is a shame we don't have ready access to all of the lens reviews which appeared in Modern Photography and Popular Photography in the 1970s and 1980s. You would never hear the meaningless word "character" uttered by, for example, Herbert Keppler. Just the measurements.

That's true, but I doubt that any editor or publication reviewed every version of every lens. Most lenses were never technically reviewed at all -- but that's probably because it wasn't the most popular part of the magazine. Most readers probably preferred the art-speak, "character" reviews.

 

[Huss]

But upon checking, it does appear Leica version did not have Macro capability, so here you have it: Leica with loose ring, and Minolta with Macro, also loose ring.

Those looking for the better 35-70 R lens need to find one with E67 filter mount.

Why are you even talking about that R lens?
You do know this thread is about the Minolta lens BECAUSE the OP wants to use it on a Minolta camera.
Not a Leica camera.

FYI my Minolta 35-70, now at maybe 30 yrs old, is not loose.

 

[neilt3]

To further my last post, to be sure I am referring strictly to the Rokkor/MD 35-70 3.5 with Macro mode, which is the only one I know from that range that happened to be outstanding lens. It develops loose ring, again not sure focus or zoom as I am writing this from memory. Also, if I am not mistaken the problem was with an internal screw loosening up over time, so fairly easy fix (but this needs to be checked to be sure).

I have a two or three of these Minolta 35-70mm lenses including the macro version your refering too .
I've had it for at least 25 years , and it was a well used lens when I bought it .
The focus ring is well dampened as it should be , and there's no slop in the zoom ring .
It's never been serviced .

But upon checking, it does appear Leica version did not have Macro capability, so here you have it: Leica with loose ring, and Minolta with Macro, also loose ring.

Those looking for the better 35-70 R lens need to find one with E67 filter mount.

Bad advice .
Any Leica badged lens isn't going to fit the OPs Minolta camera .
Different mount .
Stick with Minolta .

 

[ph]

sirs,

The leitz 35-70 versions started while they were cooperating with Minolta, using some of their designs with good results such as the 16mm fisheye and the 500 and 800mm catadioptrics while Minolta also marketed a long leitz lens.

After the formal cooperation stopped, Minolta continued to make excdellent optics with M.mount to fit the CL successor. CLE while Leitz started using a sigma zoom design before the talented Zeiss zoom designer arrived there and made the last R zooms using aspheric elements to keep the innards simple and effective.

Conclusion: the ROM version is entirely a Leica design. (but the Minolta creations should not be overlooked.)

p.

 

[faberryman]

That's true, but I doubt that any editor or publication reviewed every version of every lens. Most lenses were never technically reviewed at all -- but that's probably because it wasn't the most popular part of the magazine. Most readers probably preferred the art-speak, "character" reviews.

The fact that the magazines from the 1970s and 1980s didn't review every lens, and every version of every lens, does not mean the old reviews would not be useful. And the lenses were technically reviewed. The reviews were accompanied by charts showing resolution in lp/mm at center and edge at all apertures, and later there were MFT charts as well. There were measurements of the various kind of distortions and aberrations. I won't hazard a guess as to what articles other people read when they read the magazines. I read the magazines from cover to cover. Did you read Modern Photography and Popular Photography in the 1970s and 1980s? If so, did you skip over the lens reviews?

Today what do we have? Bloggers and YouTubers go out and take a few rather unremarkable photographs and declare the lenses excellent and superb. If they are vintage lenses, they all have character. Not to mention the bokeh is awesome. Then they collect a commission if you buy the lens through their link. Comments about lens quality from posters to photography forums aren't much different, except they don't earn commissions for their recommendations.

 

[BMbikerider]

There were actually FIVE versions of the Minolta 35-70mm. You can read about them here:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/287035.htm

"A two-touch, super-quality zoom that Leica liked so much they sold it as the Leitz Vario-Elmar R 35-70 f3.5."

You might also want to check out the Minolta 28-70mm (made by Cosina) and the 28-85mm (made by Tokina) on the same page. They are almost identical to the 35-70mm, but offer more range.

A lot of options to choose from.

The Cosina and Tokina were also sold under the Cosina, Tokina and Seagull labels -- perhaps other names as well.

But absolutely no where as good! That is a lens that was also adopted by Leica in the same optical design but put into a different body. It is sharp at all apertures with no distortion. Only the Nikon 35/70 F2.8 constant F3.5 cones close. I know I have both lenses.

 

[Duceman]

There were actually FIVE versions of the Minolta 35-70mm. You can read about them here:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/287035.htm

"A two-touch, super-quality zoom that Leica liked so much they sold it as the Leitz Vario-Elmar R 35-70 f3.5."

You might also want to check out the Minolta 28-70mm (made by Cosina) and the 28-85mm (made by Tokina) on the same page. They are almost identical to the 35-70mm, but offer more range.

A lot of options to choose from.

The Cosina and Tokina were also sold under the Cosina, Tokina and Seagull labels -- perhaps other names as well.

Thanks so much for that link. Trying to find out the history of Minolta lenses, especially from third-party mfg's, isn't always all that easy.

 

[xkaes]

Thanks so much for that link. Trying to find out the history of Minolta lenses, especially from third-party mfg's, isn't always all that easy.

You can find all of it here:

http://www.subclub.org/minman/slrlens.htm

It only lists lenses sold with the Minolta label -- a few of these were manufactured by other companies, notably Tokina and Cosina.

You'll be amazed at how many variations most of Minolta's lenses had over the years. For example, the were over a dozen versions of their 28mm f2.8 lens over the years. It's no wonder that Popular Photography and Modern Photography did not review them all. Of course this is true for lenses from other manufacturers as well, from Alpa to Zeiss.

Unfortunately, it can muddy the waters -- as we have seen in this discussion. One version of a particular lens might get a technical review in a photography magazine, but someone might buy an earlier or later version of the same lens only to see different results.

The Minolta 35-70 is a great example. The original version was made by Minolta, and ended up on Minolta and Leica R cameras. Minolta's final version was manufactured by Cosina. Any discussion of the lens requires specifics about which VERSION of lens is being discussed.

Fortunately, this thread was not about the Minolta 28mm f2.8 -- or the 35mm f2.8 (there were 14 versions of that!!!

And if you are looking for a the best "complete" list of lenses with a Minolta SR/MC/MD lens mount -- from Access to Zykkor -- check this place out. Please keep in mind that they probably only list ONE version of each lens:

https://www.kentfaith.com/mount_34

That has about 500 lenses, while this has about 300:

https://lens-db.com