Tell me about Minolta MD 35-70 3.5

[Remanton]

I want to buy this lens to take i with me on hiking tours where my backpack is already stuffed with other things.
Its focal length range fits very well the lenses I mostly use.
How does it compare to the MD 35 2.8, 50 1.7 and 85 2.0?

 

[xkaes]

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.

 

[Austintatious]

I have a copy of the Minolta Rokkor 35-70 f3.5 non macro lens. It is a two touch, compact lens that rivals a prime for sharpness. It is the one that was rebaged as Leica back in the day. I should really use it more often than I do.

img003 by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr

Shadow & Netting by Carlos Yashinon, on Flickr

 

[Huss]

The 35-70 Minolta 3.5 is a fantatic lens. I had that and also the Leica 35-70 f4 ROM which I think was made by Sigma. Before that lens came out Leica sold the Minolta badged as a Leica.
Leica fans say how much better the ROM is. Using both I couldn’t tell any difference, they both are superb. I have a feeling that is part of the Leica superfan culture - the new version always is so much better…

Anyway, I recently took this w my XK and 35-70 3.5 on C200

 

[Austintatious]

Huss, your photo is marked as private.

 

[Huss]

Huss, your photo is marked as private.

You can't see it above in this thread?

 

[neilt3]

You can't see it above in this thread?

The above photo of the dog is clear to see.

 

[neilt3]

I want to buy this lens to take i with me on hiking tours where my backpack is already stuffed with other things.
Its focal length range fits very well the lenses I mostly use.
How does it compare to the MD 35 2.8, 50 1.7 and 85 2.0?

It's a good lens to have , especially when out hiking and you don't want to change lenses .
I'd still have the 50mm with me if I were likely to still be out when the light is going down .

 

[Austintatious]

You can't see it above in this thread?

Yep, It is visible now, however when I looked the first time it was not. Perhaps a "Bad Panda" moment at Flickr ? Dog gone nice image there Huss !

 

[Spiny Norman]

Personally beyond the "OMG it's a Lecia" fandom I can't see what all the fuss is about. I've had a couple of them through my hands and couldn't wait to get shot of them. If you get a decent one they're reasonably sharp, but they're not exactly an ambitions design and frankly I found my Sigma 35-70 was every bit as good, far lighter and you can pick them up for half the price. Same goes for the Tamron one except it's quite chunky and has an annoying size of filter thread.

 

[Huss]

I still have the Minolta 35-70 because it has given me super results. As the OP is talking about using it on his Minolta, he doesn't have to worry about buying the Leica version for 4x the price.
I highly recommend this lens!

Some more pics with the Minolta 35-70 3.5 on an XK using C200:


















And 100% crop from above:

 

[Austintatious]

I found my Sigma 35-70 was every bit as good, far lighter and you can pick them up for half the price.

I bought my Rokkor 35-70 for $45.00 so I can't complain. There are lots of reviews for this lens giving it very high marks for a zoom.

 

[Huss]

I bought my Rokkor 35-70 for $45.00 so I can't complain. There are lots of reviews for this lens giving it very high marks for a zoom.

Leica wouldn't have sold it under their name if it wasn't superb....

 

[xkaes]

Since Minolta sold FIVE versions of the 35-70mm (see link above), this discussion might be about different versions. The first version was the one Leica liked. The fifth version was made by Cosina. McIntosh and Granny Smith?? Apples and Oranges?

 

[Huss]

Since Minolta sold FIVE versions of the 35-70mm (see link above), this discussion might be about different versions. The first version was the one Leica liked. The fifth version was made by Cosina. McIntosh and Granny Smith?? Apples and Oranges?

mine is the v2

 

[Remanton]

Thank you for your replies. I already bought it! Mine is the fourth from the list in the link.

According to the article it should be a crappy lens:
"... but you basically get what you pay for. You can buy a 35-70mm zoom for $20, but you'll have to live with the crappy results."

Times have changed a lot!

 

[xkaes]

Thank you for your replies. I already bought it! Mine is the fourth from the list in the link.

According to the article it should be a crappy lens:
"... but you basically get what you pay for. You can buy a 35-70mm zoom for $20, but you'll have to live with the crappy results."

Times have changed a lot!

You mis-read the webpage. That quote was regarding ALTERNATIVES to the Minolta 35-70mm lenses. Those are easy to find for $20.

 

[Spiny Norman]

The thing with buying any old lens nowadays, and especially a cheap zoom with all its moving parts is it's a total crap shoot. It's all very well looking at the reviews from when the 40 year old lens was new but you've no idea how the one in your hand right now has been treated. One could be perfect and another identical example could be a bottle bottom.
They're not bad lenses by any means but like the 45mm f2 Rokkor I wouldn't pay the prices some people ask for them, especially in the UK.

 

[Remanton]

You mis-read the webpage. That quote was regarding ALTERNATIVES to the Minolta 35-70mm lenses. Those are easy to find for $20.

I meant that when that article was written you could buy low quality alternatives for 20$. Today you get the real stuff for that money. I paid 30€ for mine.

 

[Huss]

The thing with buying any old lens nowadays, and especially a cheap zoom with all its moving parts is it's a total crap shoot. It's all very well looking at the reviews from when the 40 year old lens was new but you've no idea how the one in your hand right now has been treated. One could be perfect and another identical example could be a bottle bottom.
They're not bad lenses by any means but like the 45mm f2 Rokkor I wouldn't pay the prices some people ask for them, especially in the UK.

My review of it was not from 40 years ago, but from two weeks ago.

You can buy a dud anything, new or old. My new 2022 Leica M6 was a complete dud.

If Remanton's lens is not scratched/does not have fungus or haze, I am sure it will be great.

 

[Huss]

I meant that when that article was written you could buy low quality alternatives for 20$. Today you get the real stuff for that money. I paid 30€ for mine.

Used prices nowadays have no connection to the quality of the product that you are getting! You can see the Nikon N80/F80 thread for that. An amazing camera that I recently bought for $20 w/o lens, and for just under $40 with the excellent 28-80 Nikon D lens.

 

[ant!]

I like for Minolta lens reviews http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektive , some parts are English, for some other use Google Translate from German...

I have regarding zooms only the 28-85mm, the 24-50mm, and the 75-150mm...

 

[Hassasin]

Outside of the 35-70 3.5 being a great one optically, you can be nearly sure it will loosen up, if not at purchase, it will eventually. Sad case of a great otherwise lens. Overall the play is not affecting performance all that much, but it sure is an utter annoyance in use.

Note that Leica did indeed adopt it, but then dropped it later on for redone design exactly due to mechanical issues.

 

[xkaes]

Outside of the 35-70 3.5 being a great one optically, you can be nearly sure it will loosen up, if not at purchase, it will eventually.

What evidence of this do you have -- or is it simply your personal experience. Mine has been the opposite. But since there were actually FIVE versions of the Minolta 35-70mm, this "problem" might only apply to certain models.

 

[Hassasin]

What evidence of this do you have -- or is it simply your personal experience. Mine has been the opposite. But since there were actually FIVE versions of the Minolta 35-70mm, this "problem" might only apply to certain models.

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).