-
Welcome to TalkEmount.com, the best Sony E-mount camera and photography community on the web.Click here to join for free and enjoy unlimited photo uploads in our forums.
Considering the Minolta 35-70mm 3.5 but curious about other strong options?
- Thread starter dsiglin
- Start date
Ad Dieleman
Amateur
Go here and take your pick. I have a lot of test pics, mostly of Minolta lenses on the NEX-6 and/or Panasonic GH2, but I haven't uploaded them, it would take me weeks to do that. Look through my Minolta stuff or all my lenses and let me know if you want to see tests of a particular model, there's a fair chance that I have tested it.
Thanks. I don't really need the Minolta 35-70/3.5 but I think that it was 30 euros well spent. I think I will get another copy of that lens sometime and try to remove aperture limiters from it (the lens is actually 2.8-3.5). All 35-70/3.5 samples were pretty good. Very slight softness in some corners but it wont show in in normal photographs and this is going to be lens for non critical work anyway.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
Thanks for the samples! Since the replacement one is the plain MD but no macro I'll run some comparisons against the macro version. I've also got an Olympus 35-70 f4 I should test.
btw - do you normally underexpose the ned? I've got a 5n and I read a few places to do that when shooting raw.
btw - do you normally underexpose the ned? I've got a 5n and I read a few places to do that when shooting raw.
Ad Dieleman
Amateur
I always shoot raw and hardly ever touch exposure compensation. It looks like it underexposes already by default by 2/3 stop or so, because keying in + 2/3 stop exposure correction only blows highlights in fairly contrasty scenes and I always have to bump up exposure in Lightroom, sometimes by as much as 1 stop.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
What program do you prefer for editing raw files? I've been using photoshop but I have been told that Lightroom gives more options? Or is there a third option that is better?
Ad Dieleman
Amateur
I use Lightroom for 98 % of what I do and Photoshop for special things, but only very rarely. Camera Raw of Photoshop offers the same features for raw processing as Lightroom, it is in fact the same program Adobe Camera Raw. The user interface has a different look, that's all. The more important decision is how you want to manage your pictures library, with Adobe Bridge or Lightroom, because those two are really different. Bridge is sort of a enhanced explorer for pictures, Lightroom is essentially a database that manages your pictures. I now prefer Lightroom, but I've worked with Bridge for years.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
I think if I'm going to start taking a lot of photos an investment in Lightroom is justified, or at least that's what I'll tell the wife. 
When you say "for special things" what do you have in mind? I need to start reading up on processing raw files I think.
When you say "for special things" what do you have in mind? I need to start reading up on processing raw files I think.
Ad Dieleman
Amateur
Special things in Photoshop? Mostly using content aware fill to eliminate disturbing elements like a white plastic cup in grass or wires in the air. It's been a while since I used it though and Lightroom (Adobe Camera Raw in fact) is getting more and more features for local adjustments which I use a lot, like the graduated filter or the adjustment brush.I think if I'm going to start taking a lot of photos an investment in Lightroom is justified, or at least that's what I'll tell the wife.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
Ok gotcha.
Received non-macro Minolta 35-70mm. Just did some tests and here are the results. All wide open unless noted.
Olympus 35-70 3.6 @70mm
Olympus 35-70 3.6 @35mm
Olympus 35-70 4 @70mm
Olympus 35-70 4 @35mm
Minolta 35-70 3.5 @70mm
Minolta 35-70 3.5 @35mm
Access 35-70 2.5 @70mm
Access 35-70 2.5 @35mm
Access 35-70 2.5 @70mm f4
Access 35-70 2.5 @35mm f4
Reason for stopped down Access was how horribly soft Access is wide open. Wanted to show it actually is not bad stopped down one. And given it has 1:2.7 macro (easily beating the others) it's not a bad lens.
Received non-macro Minolta 35-70mm. Just did some tests and here are the results. All wide open unless noted.
Olympus 35-70 3.6 @70mm
---
Olympus 35-70 3.6 @35mm
---
Olympus 35-70 4 @70mm
---
Olympus 35-70 4 @35mm
---
Minolta 35-70 3.5 @70mm
---
Minolta 35-70 3.5 @35mm
---
Access 35-70 2.5 @70mm
---
Access 35-70 2.5 @35mm
---
Access 35-70 2.5 @70mm f4
---
Access 35-70 2.5 @35mm f4
---
Reason for stopped down Access was how horribly soft Access is wide open. Wanted to show it actually is not bad stopped down one. And given it has 1:2.7 macro (easily beating the others) it's not a bad lens.
Ad Dieleman
Amateur
An older zoom lens is almost always soft wide-open, flary and not very sharp. The Access lens looks like an attractive alternative. to the "premium" brand ones.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
So one final set of tests and a (perhaps) a final decision.
Before the images a note. I had not realized that the Minolta gets nowhere near close the minimum focus of the Access or Olympus. To me that's a big knock against it. Second, the Access can be sharp if stopped down but I do find it harder to nail than the Olympus. Part of this is the parfocal of the Olympus. Third, Access has really nice macro settings which the Olympus does not and the Minolta does but not in the version I have. So, on to the images. These were taken 1/125 @ all stopped down once. so 5.6 for Minolta and Olympus and 4 for the Access. None of these had a hood.
Access
Minolta
Olympus
Based on price, performance, and features it's a super close call between the Olympus and the Access. Kind of surprising I know given the legacy of one and the obscurity of the other. At the end of the day I would probably go with the Access. I say probably because I'm going to keep them both for a bit longer. I really can't sell the Olympus due to the tiny speck of mold (nevermind when you stop down to 5.6 it is covered by the aperture). Given that I paid $12 for it I can live with that.
Before the images a note. I had not realized that the Minolta gets nowhere near close the minimum focus of the Access or Olympus. To me that's a big knock against it. Second, the Access can be sharp if stopped down but I do find it harder to nail than the Olympus. Part of this is the parfocal of the Olympus. Third, Access has really nice macro settings which the Olympus does not and the Minolta does but not in the version I have. So, on to the images. These were taken 1/125 @ all stopped down once. so 5.6 for Minolta and Olympus and 4 for the Access. None of these had a hood.
Access
---
---
Minolta
---
---
Olympus
---
---
Based on price, performance, and features it's a super close call between the Olympus and the Access. Kind of surprising I know given the legacy of one and the obscurity of the other. At the end of the day I would probably go with the Access. I say probably because I'm going to keep them both for a bit longer. I really can't sell the Olympus due to the tiny speck of mold (nevermind when you stop down to 5.6 it is covered by the aperture). Given that I paid $12 for it I can live with that.
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
So back from my holiday in England (cotswold area) and while I love the zoom range of these lenses, the size really gets to me. At 35mm these lenses are really really long compared to the nex-5n. Granted I still had the smallest camera around. Some people's idea of carting a 5D III and tele-zoom is madness. I'm going to sell the Access and Minolta, probably will keep the Olympus just because. I don't suppose a small 35-70 exists?
NickCyprus
Super Moderator
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
Ok, thanks I'll check those out. Is it possible to control focus and aperture on the AF minolta lenses?
TonyTurley
TalkEmount Hall of Famer
dsiglin
TalkEmount Veteran
Tony - thanks for the link but that lens looks to be about the same size as the three lenses I have.
Jaf - hard to say, tbh the lenses all look about the same to me. I have the non-macro version of the MD so it's min focusing distance is disappointing.
Jaf - hard to say, tbh the lenses all look about the same to me. I have the non-macro version of the MD so it's min focusing distance is disappointing.
I haven't had a chance yet to take my new 35-70/3.5 Macro MD outside, but by playing with it around the house in dim light, with and without a flash, to my surprise, it's about the same as my kit lens (18-55). Even stopped down to 5.6 at around 55 mm, at which point Sony would be wide open, there's little if any difference in center sharpness that I can see. I even took photos of the same subject (my other lens with clear markings) with Sony 50/1.8 closed down to 5.6 to make sure my Minolta is not bad - the 50 was better (as expected) but not by far. Can it be that I don't give enough credit to the kit lens ?
Similar threads
