Showcase Minolta 50mm 3.5 macro

sleekdigital

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
135
Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
Great shot, which version do you have, the one with the blue writing or the orange writing?
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
Same as I have, it's a very nice little lens. First I thought I had over-paid for it at almost $100 but I like it and have no regrets anymore. I only ask about the writing as some people say that the first version, with orange and white writing, is a bit sharper.

I hope you don't mind if I post a sample from my copy of the 50/3.5 macro? If so, let me know and I will remove it. This is a shot I took with timer, trying to light the match at the right moment. Not a complete success, but I got tired of burning matches after about half a matchbox...

View attachment 5215
Sony NEX-7 + Minolta MD 50mm 3.5 Macro [~1:1]
Strike a Light | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
 

swanseastu

TalkEmount Rookie
Joined
Apr 19, 2013
Messages
15
Can you expand on the writing theory please?

Is the orange writing relating to writing on the end of the lens or the distance markers etc on the barrel ?

Are these Rokkors, or minolta or minolta AF? thanks ...always on the look out for new lenses to play with especially when recommended via here :-D
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
These are Minolta MD lenses, ie fully manual. Two versions were made, the first one has orange markings on the front around the front element. The second one has the same markings in blue.

I have seen test shots where the orange version was sharper at wide aperture settings and also had better border sharpness throughout. It wasn't a huge difference, but if you have the choice of both, I'd say go for the orange version.
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
Yes, that's the one. I used the extension tube for the above shot and zoomed to about 1:1, wide open, as I recall.

I can't see the state of the lenses in the eBay ad, but overall it looks clean and in good nick. The elements are quite recessed in both ends, so they should be fairly well protected from scratches etc.

That copy is a bit more expensive than mine, but the orange ones usually are.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
3,992
Location
The Netherlands
These are Minolta MD lenses, ie fully manual. Two versions were made, the first one has orange markings on the front around the front element. The second one has the same markings in blue.

I have seen test shots where the orange version was sharper at wide aperture settings and also had better border sharpness throughout. It wasn't a huge difference, but if you have the choice of both, I'd say go for the orange version.
As far as I know both these versions have the same optical design; it seems the optical design has never been changed from the very first to the last model. Differences in image quality might well be caused by sample variation; I have three of these, an early MC Rokkor-QF, an MC Celtic (budget version, somewhat younger than the Rokkor-QF) and a plain MD with the blue writing. The latter two are wonderfully sharp, the Rokkor-QF is somewhat behind in corner performance. I prefer the Celtic because I like its handling better, even though it has a tiny fungus spot in it. Its white balance is also a bit different from the Rokkors, but colours are beautiful from this lens.
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
Evaluating old lenses is difficult due to the number of variables. For instance, I have two MD 135/2.8 [4/4] that are fairly close in serial numbers. One has no visible CA the other one, in nicer cosmetic condition, has heavy green and purple CA. Is it mishandling, quality control, change in manufacture? We can't know.

We simply have to look at the tests, form an opinion and cross our fingers as we place our bids.
 
Joined
Nov 13, 2012
Messages
3,992
Location
The Netherlands
Evaluating old lenses is difficult due to the number of variables. For instance, I have two MD 135/2.8 [4/4] that are fairly close in serial numbers. One has no visible CA the other one, in nicer cosmetic condition, has heavy green and purple CA. Is it mishandling, quality control, change in manufacture? We can't know.

We simply have to look at the tests, form an opinion and cross our fingers as we place our bids.
Too true. Concerning the 135/2.8, I have all MD models (4/4 and 5/5) and they are all excellent from f/4 onwards; CA is virtually absent in all of them. My guess is that your worse sample has had a knock or something, CA seems to be one of the traits that is fairly constant across samples of a certain model, as I have noted after testing my lenses.
 

Jaf-Photo

TalkEmount Veteran
Joined
Mar 25, 2013
Messages
484
Yeah, I believe the knock theory, the irony being that the non-CA copy is far worse beat up.
 

Deadbear77

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
2,505
Location
Northeast Ohio
Real Name
Kevin
This is my orange copy taken with tube, lens turbo and vivitar 10x filter.
Shot at 5.6

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.



Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
 

Deadbear77

TalkEmount Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 14, 2012
Messages
2,505
Location
Northeast Ohio
Real Name
Kevin
And one more
Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.



Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
 

sleekdigital

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
May 7, 2013
Messages
135
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #16
This is my orange copy taken with tube, lens turbo and vivitar 10x filter.
Shot at 5.6


Shouldn't you be able to get that level of maginification without the added vivitar 10x ... or was that just to get more working distance?
 

Andy Clement

TalkEmount Regular
Joined
Feb 1, 2018
Messages
87
Playing around with a couple of flashes on an flash bracket I never really use. Purchased this lens from KEH outlet on eBay for $89.00. Came with the extension tube. Imported into lightroom and did very little editing except for removing a few dust particles on the petals.

Minolta MD Macro 50mm f3.5 with extension tube.
@f16 on the A7RII

Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
Become a member for free to remove site ads and see EXIF info for images.
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom