Minolta 135mm 2.8 md review năm 2024
|
It's the MD-II type, 4/4 version which seems to be marginally more appreciated on the internet than the newer 5/5 formula. It's a bit on the heavy side but it's a good lens in all respects if not exactly outstanding. Certainly better than the 135/3.5 plain MD but I think not as good as the Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 that I also have. Anyway, a few samples from a short walk today (click each photo for proper size, the reduced size gets overcompressed by flickr): Show
There's a few more in the album: https://flic.kr/s/aHskNiS2fd _________________ my flickr stream Last edited by miran on Wed Mar 01, 2017 9:25 am; edited 1 time in total Joined: 06 Apr 2014 Posts: 81 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 7:45 pm Post subject: Badr12 wrote:Nice captures, it is also great for portraits. Joined: 14 Nov 2016 Posts: 735 Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia Joined: 08 Jan 2016 Posts: 298 Location: London Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:49 pm Post subject: Antoine wrote:Excellent! I have the latest 5/5 version which I like as it is very light and discrete. Also happy with result _________________ Antoine Sony A6000 APS-C and Sony A7 Rii Minolta Fisheye MD Rokkor 7.5 mm f4, Fisheye MD 16 f2.8 MD R 17mm f4, MD R 20mm f2.8, MC VFC & MDIII 24mm f2.8, MD 28mm f2.0 &3.5, MD II 35mm 1.8, MD 45mm f2.0, MD 50mm f 1.2 & MD I f1.4, MC PG 58mm 1.2, MD 85mm f2.0, MD R 85mm f2.8 Varisoft, MC 85mm f1.7 MD R 100mm f2.5, MD R 100mm f4.0 macro, MD III 135mm f2.8, MD R 200mm f2.8 & 4.0, RF 250mm f5.6, MD 300mm f4.5, MD APO 400 mm f5.6, RF 500mm f8.0, RF 800mm f8.0 *2 300-s and 300-l 100 mm f4 macro bellows (5/4) Vivitar 17mm f3.5, Elicar 300mm mirror f5.6, Zhongi turbo ii Sigma 16mm f 2.8 fish eye Zooms:24-50 mm f4, 35-70 mm f3.5 macro, 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, 50-135 f 3.5, 70-210 f4 and MD APO 100-500 mm f8 Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7776 Location: Ironbridge. UK. Expire: 2022-01-01 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 8:50 pm Post subject: Lloydy wrote:Very nice pictures, it's obviously a very good lens. Which is annoying......because my copy sits on the shelf unused, I can't find any sharpness in it at all. It must be faulty. My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/ My ipernity - http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria Expire: 2019-08-28 Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2017 10:31 pm Post subject: tb_a wrote:Nice examples and a good lens! I have exactly the same heavy Version (MD II, 4/4). Maybe I should use it as well. _________________ Thomas Bernardy Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). Joined: 09 May 2014 Posts: 286 Location: Australia Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:48 am Post subject: miran wrote:Thanks all. Yes, it seems to be quite good, if only it was smaller and lighter. I think I'll try to get the 5/5 to see if it is as good. _________________ my flickr stream Joined: 26 Jan 2010 Posts: 3678 Location: Austria Expire: 2019-08-28 Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:33 am Post subject: tb_a wrote:I just did a quick comparison between this lens (made 1978) and my Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4 (made 1961), which is a comparable optical design (4/4) but only single coated and was rather shocked: Below F8 the Minolta lens is rather crappy compared to the Elmar at F4. From F8 the MD starts to be usable whereas the Elmar plays definitely in another league. Maybe it's one of the best 135mm lenses ever. Leitz claimed in 1964 in their catalog that the Elmar is "one of the sharpest lenses ever created." To summarize: The Minolta MD 135mm/F2.8 is a nice lens and delivers good and sharp pictures, particularly as from F8 (F5.6 seems to be somehow acceptable). However, there are far better lenses around, especially the Leitz Elmar 135mm/F4. I will do some more tests in this focal length to find out how the Minolta lens compares to other brands like Voigtlander (Rollei), Pentax, Topcon, etc. I am really curios to check whether the Minolta lens is rather mediocre or the Leitz lens is really that outstanding. For the time being I will put the MD 135mm back to the shelf until further. BTW, I did this comparison in 100% view on infinity distance pictures ("pixel peepers delight"). Smaller display sizes will deliver far better and still commonly usable results. Example picture of the MD 135/2.8 fully open of my standard portrait model: Not bad at all and more than just usable I would say. _________________ Thomas Bernardy Manual focus lenses mainly from Minolta, Pentax, Voigtlaender, Leitz, Topcon and from Russia (too many to be listed here). Joined: 19 Aug 2016 Posts: 207 Location: Portland, OR Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 5:22 pm Post subject: devinw wrote:Looks good! I have one of these. I think it's pretty good. Maybe not eye-bleeding sharp, but sharp wide open. Definitely sharp at f/3.5. Here is one wide open (unfortunately not unprocessed, but not heavily so): _________________ Camera: Sony a6300 E-Mount: Zeiss/Sony 16-70 f/4, Samyang 12mm f/2 Rokkor: MD PG 50mm f1.4, MD 100mm Macro f3.5, MD 135mm f2.8, MD Zoom 35-70mm f3.5, MD Zoom 75-150 f4 Canon FD: nFD 50mm f1.4, Tokina AT-X 100-300mm f4 My Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/westonde/ Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2017 7:24 pm Post subject: miran wrote:I did a quick comparison of three 135mm lenses: this Minolta MD 135/2.8, a Minolta MD 135/3.5 and a Carl Zeiss Jena 135/3.5 (zebra). It's my standard test with one scene at near MFD, one at near infinity and one at around 6-7m. Two shots for each scene, one wide open and one stopped down to f/8. Raw with straight conversion, identical WB, etc. First is the full scene to give broad impression, second is 100% crop of focused area. Unfortunately the weather was quite foggy so infinity sharpness is affected. And of course no shooting into the sun to test flare resistance this time. Shot on crop camera (NEX6) and no corner sharpness test. 1. near MFD (just over 1.5m) 2. around 6 or 7m 3. infinity (around 100m) The CZJ might be stopped down to f/5.6 by mistake rather than f/8 but I'm not sure. I thought I had it at f/8 but bokeh and exposure data say otherwise. Will have to check. Conclusions: - The 135/3.5 MD is clearly inferior. Softer wide open and it visibly vignettes (on APS-C!) Also it render considerably cooler colours. - The 135/2.8 MD and the CZJ are about the same in terms of sharpness (though my focusing skill might play a part here) but the Minolta has chromatic aberations where the CZJ hasn't. The CZJ has noticably warmer colours. From this simple test the CZJ is the winner. It also focuses down to 1m rather than 1.5. On the other hand my copy is pretty beat up and in any case the Minoltas are both mechanically superior (better focus action, nicer aperture ring, built-in hood). Difficult to decide and also I'll need to test for corner sharpness, contrast shooting into the light, etc. Are Minolta MD and MC the same?The terms MC and MD relate to different series' of Minolta lenses, with different features. All of the lenses, however, use the SR mount. Another term commonly seen in relation to Minolta lenses is the term “Rokkor”. How much does a Minolta MD 135mm f2 8 weigh?WEIGHT: 1lbs. 2.3oz. What is a Minolta Celtic lens?Minolta's Celtic line of lenses offered the most popular focal lengths in prices that were easier on the budget due to differences in construction. As with the Nikon “E-Series” lenses, these were produced to compete with the many third-party lenses that flooded the market. |
