p.1 #1 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
Anyone used both of these and care to share your opinion? I picked up the 35-70 with my X-570 and it's a sweet lens. My MD 35/1.8 spends more time on the camera, but I like the zoom when I'm out for landscapes, and I'd like it more if it had more range. Would I be giving up a lot in making that change?
p.1 #2 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
I've only used the 35-70mm macro. If it is the one I'm thinking of, it was allegedly designed in collaboration with Leica and is very good, approaching modern pro zooms in terms of performance.
While I haven't used the other zoom, you might not be losing much at landscape apertures ( f8-f11) and when shooting on film.
p.1 #3 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
My coworker made the decision easy; all he wanted in trade was a handful of 39mm color filters for which I have no use. How could I say no? I used it this afternoon on my bare-sensored mono converted a7rII (most flim-like performance I can get from digital). I think, for landscapes, it could work out as well, though the distortion at 35mm is stronger and more complex than the 35-70. They're about even at 50mm, and the 28-85 is a tiny bit ahead in resolution at 70. I hate the macro mode is on the wide end and not very good. It's not a huge issue, but it will force a different solution for close focusing.
The bigger question for me is can it truly be a single lens solution, or, like with the 35-70, will I still feel the need to carry a wide (24 or 28) and will I still want a short tele? I have the feeling the answer will be yes to both, but I'm going to give it a try with the X-570 over the next few weekends and see how it goes.
p.1 #4 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
Geoff D F wrote:
I've only used the 35-70mm macro. If it is the one I'm thinking of, it was allegedly designed in collaboration with Leica and is very good, approaching modern pro zooms in terms of performance.
While I haven't used the other zoom, you might not be losing much at landscape apertures ( f8-f11) and when shooting on film.
The one Leica rebranded for the R mount was the first version 35-70. The one with the dedicated macro mode is a significant improvement optically. Leica, for whatever reason, ended their deal with Minolta before that and went with Keyocera for their improved f/4 zooms.
p.1 #5 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
freaklikeme wrote:
The one Leica rebranded for the R mount was the first version 35-70. The one with the dedicated macro mode is a significant improvement optically. Leica, for whatever reason, ended their deal with Minolta before that and went with Keyocera for their improved f/4 zooms.
Didn't know that. I had the one with the dedicated macro mode. It was a very good lens for its era.
p.1 #7 · Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro versus 28-85/3.5-4.5 Macro
So the 28-85 is a nicely capable lens. For landscapes, the distortion on the wide end isn't a huge problem. I have two frames with some oddly shaped trees in the corners that were about 30m away, but I usually print 7:5, so they'll get chopped off anyway. The long end is softer than I expected. It starts losing detail around 70mm, so the tele landscapes are detail-light. There's nothing there that would keep me from wanting my MD 85/1.7, 100/2.5, or 100/4, all of which are better landscapers stopped down to like apertures.
In comparison to the 35-70, it's got a little more oomph in the shared range, but comes with other issues like poor flare resistance (if you've used the Nikon AF-D 28-105, it's very similar) and the lack of a decent hood for such a broad range with a relatively small filter ring. Hand shading is critical in some unexpected situations. It also has an aspherical element (or they figured out how to get aspherical polish junk in spec highlights without one), I expected it to hold on to more resolution when close-focused versus the 35-70, but that's not the case. The 35-70 keeps up very well and is a little bit better mid-to-close around 50mm. Neither are great bokeh machines, but the 35-70's is a bit less distracting in complex situations.
Overall, if I had to use one, I wouldn't cry about it. It can get the job done. It didn't give me any reason to make a change, so it's moving along to a new owner of an X-700.
