Minolta x-700 MC Rokkor 50mm F1.4 VS Zeiss Ikon Opton T Tessa R 75mm F3.5

[wolves3012]

I've had several copies of the MD 50mm f/1.7 and they are excellent. I can't remember where I read it (some photography magazine) but back in the day someone did a shoot-out of various top-brand 50mm lenses. The MD 50mm f/1.7 was only beaten by one other, which I can't recall if it was Nikon or Canon and it was only by a whisker. You're unlikely to be disappointed with the f/1.7 and the f/1.4 is not quite as sharp (splitting hairs in real-world situations) and not much faster.

 

[nongfuspring]

Also nongfuspring, do you just show them a picture of which one you want? Since they have so many copies for each one

This one caught my eye as a decent price: https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-...CCo/s500/OlympusOM-1BodyZuikoAutoW35mmF28.jpg

But the shop has high turnover. If you go there today you'll probably find a lot of what is on the website is already sold, possibly the camera in the photo too, but they'll have new stuff as well. My recommendation is go in and have a look. You may pick up that X-700 and decide it is awesome and the OM1 sucks, or decide you much prefer a Nikon FM, FE or something like a Canon F1.

There are differences between brands with lenses, but if you get a 50mm with any of these brands it'll almost certainly be really good.

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Alright thanks 🙂

Of course I messaged them before hand haha

 

[someonenameddavid]

One of the little known features of minolta lenses is that they were designed to maintain a constant colour rendition across the range. Important if you are picky about consistency, but if you are the kind of person who likes to experiment with different lenses, not so much

 

[CMur12]

One of the little known features of minolta lenses is that they were designed to maintain a constant colour rendition across the range. Important if you are picky about consistency, but if you are the kind of person who likes to experiment with different lenses, not so much

Back when Minolta advertised this, it made so much sense that I assumed that all lens manufacturers would certainly be doing the same. Apparently not, however, and Minolta may have been the only one to pursue this goal.

Minolta was also one of very few lens manufacturers that made their own optical glass. Minolta lenses were definitely among the best, though all of the major manufacturers were producing excellent optics.

- Murray

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Sounds good! 🙂 thanks

 

[nongfuspring]

Let us know how it goes! I already have too many SLRs so now I can only do my camera shopping vicariously 🙁

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Will do 🙂

 

[dee]

You could follow the camera with a cheap SRT which are great cameras , fully manual .

 

[jusxusfanatic]

Will think about that haha

 

[flavio81]

I don't want to confuse you but honestly if you have access to that shop I would consider thinking about their Olympus OM1 cameras or Nikon outfits if you don't mind manual exposure. 2.html[/url]

I would suggest also considering the Pentax MX or ME Super instead of the Olympus OM1. Those were made by Pentax in response to the OM-line, and they are great.

 

[flavio81]

Back when Minolta advertised this, it made so much sense that I assumed that all lens manufacturers would certainly be doing the same. Apparently not, however, and Minolta may have been the only one to pursue this goal.

Canon boasted the same claim (consistent color balance between lenses) at least since the introduction of the FD line (1971).

Minolta, on the other hand, had 2-layer coatings before most of the other manufacturers.

 

[CMur12]

I didn't know that about Canon, Flavio. Thanks.

I think Minolta only claimed that consistency of contrast and hue after they upgraded to multi-coating, because they customized the coatings on each lens element in order to get the desired effect. They didn't just apply the same coating to every lens and lens element.

- Murray