Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Zoom Macro – 16el 13gr vs 14el 12gr versions – comparison
Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Zoom Macro (16el.13gr.) vs Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Zoom (14el.12gr.) – comparison
- Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 (16el.13gr.) (MD III)
- Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 (14el.12gr.) (MD III)
A perfect demonstration of the differences between lenses with the same parameters, but with different optical designs.
|35-105/3.5-4.5 16×13||35-105/3.5-4.5 14×12|
|Cosmetic Condition:||Very good||Very good|
This comparison is correct only for conditions and equipment used for tests. Test results can differ if any element is changed.
Tested lenses reviews
Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Zoom Macro – 16el 13gr vs 14el 12gr versions – comparison – sharpness/resolution
Long-distance test description
- Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) – RAW (ARW), tripod, A-mode, ISO 100, WB fixed, SteadyShot OFF, manual focus correction for every shot
- Targets (buildings) – fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters
- ARW post-processing – Capture One, default settings, 100% crops 300×200 px
Minolta MD 35-105mm 1:3.5-4.5 Zoom Macro – 16el 13gr vs 14el 12gr versions – comparison – final conclusion
This difference turned out to be much greater than the difference between lenses with the same schemes, but with different apertures. For example, if we take a pair of 50mm lenses with a 1.4 and 2.0 aperture, then we will most likely see a slight advantage in sharpness in the corners of a faster lens on the same stops. But in general, the lenses will work about the same. But in the case of these two zooms, the situation is different – one has an advantage in the middle part of the frame, the other in the corner. To be honest, I don’t even know which one to call the winner, everyone will be good for some specific purpose.