Battle of the 35-70's

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Macro vs MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 Non-Macro

"Macro vs Macran't"

This was a simple test to determine if you can observe differences between these two similar lenses by-eye. I'll explain the setup and everything used, but I'll also mention the limitations. Based on the final images, you can make the ultimate choice if either is better.

Unlike my last review "Beercan vs Beercan't", this comparison has already been undertaken by LensQAWorks. While my comparison is more for personal interest, I recommend reading theirs further for a more technical comparison.

The Setup

x1 Canon EOS 1100D (aka Rebel T3)

x1 Pixco MD-EOS Adaptor (cheap glass-corrected adaptor to allow SR-mount infinity focus on the Canon-EF mount; more on this later*)

x1 Velbon UT-3AR Tripod

The two lenses in question, obviously

Lens Technical Information

Source: Minolta SR Lens Index	MD Zoom 35-70mm (NM)	MD Zoom 35-70mm (M)	Difference ("Loser" in RED)
Focal Range (mm)	35-70mm	35-70mm	-
Maximum f/	22	22	-
Minimum f/	3.5	3.5	-
Minimum Focus (m/ft)	1m/3ft	0.8m/2.8ft	0.2m/ft
Filter Thread (mm)	55mm	55mm	-
Macro?	No	Yes (1:7 to 1:4)	Macro
Weight (g)	355g	365g	10g
Year of Manufacture/Classification	1981 (MD III "New MD")	1983 (MD III "New MD")	2 years/No Version change
Serial Number	8012854	1179032	-

Based on the serial numbers, my example of the Non-Macro 35-70mm is older than the one tested by Lens QA works (801XXXX vs 811XXXX), whilst my Macro 35-70mm is a newer example (117XXXX vs 104XXXX). This makes the actual age difference slightly larger overall between the two. Whether this will have an effect on the results in any meaningful way is unknown, but also unlikely.

The Method

Canon DSLR set for Av (Aperture Priority) due to manual aperture settings, and to allow stop-down metering. White Balance set to Daylight (5200K), "Faithful" image effects (natural colours), centred-weighted average metering and ISO to 400 in all tests to allow for direct and fair comparison. Mount the DSLR on the tripod to view the scene across, and attach the adaptor/lens combination.

1. First Test (Sharpness)

Set a suitable scene at the lowest focal distance (35mm) and widest aperture (f/3.5). Set focus to Infinity**, and take a shot at incrementally increasing f/stops to see sharpness. Reset to widest aperture, and repeat test at intermediate (50mm) and maximum (70mm) focal distances.

2. Second Test (Bokeh)

Unfocus to minimum focus distance (1m)*** and widest aperture. Take shots at incrementally increasing f/stops to see bokeh.

3. Third Test (Macro/Minimum Focus)

Set up a close-focus scene of various objects, and gradually reduce scale factor (1:X)****

Limitations

* To provide the comparison, the test required introducing an extra variable in the test that may have altered the final results. This comes in the form of an SR>EF adaptor containing a corrective glass element which will inevitably reduce the true quality of the lenses. As a sidenote, this lens comparison also acts as a review for the cheapest infinity-focused adaptor I could find on Amazon UK, and at 15 GBP, the Pixco won out cheaper than the next best competitor by 30 GBP (Fotodiox at 45 GBP). Having some quick focusing tests prior to this lens comparison, I can tell you the Pixco adaptor functions in connecting the lens to the body. What problems occur through this is soft "over-focus" at infinity at the widest aperture, essentially requiring a stop loss in aperture to remedy. On the other end, the tightest 2-3 stops of aperture will add a circular artifact in the center of the image. So as an example, an MD 50mm f/1.7 (max f/22) will have clear focus at f/2, and will induce artifacts at f/16 and f/22. See the images below for clear examples.

**Infinity focus is achievable with this adaptor, but at slightly less than the infinity focus on the actual lenses tested (e.g. "infinity" was at 20m focus distance instead of the 30m/Infinity you expect). This was to be expected with an SLR to DSLR glass-corrected adaptor as explained above.

*** Due to the minimum focus differences in between the two lenses as well as the included Macro feature on one, the minimum focus was set at the lowest achievable for both, i.e. 1m/3ft. This is an improvement from the earlier Beercan/'t comparison as obviously comparing different focuses will generate different results.

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

**** Another improvement from the previous comparison, a third test is included to demonstrate the macro abilities. As one lens doesn't actually have a Macro function, this will be the only component of the comparison introducing a clear bias towards one lens.

Appearance

From the front/birds' eye view, they are virtually identical. Where they begin to differ is along the barrel - the Non-Macro version includes an extra indicator for a 40mm focal length, whereas the Macro version does away with it as well as the little "f" marking to make room for the macro indicators. Along the focusing helicoid of the barrel, the red Infrared focus markers for different focal lengths on the Non-Macro version only extend as far as the minimum focus distance at the respective focal length can reach. An interesting detail to include, but apparently not enough to be kept in the later Macro version which has the red lines extend all the way along regardless of whether they would be visible. The Macro version also removes the 40mm Infrared focus indicator with the 40mm focal length indicator, leaving you to guess should you use it.

Other small visual differences include the height - the serial number/"35-70", focal length, and focus indicator rings of the Macro version have all been im-perceptively lengthened, making it overall slightly taller when fully compressed or extended. This means that when fully compressed the focus indicators in feet and meters can be observed past the selected focal lengths when in the Non-Macro version they are hidden snugly under the focal length ring.

On the opposite side, the serial numbers are present. The Non-Macro has an addition of a large flathead screw along the aperture ring, reminiscent of some of the older Minolta lenses. Upon investigation of the collection I own, only the 45mm f/2.8 TD Rokkor from 1964 has something similar. This rougher look might be in part due to the paint wearing off with use from the metal ring of the Non-Macro version versus the plastic ring of the Macro version. On the side of the top nameplate ring you also see a small screw under the "Minolta" name, something not present on the newer Macro-version.

The Meaty Bit - Image Results

1. Focus Testing

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

35mm

f/3.5

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

Immediately we see the flaws of a glass adaptor shine out - at the widest aperture, the infinity focus is not accurate, producing a soft glow to everything in the scene. This disappears at f/5.6 and f/8, however at f/11 onwards a round artifact appears in the centre of the scene which increases in prominence with every stop:

This is certainly from the adaptor and not from the individual lenses as they both have been film tested before on native Minolta SR mount cameras and do not show this artifact. This is unfortunate, but also consistent, allowing for a fair comparison to be made between lenses outside of this central point.

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

50mm

f/3.5

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

70mm

f/3.5

f/5.6

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

As expected from the focus test of two similar lenses, a clear winner cannot be pointed out. The newer Macro version does show some more contrast that I personally find more appealing. This should be noted as the time difference between shots on the lenses is only 5 minutes (15.31 - 15.36), and from the scene you can see it is a near cloudless day that shouldn't change the lighting conditions so drastically.

2. Bokeh Testing

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

35mm, f/3.5

35mm, f/5.6

35mm, f/8

35mm, f/11

35mm, f/16

35mm, f/22

From these images we can see a distraction on the left of most frames, this is just a window frame approximately 0.5m from the tripod-camera. While accidental, it does act as a good reference point for comparisons of the influence of aperture on hyperfocal distance - By f/22, the edge of the frame is reasonably sharp compared to the gradient-like edge of the frame seen at f/3.5. For the rest of the scene however, only f/22 gives images with scenes in focus. Again the central artifact appears from f/11 onwards. The bokeh in both lenses is at the wider apertures is uniformly soft, something I personally find more appealing than the swirly effects you might see in other lenses that reminds me of the feeling that I've had too much to drink. At the widest (f/3.5) there is some slight swirling of lighter and reflective objects in the scene. Again, I'm having a difficult time pointing out anything that makes either lens better than the other.

3. Macro Demonstration

MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Non Macro) MD Zoom 35-70mm f/3.5 (Macro)

Naturally the Non Macro lens has nothing to demonstrate, so the scene is out of focus as the items are well inside of the 1 meter/3 feet focusing distance. As for the Macro version, this short clip demonstrates the blue toothflosser coming into focus at 0.8m at approximately 1:8 Macro as I switched to the Macro options, and then the lens cap become clear at the 1:7 option. As the lens' focal distance is turned towards 1:4, the brush comes into clearer vision at approximately 1:6/1:5, and then out again as I hit the maximum Macro setting of 1:4. These objects were within 30cm of the lens, so 1:4 would allow objects under this distance to come into focus, whilst the Non Macro doesn't allow anything under 1m to be focused.

As there is a clear winner in this case, there is no further need for comment. The Macro lens has Macro, who could have anticipated this?

Conclusions

Macro aside, there isn't a large amount that makes them different. A modest 5 grams of weight on the Macro version is more than made up by having a closer minimum focus distance on top of having Macro options available. There is some moderate contrast improvements that the shots from the Macro version of the lens has over the Non Macro version, but again, something negligble that could be attributed to deterioration of the lenses' quality over time, a runaway setting in the centre-weighted metering of the camera at the time of shooting, or something else entirely.

Outside of the lenses' control, price is another factor that has little bearing on which, if any, is better. Both sell unreliably between 20 GBP and 80 GBP, depending on their condition, whether there are accessories or the original packaging present, etc. It's even difficult to search for prices between versions, as both share the same name and are only identifiable by the presence or absence of the Macro settings.

With Macro factored in, it's was always obvious which was "better". Both provide fantastic image quality when mounted natively to an SR-mount Minolta, or a mirrorless with the appropriate adaptor, but having the option for Macro photography at no extra cost or sacrifice to image quality make it a better option to choose, should you ever have the option.

My final observation of the Non Macro in it's defence, is its relatively rarity. For whatever reason, you are less likely to find one online or in a camera shop. This doesn't affect its price, but if you are in the habit of buying harder-to-find lenses, try and get the Non-Macro first for this reason only.

Acknowledgements

Shoutout to LensQAWorks who does a far better job than me in his "Lens Wars" tests, and that inspired me to try it out myself.

I suppose I should mention the communities I take part in, to various degrees, r/AnalogCommunity, r/minolta, the Minolta Collectors Group on Facebook, and the Film Photography Discord (Invite Link). All of ye are great and have contributed a lot to my photography knowledge.

I'll leave a small plug to r/MinoltaGang here, a subreddit I run with the intention of connecting Minolta Enthusiasts on Reddit. I've made it as welcoming and as resource packed as you can get, so if you ever want suggestions or questions about your Minolta Gear, it's the place to go.

Finally, I have to warn that this comparison is hosted only on a temporary source, and as such, will disappear in August 2021. I reccomend archiving this for your own interest, or bookmarking the Wayback Machine Archive Link here instead.