Are zooms as good as primes? Conventional wisdom says no. But there are at least two problems with this answer. First, what is the definition of “good”? Second, conventional wisdom is, as always, wrong. One should never believe what “they” say without objective proof or, lacking that, generating the evidence at one’s own expense. And my experience is this: many, perhaps most, zooms from the film era are certainly not as good as primes of comparable vintage. But a few are stunning, and every bit as “good” as any primes, vintage or current. Mind you, “as good” does not mean identical. They are different, certainly not as fast and perhaps with less-satisfying bokeh and more distortion than primes, but every bit as sharp (if not sharper) and with contrast and color renditions that would give many primes a run for their money. You can define “good”, “better” or “worse” by choosing any combination of these characteristics, as well as a few others. In my view, choosing a “good” prime vs. an equally “good” zoom for a particular photo depends not on which one is “better”, but rather on which one is best suited to what you are trying to accomplish. And the latter may include the ability to change focal length without changing lenses, something that for a somewhat lazy mirrorless user (dust anybody?) is certainly important.
Not too long ago I wrote a short piece about the Leica Vario Elmar 21-35mm. That piece was written “in anger”, as I felt that conventional wisdom had maligned an absolutely stellar lens (and what else should one have expected of a turn-of-the-century Leica design?). The subject of this post is less controversial, as those (few?) people who have experience with the Minolta MD 75-150mm zoom are unanimous in their praise. The issue, as I see it, is that the lens is even better than what one would have reason to believe from its relative obscurity. It is in the same league as the much better known and highly regarded Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5, and comparable to the very best classic Rokkor primes, in itself a very high bar.
As is often the case with Minolta glass, the first thing that strikes you when you start shooting with this zoom on a sensor that can do it justice is the combination of color and contrast. I realize that this is subjective and a matter of taste, but for me that combination is perfect. The colors are faithful and strongly saturated, but not overdone. The contrast is almost exactly where I would have taken it in post processing. So let me begin with a few examples of what the color and contrast of the Minolta MD 75-150mm are all about. As usual, all images were shot in ARW format and have undergone gentle processing in Capture One. Camera used and ISO settings are given in the captions.
Is this lens sharp? The previous images begin to answer this question, but let’s see the next image. Take a close look at the cat’s eyes, his fur and his whiskers. This image was shot at f/4! And the bokeh, although not all that prominent in these images,is certainly not unpleasant. As an aside, note the ISO setting of the cat image. There is no extra 0 – this is indeed ISO 4000. This is what the Sony A7S is capable of!
Sony A7S – ISO 4000 
Sony A7 – ISO 200
Another example – a Hawaiian gold dust gecko (delightful little buggers!!) foraging on a large cactus. As with Marx’s picture (that is my cat’s name) what I find remarkable is not only the sharpness but the “cleanliness” (for lack of a better word) of these images. There are no extraneous elements, no stray reflections, no aberrations. The images are a faithful reproduction of reality.
Sony A7S – ISO 800 
Sony A7S – ISO 800
If you are trying, as I am, to learn to be a “street shooter” this lens is a great tool, owing to its combination of optical qualities, great handling and remarkably small size and light weight. Here go some examples, from the beautiful island of Hawaii.
Sony A7 – ISO 320 
Sony A7 – ISO 160
Sony A7 – ISO 500 
Sony A7 – ISO 500 
Sony A7 – ISO 125 
Sony A7 – ISO 200
It is, of course, a very competent landscape lens as well.
Sony A7 – ISO 640 
Sony A7 – ISO 400
And with the right light and model also a great portrait lens.
Sony A7 – ISO 1250 
Sony A7 – ISO 1600 
Sony A7S – ISO 2000 
Sony A7S – ISO 2500
One last thought. Why did Leica pass on the opportunity to re-badge this lens as a Vario Elmar? I suspect that the answer is likely to be that when Minolta came out with this little jewel the Minolta-Leica collaboration had ceased to exist. Speaking of which – next up will be my take on a Minolta zoom that did become a Vario Elmar, the superlative 35-70mm f/3.5. Stay tuned and thank you for your visit!
Conventional wisdom can go to hell. I too love this lens, it’s an outstanding zoom and furthermore it’s perfectly usable on both Sony’s FF and APS-C bodies not only in terms of delivered quality (sharp and contrasty even paired with very dense sensors such as APS-C 24mpx ones) but also for it’s relatively compact size and weight (it’s a breeze to carry it around and use it compared to the bigger and heavier Minolta MD 70-210/4, another great telephoto zoom in terms of quality). Love your blog by the way 🙂
Totally agree Daniele – and thank you!
By the way I also own the Minolta 35-70/3.5 so I’m definitely looking forward to your post about it.
I’m working on it – I also have a real job 🙂
Dear Professor, this blog is a gem and I can’t wait to read more stuff here. I came here after watching your presentation about vintage lenses because I also started to discovering them. Because i also enjoy taking cat photos (https://www.instagram.com/emkaroly/?hl=en) it put a smile on my face when you mentioned cat fur as way to evaluate a lens, because i also usually compare lenses on cat photos especially on their fur 😊 I am using a Fuji X-T20 with XF27 f/2.8 and XF18-55 f/2.8-4.0 which are great but after buying the Minolta MD (III) 50 f/1.4 which I enjoy shooting with the stay on the shelf most of the time. I also have a Helios 44m-4 58 f/2.0 and two Zeiss Tessar 50 f/2.8 I have to say that comparing the pictures taken with 1957 Tessar to recent fuji glass put the recent lenses to different perspective. I am not saying the Tessar is better than any my fuji glass but I never thought that so old glass can produce so good pictures with interesting character what recent fuji glass little bit lacking. After this blog post considering to buy some tele lens and seeing your cat samples I considering the Minolta MD 75-150 f/4.0 and Contax 80-200 f/4.0 The Minolta is nice small but I really like the amazing nose detail on one of your pictures taken with Zeiss which is a lot larger. Can you recommend me which one you prefer and which one has better handling. I never used this style of manual focus zoom lenses. Thank you for answer.
After reading the post about feral cats i am also considering Vario-Sonnar 35-135
Amazing shots. And I have to say I share a lot of what you wrote there. I am helping my mother to take care of 15 cats also.
Hello Karol,
Thank you for your visit and for your very kind words! It is always great to meet another cat and vintage lens lover. I looked at your Instagram feed – I can look but not comment, as I am not on Instagram (nor on any other social media), but I must say that you do have a great eye for photographing cat behavior – I love the black cat “pawing” at you, and the tabby peering over the fence!! Old lenses are all I use now, once you get addicted to them there is no going back – be careful !!!
Regarding the Minolta 75-150 vs. the Contax 80-200, they are both great, but I would say that the Contax has an edge. It is truly exceptional, the sharpness beats many modern primes, and it has a very short close focusing distance that makes it almost a macro lens. You can’t go wrong with either of them, and they are both very reasonably priced, perhaps USD 200 for a good Contax and 120-150 for a Minolta. The Contax is easier to find, and also gives a bit more reach than the Minolta. Both are very light and reasonably sized, the Minolta is quite a bit shorter and less intrusive. Mechanical construction is perhaps just a bit better on the Contax, but the Minolta is also excellent, if you get a lens that has been well taken care of you won’t have any problems with either of them.
The Contax 35-135 is a different story. It is quite large and heavy and may be just a bit better than the 80-200, but also a lot more expensive. I ended up selling mine because I also have a Vario Sonnar 28-85, and between the 28-85 and 80-200 I was not using the 35-135 very much. Sometimes I regret selling it, but what is the point of keeping money tied up in a closet when you can use it to buy some other lens???? The 80-200 is also more versatile, it gives you significantly more reach, and the 1/2 stop difference between the two is really not a big deal.
I hope this helps, and give your mom my very best – cat ladies are my favorite people !!! Keep in touch!
I am glad you liked the pictures. I think my “photographic eye” is not very well developed, i just take a lot of pictures of cats because they own our backyard it is hard to take pictures without cats here 😃 Large amount of pictures backfires during culling and post processing. I also used Lightroom in past but after I bought Fuji I had to switch to Capture One because the X-Trans sensors doesn’t have bayer filter and developing raws in Lightroom produced not so pleasant pictures. Maybe in future you could make a post about your workflow. It would be interesting to see how your amazing cat pictures were created. They really amazed me, as I said i compared a lot of lenses and usually I searching for cat photos on flickr so I have seen a lot of pictures, but yours are now my reference pictures.
I may get around to writing about how I use Capture One – if only days were longer!! Thanks again for your very kind words!
[…] searching for info, I came across this post on the MD 75-150mm. By this time, I had already investigated the Minolta MD 35-70mm, MD 28-85mm, and the touted […]
[…] fourbillionyears.org […]