In my experience, many of those who became interested in photography in the last decade or so seem to think that photographic equipment comes in only two nearly-indistinguishable incarnations (perhaps three if they have heard about Leica). For those people, the existence and qualities of this little forty-year-old zoom may come as a shock. But I would venture that, for many other serious enthusiasts, this lens needs no introduction. I will confess to the following: having shot with Minolta in the film era, I had known about this zoom since the early 80’s, but I had never tried it. This was largely because back then I could only afford to have two or three lenses, and the argument went that zooms could not compete with primes when it came to optical quality. Leica knew better, of course, as in 1983 it re-packaged the first version of the Rokkor 35-70mm as a Vario-Elmar, and kept it in production until a “true” Leica 35-70mm f/4 came out in 1997. I own both lenses, and although the newer Vario Elmar delivers a more distinctive “Leica look” in terms of contrast, sharpness and color (a combination that may be responsible for the “Leica glow”), the Minolta zoom is in no way a “lesser lens”. It is equally competent and pleasing, in that uniquely Minolta sort of way. Sorry, I can’t explain it any better, but if you are familiar with old Minolta glass you probably know what I mean.
There are three versions of the Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5. The only one that I tried, which is the one with which I shot all the images that illustrate this essay, is the latest “Minolta MD” version with a macro setting on the focusing ring. I have read different opinions about whether the earlier versions were optically the same or not, but I cannot comment on this. I am not interested in detailed lens comparisons. I just wanted to get the version with the macro setting, found one in mint condition for less than USD 100, bought it and absolutely love it. I would just like to point out that the Leica version is based on the very first, “Rokkor”, version of the Minolta zoom, so I suspect that that version is unlikely to differ significantly from the latest one.
What is so special about this lens? As always, I prefer to let pictures do most of the talking, but I will begin with a few comments that go beyond what the images show. It is a small and relatively light lens, certainly compared to modern Frankenlenses but also relative to the other two analog masterpieces in the same focal length: the afore mentioned Vario Elmar f/4 and the Vario Sonnar 35-70 f/3.4. If I need to travel light and space is at a premium, then the significantly shorter Minolta zoom is the obvious choice. Throw in the Minolta 75-150mm and a Rokkor 24mm and I am set-up for perhaps 90% of the focal length coverage that I ever use, without having to switch adapters (something that I don’t like to do in mirrorless cameras). The Leica and the Zeiss may be a bit sharper (surgically so in the case of the Zeiss), and may have a more distinctive “contrasty look”, but in my view the three lenses are quite evenly matched with respect to color rendition. This does not mean that they render color in the same way, just that all three do so in a natural and pleasing way. Also, and I find this truly remarkable, the Minolta is by far the best of the three with respect to flare resistance. In fact, it is quite hard to get it to flare, whereas the opposite is true of the two German designs. Curious about what this lens is capable of? Let’s have a look.
Sony A7R – ISO 200 
Sony A7 – ISO 640
Sony A7S – ISO 1600 
Sony A7S – ISO 2000
Sony A7S – ISO 2000 
Sony A7 – ISO 400 
Sony A7S – ISO 1600 
Sony A7 – ISO 100
Sony A7S – ISO 3200 
Sony A7 – ISO 800
Not too bad for a 100 dollar lens, I dare say. I’d love to hear your thoughts!
I feel like no matter the lens you have with you, the results are always more than good.
Good job Alberto.
Thank you for the kind words, Cvitan. I hope you are doing fine. You know that I love Hexanon and Zuiko primes, but when it comes to zooms none of the 35-70’s from Konica or Olympus come close to this little monster. Perhaps the very expensive Zuiko 35-80 f/2.8 does, but I have never tried it. If you have a chance of getting a good one, and you use this range of focal lengths, go for it. It must be seen to be believed!
All the best to you and your family for the new year!
Alberto
Hi Alberto,
The Zuiko 35-80/2.8 is a lens with outstanding qualities, apart from some minor edge CA and vignetting+distortion at the wide-end, there is not much wrong with it. The color, contrast, bokeh and close-range performance is superior to this lens, although it would probably be more difficult to tell with examples shot at more moderate apertures. Its mechanics are also more refined, with a Leica M-like short, but precise focus throw, balances and handles very nicely with most cameras. It seems to go for less than the (also fantastic) 100/2, so compared to its original retail price and considering its rarity, it seems undervalued in comparison.
Not that you need one with pictures as good as this, but I thought I’d mention it since I just bought one again 🙂 Have a nice day!
All the best,
Adam
Hello Adam,
Thanks for your input! I know, the Zuiko 35-80 f/2.8 is one of the great Zuikos, and reputed to be among the greatest zooms ever made. I have never owned nor used one, but being a long-time Zuiko fan I expect that everything that is said about it is accurate. I own three 35-70’s (Minolta f/3.5, Vario-Elmar f/4 and Vario-Sonnar f/3.4) and would imagine that it is at least as good as the two German lenses, plus faster and with a bit more of range. The Minolta was in the same price range as the Zuiko 35-70 f/3.6, though, and good as this latter lens is (I used to own one) it is no match for the Minolta. Perhaps one day I will be able to justify to myself owning yet one more lens and will search for a Zuiko 35-80….
Keep in touch and very best wishes!
Alberto
I got my latest one from Japan, it seems more common there. I see examples for as low as 300$, but of course in need of a fungus/haze removal but if it can be restored succesfully, it is basically a giveaway at that price, I paid much more, but at least it is almost unused.
After fixing my adapters for infinity, I just did some boring comparisons and the differences aren’t quite as striking as I expected.
For instance, the OM 50/1.4 (last version) sharpens up quicker in the corners with less CA and also gathers a bit more light (maybe 1/4th of a stop difference) and it looks very similar stepped down. On the other hand, the color and contrast is even a bit better on the zoom and also there is no distortion at that focal length (but there is a lot at 35mm) In the tele-end, the performance is very strong. But the big thing is that the overall look is just pleasing to the my ‘prime-trained’ eyes, which I don’t normally find for zooms, it is more apparent is real-world examples.
I even saw someone rigging it up it for video production, which is surpising, since it is anything but parfocal. But the warmth of the colors and the flare is cinematic.
So yes, looking at examples from the recent high-end zooms for mirrorless cameras, it seem that the performance has been raised significantly (no not sure if these lenses can be put into that greatest ever category) and the general range is just a lot more useful, but the look is just not the same and more corrections mean there has to be a compromise either in weight or in light-gathering.
Best, Adam
Thanks for the update. For me this is the key:
” …. the overall look is just pleasing to the my ‘prime-trained’ eyes….” If the lens delivers the look that fits your style, then all else is secondary. Having said that, if the zoom can (almost) hold its own next to the 50mm f/1.4 Zuiko then it is certainly an excellent lens – that is a very high standard.
Cheers!
Alberto
Yep, I am just catching up with some Christmas pictures with the family, when I first used it with the A7S, and for people shots I actually prefer the slight smoothening at f/2.8 and the contrast still isolates the subjects well.
Hi Alberto,
I got this lens from Japan several months ago and the more I use it the more I like it. The macro function (which only works at the 70mm focal length) is clever and useful. Focusing is smooth and accurate and 35-70 is a useful range. I find the bokeh a little harsh at 3.5 but softens nicely if stopped down one or two stops. It a really good match for the Sony a-7.
I don’t think you can do any better for the price!! Thanks for your visit and take care!
I have the first and the last version with macro. They say the first verion is not so good but in my experience is the built quality is better then the macro version. Also the image-quality is very good. You can count the hairspits of my cat and dog! Despite the missing of the macro I like the use of the old rokkor 35-70 3.5
I’ve got the same lens for my Sony A7rii and it is brilliant. Flare resistance means you can shoot sunstars with it and for vintage glass that is rare. I only use old lenses and this is one of the best.
You should also review the Minolta MD-III 28-85/3.5-4.5, which is really good for this Zoomrange, see RokkorFiles for Example.
I do know your Minolta 35-70/3.5 Review here since 2018, Alberto. 😉 I have digital in “Fullframe” Format the Sony A7, and Canon 5D, both since their heyday, so i am settled.
No need, to buy, burn Money for myself, for the latest & greatest. It’s simply good enough, a Leica M-Series Film Rangefinder would being tempting, but i can’t afford it these days.
I have both of these lenses . i was very happy with my 28-85 but then i found the md iii macro 35-70 in excellent condition for 30usd and i couldnt resist .. at 35 mm open aperture both lenses are equaly sharp but over 35mm the 35-70 is sharper . also closing the aperture ring just a little on the 35-70 zoom somewhere between f3.5 and f4.5 this lens is incredible sharp so i had to make a small adjustment in the internal aperture ring stop and now the lens is a constant f/4 but super sharp even at 35mm .. the biggest diference between those 2 lenses is the contrast and propably coatings .. the 35-70 has noticebly more contrast even shooting against the sun and less chromatic aberations and distortion at the edges .. for the price is a bargain but also the 28-85 and i still like its more smooth character for close up flowers and stuff like that ..
I hope someone can help me,
I just picked up a mint MD 35-70mm 3.5 macro, but I’m not sure how to engage the macro. There is a little blue button but not sure what to do with it. There also seems to be another black button, more rectangular, that I don’t know what to do with. Can someone tell me how to engage the macro and what that other button is for? Is there an online users manual for this lens? Thanks!
Bob,
To engage the macro, rotate the zoom ring to the 70 mm end until it stops, press the blue button and keep rotating. Press the blue button again to disengage. The rectangular button is used on some Minolta film bodies to engage exposure automation. Ignore it if you are using the lens with an adaptor on a digital body.
Enjoy your lens!
Alberto