DPR Forum

Welcome to the Friendly Aisles!
DPRF is a photography forum with people from all over the world freely sharing their knowledge and love of photography. Everybody is welcome, from beginners to the experienced professional. Whether it is Medium Format, fullframe, APS-C, MFT or smaller formats. Digital or film. DPRF is a forum for everybody and for every format.
Enjoy this modern, easy to use software. Look also at our Reviews & Gallery!

20mm Minolta versus 21mm Contax Biogon lense

Gilbert, please read the thread. It's an old thread, but I only found this forum recently. I am not the one who mentioned Zeiss, or raised the contentious opinion that the Minolta 20mm f2.8 was a bad design. Fritz Müller did so:

"The Minolta 20mm Lense cant be used for Large prints, or you have to close aperture at least to 8.
I would consider a Sigma or Tamron lense if you wanna buy such a 20mm Lense.
I would rate this lense as not so good and compared to a Contax lense as a bad way spending money."

I was merely replying to this very extreme trashing of a good lens design.

All matters to do with testing lenses, or photographic equipment, are a matter of opinion. Fact barely enters the arena. I started testing lenses for PHOTOGRAPHY magazine in 1973, aged 21, using Geoffrey Crawley's Paterson test target (then the best around) and a stock of Panatomic-X generously donated by Kodak. For a decade or more I continued to think that what I was doing was objective, even vaguely scientific. I would actually dare to quote real figures - lppmm - and make definite statements about lenses.

In the 1980s, I visited Minolta in Japan, and learned much more about lens making from others including Zeiss (I have been a guest of Hasselblad twice, before they closed Gothenburg). I began to see that variability of s&les overrides almost any test you can do on lenses unless they are well beyond even the parameters of Leitz and Zeiss in their heyday. In the 1990s, my wife did a Masters in Colour Science (establishing methods for matching prints between radically different printers, dye sub and thermal wax, before ICC profiling was introduced). I acted as her assistant and began to grasp the rigorous process of genuine scientific investigation - dozens of s&les, thousands of readings, blind tests, checks, statistical analysis. I'm not a scientist or mathematician myself.

At the end of this all, I realised that even the most pseudo-scientific 'tests' in magazines (like those I had written for years) and on websites (like the most popular resources around) are not really worth much more than opinion. They look scientific, but they fall far short of the most basic standards of research.

Consequently I am happy to state my opinion, admit that it's my opinion, to be sceptical about all absolute statements, and never to wish to plague the world with a test chart again. The results are all that counts.

I do remember, well enough, that a 20 x 16 architectural mono exterior shot on the 20mm Minolta was part of my MPA Associateship submission - which was successful - at a time when the judges would have thrown it out had they known it was on 35mm. They assumed it was medium format. The lens was good enough to do that. I just pressed the shutter button.

If you ever find a 1975 copy of MINOLTA MIRROR, inside it there's an article on the structure of wide-angle images by a 23-year-old me, with one full mono gravure image taken directly from a Tri-X negative shot on the 21mm f2.8. The 54-year-old rather more disillusioned me can't hack that quality any more and when Fuji sent me their latest 400X slide film I realised I did not even want to use it; digital has destroyed my interest in real photography.

But whatever I have still to offer, it's based on over 30 years editing photo magazines and testing hundreds (maybe thousands) of items of equipment, attending countless seminars and press conferences and every photokina but one since 1972, and also on using the Minolta system since 1974. If my opinion is worthless to you, so be it.

David
 
I brought facts & You?

And, when I state my opinion I make it clear that it is! And, I respect the opinion of others, and I raise questions when I read broad unfounded statements containing inferences that are not warranted. It is a discussion board!

David, you accused me of having an agenda. Aren't you the one with the Agenda?


"A history of association

Let me introduce ourselves as your hosts on this site: we are David & Shirley Kilpatrick, professional photographers since 1975 and publishers of photographic magazines in Britain since 1983. We first started using Minolta SLR systems in 1974. In 1981 we were asked by Minolta Camera Co. Ltd to run the Minolta Club of Great Britain and produce its quarterly magazine, Photoworld; we did this for 25 years with the support of Minolta (UK) Limited and later of Konica Minolta Photo Imaging (UK) Ltd."

Regards:

Gilbert
 
Enough is enough, gentlemen. Not to further inflame Gilbert, but David has established his bona fides and I respect and admire him for his long years as a professional. I also thank him for his patience.
 
I would feel differently about Gilbert's point of view if I was to go on to a Contax or Zeiss forum and push the merits of the Minolta lens range. But I don't. On the whole I will only jump into a discussion if something strikes me as unbalanced concerning Minolta, and this thread was in that category.

There are two statements earlier in this thread which are very contentious - one is that test report results that show a Minolta lens to be good are probably faked (referring to a consistent and good test site, photozone.de); the second that one of Minolta's best designs, the 20mm f2.8 AF, is unsuitable for making large prints unless stopped down to f8. I can't really let either of those go by and just sit sit there for years on a forum where any visitor can read them and may think this is all true.

David
 
David:

I simply asked questions, and questioned your conclusion. I didn't make any claims about one being better than the other, nor did offer any of the attributes of central lens shutters.

You are a writer and use to publishing your articles and perhaps not used to being questioned. I don't know, but you claimed I had an agenda, simply because I questioned you.

Regards:

Gilbert
 
As a long time subscriber to David's professional photographic magazines, I can vouch for his amazing depth of knowledge on matters photographic. He writes no nonsense, clear and unbiased reviews which tell it like it is from a photographer's point of view.
David's advice is always worth having and we should welcome him to Dirk's forums, as I certainly do. I am sure that we will all benefit from his presence here.
(As an aside, in between all this and his publishing ventures he manages to find time somewhere to be a not so dusty guitarist and singer song writer.)
John
 
Hey guys, please discuss your opinion in a respectful way. Everybody is allowed to have his own opinion and to explain it, but please respect the netiquette!

And, to make it easier to read, please use the quote feature at the upper right hand corner of each posting (first icon). Select first the text, which you want to quote and click then on the icon.

Thanks
 
As David said someone looking at the initial comment would think as i did that this was a bad lens. I have the lens but have not used it a great deal so cannot comment on how good/bad it is but Davids comments did reassure me. Let me also say that i have subscribed to his
magazines for a number of years and find the depth to which he discusses the subjects excellent and as Dirk says lets conduct ourselves in a respectful manner

Regards
Manuel odabashian
 
Manuel is biased, because he's proved sufficiently good to have images reproduced in our magazine contests! I seem to recall one of these was a really low-level view (from ground level) of a wild orchid, with an ultrawide. It may have been the 20mm unless Manuel has a 17mm. Whatever, it was big repro. And pin-sharp, because nothing short of perfect gets through to a user-group magazine.

David
 
Back
Top