Skip to content

Minolta’s unique color rendition – a faith or a physics?

This article is unusual because stays opposite to the very positive and popular sentence about Minolta products – “Minolta lenses have a better color rendering than many other lenses”. Under ‘many other’ I mean Pentax, Canon, Nikon, etc. It isn’t a secret that I love Minolta lenses because some of them are really outstanding, but I do not agree that it is worth attributing to them properties that they do not possess.

This test has been performed more than a year ago but wasn’t published. The reason is described below.

I read a lot of mentions on forums and social networks that the colors of Minolta are better and it “can be seen easily”. Some photographers directly are talking about the fact that the landscape shot with a Minolta lens will be more colorful than that landscape with another lens.

Let’s imagine what are the possible reasons for changing colors: it may be assumed that on open apertures, colors will indeed vary due to aberrations that result in a slight color-shifting. This case looks obvious. As a result, it also can be assumed that the fewer aberrations, the better the colors. Or, for example, that different optical designs will lead to different color reproduction.

What else may affect the colors? Coating? OK, if it so, then lenses with different coating should provide different colors.

Anything else? Here my fantasy stopped because it looks that other reasons belong to a sensor/processor or film/process.

That was just my speculation. But something is looked wrong in this simple logic, an I’ve started preparations for the test – how about to compare color rendition of:

  1. almost full set of Minolta MD-III – 1980′ – all with the greatest IQ from the manual period of photography
  2. a few old Chiyoko lenses – 1950′ – the first generation lenses by Minolta from the post-war period
  3. a few Canon Serenars (or Canon S) – 1950′ – absolutely another company and also from the period of the earliest experiments with coatings
  4. something with a teleconverter – as the combination which is changing the optical design of an attached lens
  5. Sony FE 35mm F2.8 – one of the latest examples created by the optical industry, top modern technologies.


  • same settings for every shot
  • fixed lighting (a light-box has been used)
  • one size of the object on the frame – ‘zoom by legs’
  • the object is close to the center of the frame and takes about 1/3 of the frame long side

The preview:


Two stages have been planned:

  1. aperture is closed to F5.6
  2. aperture is fully opened

It should be a long time job, but I was expecting to show incredible advantages in the color rendition of Minolta lenses, about which everyone talks so much.

Life is a complicated thing. When I saw the results from the beginning stage (on F5.6), I stopped and even didn’t start to write the article because was sure that it isn’t interesting for people – to see absolutely similar results from all of the lenses. Yes, all lenses are the same regarding colors.

Better to say that difference exists but special tools are needed to see it, a color-checker pen in Photoshop maybe… I see no chance to see the difference in real photos.

The idea has been dropped and I returned to the normal life.

Of course, statements about the magic color of Minolta continued to appear on the network, but this did not seem to be something important until I came across a question about it again: one year later I met a topic in Facebook with the header like:  “is the Minolta color rendition much better than many other?” And dozens of people said – yes, it’s tested and verified.

That time I realized that it isn’t a technical question, it’s a question about faith. It looks like that fans repeated this idea during a long period so many times, that readers started to think that it is verity because of “So many people cannot be wrong” and have continued to repeat it.

As a result, finally, this article has been written. Just with a purpose to show the one picture only – with the results of the testing on F5.6.

Yes, the difference is presented and can be seen, but not easy, btw. – and we are speaking about the head-to-head comparison special diagram. Is it possible to say that some lenses on this diagram have a better color rendition than others?

On the other hand – I’m a person who makes a lot of mistakes and doesn’t understand a lot of things. Maybe it is just my wrong opinion and I simply don’t see the things which are seen by a lot of photographers?

I would be appreciated if someone tell me that I’m wrong and why.


Have a nice day!


  1. I see. A digital camera backed by an in-camera chipset that is designed to correct color and white balance on the fly, and fix flaws / noise ever-present in MOS devices. It’s like a little Mr. Data with a marketing degree with a copy of Photoshop inside the camera, that can’t be turned off. After that, it was run through at least one image editing program, one of which very likely applies a colorspace that is different from the camera’s, then squashed into 8-bits per channel and piped into my retinas through an IPS monitor that is a comparatively (to the real thing) a low-output device.

    If anyone who is staring at that attempts to say something profound about the quality of an analog technology–like a Minolta lens, or any of the aforementioned lenses–while staring at a dim 8-bit/channel JPEG, well that sounds like faith to me. Can I get an amen, at least?

    As you speculated, the formula of the optical glass and the coatings determine character of the lens. Put down the digital tweak-inator and look through the lenses with your own eyes, in front of a neutral background. One eye looking straight, the other through the lens. Putting a dozen unknown variables between you and a hopeful result doesn’t sound like the path to successful experiment. Or maybe I’m just cranky and skeptical by nature?

    That said, I have tons of Minolta glass, and there’s no one “Minolta” color rendition I can discern. In fact, lenses from the same generation give different results–generally separated by the initial price point. Does it matter? I can’t show you the differences between two massively complex, real-world analog outputs because they will have to go through several digital meat grinders before they are ejected as a lump of digital mystery meat that will be stuck on backside of your screen. “These bits mean nothing to me.”


  2. I see your doubts, so, you can repeat the test with a one film roll – it would give you a comparison of 36 lenses, seems enough


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: