Minolta lens outfit

Hi, I am owning a Maxxum/Dynax camera. I was curious about the lens

choices other Minoltians have made, and why. Why did you choose to buy

the lenses that you have now? Do you only buy OEM lenses? Currently I

have a 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4, 100/2 and for a couple of days an old

70-210/4. All 55 mm. I also have a Tokina 20-35/2.8, but I am selling

that lens at the moment, as I felt more comfortable with the primes. A

shame though that I didn't figure that out before I went and bought

the 20-35 zoom. I always think about the flexibility of working with

zooms, but I found out that when I have the choice, I always will go

for the primes. I bought the 70-210 as a cheap 200 mm solution and to

be able to play with tele-lenses.

I bought most of my Minolta AF lenses used. There are some real gems in there! The 20/2.8 and 85/1.4 especially--they are so sharp it's painful. I've also got a 35/2, which I used extensively for travel.<br><br>

 

Minolta has a really underrated lens line-up, but it doesn't bother me because it makes used stuff cheaper! I'm saving my pennies for when they release the new 70-200/2.8 SSM lens (hopefully it'll be sometime this year).

I myself am a relatively poor guy, no money for things like 85/1.4 (not even second-hand...the only one i've seen was sold for about 600 euro). That's regarding the "why" part of the question. Actually I'm happy i can't afford to buy more or better- i know if i could, i would buy a lot, and that's *not* the point in photography.

<p>I'm quite happy with the (second-hand bought, with some luck)50/1.7, 135/2.8(the old non-stf) minolta's + a tokina at-x 17/3.5. In addition I have a sigma 28-105/2.8-4. This was the first(and only) lens I bought as new, right after buying the body. I was a beginner without a good advisor; beginners don't buy second-hand stuff neither primes:) today i wouldn't buy it, it's too expensive for the quality. Optics are okay, construction and af sucks. But i use it quite often, when i go somewhere where i have no chance to carry 3 primes and/or switch between them.

 

Anyway, a month ago I almost was able to change my 17mm to a second-hand mint condition minolta 20/2.8 (by paying ~75euro extra), god I was so excited about. But i was a bit late. (17mm is usually just too wide for me; often i wish I have something with less distortion.) I got angry and depressed, and then I realised that it wouldn't made my photos better at all. So i try to use my current stuff more efficient now, and I don't look for equipment anymore.

<p>

I had a 70-210 /3.5-4.5 "beer can" for a few months, great lens to have fun with, just the construction was already a bit loose. If i turned it upside down, he zoomed from 70 to ~180 by its own weight:)) I actually gave it to my girlfriend - i didn't need it, i just got the 135mm, and she was in love with that old glass.

<p>

That's the story. Why do you ask anyway?

<br>Have a nice light.

Hi...

 

From what I have read, the 70-210/4 is a great lens, it's only drawback seems to be it's weight.

 

On to the questions... I think the "why" is a personal thing... I'll list what I have and try to answer that...

 

The following list is sorted from the most used to the least used of my lenses:

 

-Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7. I bought because I was looking for a very sharp yet not expensive lens. This is an excellent lens. From what I've read the bokeh of your 50/1.4 is a lot better, but for the price, this lens is my favorite.

 

-Sigma AF 24mm f/2.8 (Macro II version). I bought this lens used because I had read a lot of good things about it. It's a great lens, specially for what I've paid for it (about 70$).

 

-Vivitar AF Macro 100mm f/3.5. This is a great lens. I bought it new for 149$ and for that price, it's wonderful. I have not printed macro shot bigger than 8x10, but on the screen (scanning film at 2720dpi) images look very very sharp. It comes with a 1:1 adaptar (closeup lens) that does reduce contrast, but works very nice when in need of such magnification.

 

-Minolta AF 100-300 APO. This lens is also great. I would like to have a bit more reach, but will have to settle for a while with what I have. I bought this lens new, I wanted a telephoto lens but couldn't afford a 200mm or/and 300mm prime, so I went for this zoom. The cost of this lens is higher than the cost of similar consumer lenses from minolta (75-300), Sigma or tamron, but from the reviews, this one is a lot sharper, specially on the long end.

 

-Minolta AF 28-80 f/3.5-5.6 silver lens. I almost never use this lens, only when on a family reunion, party, etc when I want somebody else to take photos or want to carry just one lens and need wide and normal lenses.

 

 

I'm planning on getting a wider lens, maybe a 20mm (minolta) or 17mm (tokina), maybe a minolta 200 f/2.8 (used) and a minolta 35mm f/2 to fill in the gap between my 24mm and the 50mm. Hmmm and I'm also looking for a minolta 28-85 or 24-85, so I can get rid of the 28-80 and still have a zoom in that range but with better optical quality.

 

As you can see, I also prefer primes, but sometimes zooms are very handy... you just have to pick them carefully.

csab

I was just curious about the experiences of other photographers regarding buying lenses. I find myself thinking a lot (too much!) about which lenses to pursue. But you already said it, it's all about making the pics, the lens used is far less important.

When I switched to AF, I was considering the 85/1.4 (secondhand). I used to have a MF 80/1.7 and I found the 85mm to be ideal to work with. I decided though to buy the 100/2, which also has a good reputation and was a lot cheaper. But it is not a 85mm and not a 1.4, and not a G-lens. So I have to say to myself regularly 'don't bother about it, it's just a mere 15 mm difference'.

One also cannot justify a 1000 euro lens when one is only shooting for his/her pleasure, is my opinion. A lot of amateur-photographers are lured into spending a LOT of money for those 'better'(=pro) lenses, that also includes me to some extend. But do you really need these lenses significantly so much more than the 'less pro'-lenses?

Well,

I do prefer primes, but I am also looking around a bit for an affordable and non-consumer zoom, to use as one-lens alternative. I am considering the 24-50/4. It gets very good reviews, it's small and unobtrusive, and has a 55 mm thread. It's zoom range is off course not that spectacular. But being able to go from 24 to 50 means more for me than going from 28 to 85 or so. The Tokina I have now is too big, and the 20-35 zoom range is too small to make it an one-lens alternative. It is quite sharp though!

 

I bought the 100/2(second hand), 50/1.4 and 20-35/2.8 when I bought my AF camerabody. The 100 and 50 have a reputation for being very sharp, and they are! If I had to do it again, I would go for a 35/2 first, and then a 24/2.8 instead of the zoom I bought then.

 

Off course I would like to have a 200/2.8 or the 85/1.4 or the 80-200/2.8. But they just are too expensive for me. I rather go on a nice holiday.

I have only been using a 35 SLR camera for about a month. I used point and shoots and Sony digital. I talked the manager of my local camera store quite awhile before I bought. I ended up with a Maxxum 4, and two Quantaray Lenses, a 28-90/3.5 Marco and a 100-300/4.5 Zoom. I have been very please with the results. Most,if not all my "bad" shots were and are due to not really knowing what I'm doing. I have improved by posting here and reading the comments. Future lenses will depend mostly on cost.

The 70-210/4 may be heavy but my experience with it is that I wouldn' trade it. My photo of the Old Man (the NH icon that recently crumbled) that's selling like hot cakes now was taken with the 70-210 at 200 or so. It looks great all the way up to 12 x 18. I've used the lens extensively including for outdoors events coverage, and it's paid for itself over & over.

 

The other 2 lenses in the pre-si triad of zoooms, the 24-50 and 35-70, both fixed f/4 versions, are in my camera bag too. Both are inexpensive and perform very well indeed.

 

I have only 2 lenses that I bought new for Maxxum - a 50/1.7 (I have three of them, and I would not be without one - just the right combination of sharpness & speed at a ridiculously low price) and a Sigma 300/4, which had to go back to Sigma to be updated to work on my 7, but I've found it's a solid performer too. For only $300 on eBay it's hard to beat - the Maxxum equivalent would be 3 times as much.

 

Although I do use those 3 zooms a lot, my preference is for primes, since my landscape shots do get blown up sometimes to 20 x 30, and very often to 12 x 18. I use a 28/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.7, 50/2.8, 100/2, and 135/2.8. The only other non-Maxxum lens I own is a Sigma 18/3.5, and it performs very nearly as well as the Maxxum primes. They all provide negs that can be blown up to my expectations - as long as they're stopped down at least 2 stops from wide open, and used on a tripod with cable release and/or mirror pre-fire, at 1/125 or faster, and with slow neg film. You could probably say the same of the other major manufacturers, of course. However, when I switched from Pentax MF I chose Maxxum because of the user-friendliness of the bodies, reputedly very reliable metering, and the availablity of relatively inexpensive top quality used primes. Which has turned out to be my experience.

 

I have found only one Minolta product that did not live up to my expectations - the 35-105 first version, which was sharp but colors were washed out. I replaced it with the 28-105 which is a huge improvement - but won't give good enlargements, and I find it's good only for 11 x 14s. It cannot hold a candle to the original triad of fixed f/4s.

 

What other lenses would I buy for my 7 and 9000? In order, a 100/2.8 macro, then a 24/2.8, then a 100-300APO (which I'll throw back in the pond if it doesn't outperform the 70-210 at 100 to 200), and (moving into the real land of wishes) a 200/4 macro, and finally a 400/4.5.

Personally I love my Sigma 28-200mm. I love the fact that it is versitile enough that I only need one lens. The only problem that I found is that there is some shadowing if you use the built in flash on the HTSIplus, so I bought a flash unit, problem solved.

 

I am relatively new to photography and learning as I go, but why does everyone seem so attached to prime lenses? The telezooms are so versitile that I think they are a better value. WHAT AM I MISSING????

I have the Maxxum 7 and the XTsi. I primarily use zoom lenses. I find that zooming with my feet is often impossible (darn cliff edge) or prevents me from getting the perspective I want.

 

I used to buy new and used lenses, either Minolta or third party based on the focal length range I needed and price.

 

I found out that Minolta lenses (and maybe Tamron lenses) have advantages over "reverse engineered" third party lenses.

 

Essentially, the chip in Minolta lenses provides the information needed by the cameras to fully utilize the "expert programing" in the camera. This is what Minolta uses to have the camera determine what tye of scene you are photographing and set the proper combination of aperture & shutter speed when in either "P" mode or any of the subject program modes. With a reverse engineered lens the programming reverts to the older type of "P" mode (set shutter speed to at least 1/FL and then as light increases increase both f-number (for DOF) and speed). In A,S, or M modes this is not an issue. So now, I will buy Minolta lenses unless there is a very good reason. Although I usually set A mode, there are times when I want the advantages of using the Minolta "P" mode.

 

My lenses are: Minolta:

 

50 f/1.7

 

* 24-105 D mostly for travel

 

35-70 f/4

 

* 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 usually on the camera

 

Sigma:

 

28-105 f/2.8-4 (used to be my travel lens, but focus ring no longer turns to less than 10 ft)

 

135-400 f/4.5-5.6

 

The lenses with * are the ones I use most of the time. I also use the 135-400 for sports and wildlife.

 

Lenses I'd like to get next are the Minolta 100 f/2.8 macro and possibly a 19 or 20 to 35mm lens although I don't have much use for a very wide angle lens. I'd really like to get the Minolta 200mm macro, but the cost is prohibitive right now. My primary interest currently is in isolating the subject from the background so I prefer the longer lenses.

 

Tom

it's funny, i just asked people on the yahoo group a question about their favourite lenses...

 

i own a dynax 7 and...

 

50mm f/1.4 - i love this lens. sharp and versatile. great lens hood on the new version. taken some of my best photos with this.

 

100mm f/2.8 macro - this lens is amazingly sharp. i use it mainly for portraits, a job it does very well. great bokeh...almost too sharp at times...have to be careful.

 

i used to own a 28mm f/2.8 but sold it because my example, bought cheaply used, was 'loose'. also had a 28-135mm f/4-4.5 which i loved but sold due to it's really poor close focusing ability and the fact that it had some fogging on the backside of the rear element. my pictures with this lens were wonderfully saturated and colourful.

 

i have an 'orange ring' version of the tokina 20-35 f/3.5-4.5 on the way but it's a 77mm filter thread and i may not take it travelling. i'm currently looking for a wide-angle prime for travel. any suggestions? which is the most versatile?

 

dave

Dave, if you already own a 50mm and a 100mm lens, the next logical lens will be either a 35/2 or a 24/2.8. Both are of a good quality, small and take the 55 mm filtertread. I can recommend both.

This is a question that you will see on a daily basis and one that I struggled with for along time,will third party lenses produce the same quality as Minolta or canon, nikon? I own 2 lenses now, the 28-70 f 2.8 G minolta lens and the Tamron 90mm f 2.8 macro. Both lenses are super sharp. Can I tell the difference between who manufactured them? Yes and No. Optical quality,no but autofocus capabilities you bet. My maxxum 7 with the 28-70 has blown me away on autofocus (have not been a great fan w/other bodies) but the tamron fails miserably compared to the minolta.I dont care, because my hand works fine and the quality of the optics of the tamron is superb.This lens being a macro may be the culprit.My next lens will be the 200 f 4 macro and will be the minolta.These two lenses have paid off my camera equipment and enabled me to make my next purchase.

All Minolta lenses:

 

20mm f/2.8 - Love this lens, its extremely sharp.

 

24-105(D) - whats on my 7 the most - very goos sharpness for the range.

 

100mm f/2.8 Macro - one the sharpest 35mm lenses ever made. I just don't use it all that much - I enjoy wide angles to most.

 

100-300(D) APO - Very sharp, very light, nice lens. Gets used the least of all my lenses.

 

All were purchased new except the 20mm which I got off ebay.

 

What I want:

 

17-35 G

 

100/2

 

85/1.4 (D) G

 

70-210/2.8 SSM (probably last on my want list)

Hey Martijn,

I'd like to respond with a question. I am on the verge of getting my first prime. 50mm was thought to be a good start. 1.7 is the only affordable option for me. Now I noticed scrolling through al the remarks there is a 49mm or 55 mm option. Which one do you think is the better option?

You are wrong! Only the newest 50mm 1.4 has a 55mm filter size thread. All type 50mm 1.4 lenses have only been cosmetically changed over time, exept from the circular aperture and loose hood on the latest model. <I>Nice!</I><P>

If you buy the cheap but good 1.7, you have two options: old type with ribbed hard plastic focussing ring or newer type with rubber focussing ring. These rings are even small on both models. The lenses are the same. The filter size is 49mm on both. Not a big problem to choose!