Minolta 85mm alternatives?

While I continue to hold out for my 9D I currently do not have a

portrait lens. And not wanting to spend $500+ for the famed Minolta

85mm f1.4 I would still like to buy a portrait lens.

 

Which other portrait lens is the closet to the Minolta 85mm in terms

of sharpness and boken (sp) minus the price tag?

A used Minolta 85/1.4. Seriously.

Michael is right: The 85mm/f1.4 is it.....

A used 135 f2.8 might not be as sharp but it still is a good lens for portraits. And they are quite cheap compared to the 85 f1.4.

Just bought a used one for $425.00 on Ebay......don't buy new ...

I can't directly compare the two, but a used 100/2.0 might fit the bill for $200-$300.

if you can find a used one...I believe new production has stopped...the Minolta 100mm f/2 AF is awesome. Take a look at photodo.com and photozone.de for comparison reviews.

For portrait work you do not need infinity focus ... so a lensless adaptor and an MC/D 85f1.7 would fit the slot. An adapter with a lens would take you to about 100f2. Also there is a 100f2.8 soft, a 100f2 and a 135f2.8 SFT. i have a 50f1.4 with a front mounted 2X converter giving me ~100f1.4. Minoltas 1.7X is very good and would hit 85mm pretty squarely.

 

i have heard the theory that long lenses are better for portraiture, as they flatten features. i saw a pic of a photog talking by walky talky to his crew with umbrellas, lights, and the model ... while he had an enormous rig mounted a block away down the boardwalk. So you might also consider walking back and a longer lens. i like the "candidness" of portraiture from across the room.

50/1.4 or 100/2.8, as affordable and available alternatives, both used. There is an eBay seller in the US that lists a 100/2.8 softy ever three or so days, well there was a few weeks ago.

 

I am glad someone else mentioned the 100/2.8 soft-focus. Often overlooked becuase of the soft focus bit. You can dial it to "0", as in off! It has 9 blade circular aperture. I got one for testing and will be selling it in Mar-06. Ffordes.co.uk has one for sale at the mo used. If you are in the UK.

 

I have some sample shots on VividOptic (section: review), check the link in my profile page.

And then there is the 100mm f2.8 macro ( with focus limiter ) - gets all the right ratings and is ( believe it or not ) a macro as well.

Still available new and not that rare on fleabay. One of the best lenses I have ever owned.

How much are you willing to spend?

 

Next to your own talent, the glass you use makes the buggest impact on the quality of your picture. So, you might be happier with your results by spending less on the body and more on the lens, particularly if your alternative body is as competent as the 7D.

 

My guess is that if there is a 9D, it will not be for the budget-minded. The cost of a 85mm f1.4 will be a drop in the bucket compared to a FF 9D.

 

chad

I'm not sure about the 85mm f1.4, but going by the other Minolta f1.4 lens on the market I'm sure it would be the best bet. I think there is a Tamron 90mm lens that it good too, but that's not Minolta. Here's a website that has helped me when choosing lens; http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php click on the link and it'll have a list of all of them, even the discontinued ones that turn up on ebay from time to time. B&H in New York are good to get stuff from. They have a large secondhand section and deliver faster than a speeding bullet. Hope this mumbling helps you.

I picked up a used sigma 90mm f2.8 off ebay for $100. I love the lens. It is the only thing I use for portraits now. I am sure it is not as nice as the 85mm but at the price difference I was pleased.

Unfortunately, there is no cheap way out to get a specialist lens. f2.8 is nowhere near f1.4! Macros are too slow (focus and f#).

Minolta's 85 f1.4 is simply astounding. $500 (used) is cheap for what it is. Its nearest competitor would be a Canon 85 f1.2L @ US$1500.

The best alternative sounds like the 100 soft focus. It is also a specailized lens.

The 9D will be big money too. Maybe wait to get a good deal on the lens you really want?

 

Good luck.

I've got a Tamron 90mm f2.5 which is excellent. Cheap on Ebay but not very common in the AF model. Never compared with the 85/1.4 though.

The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is one stop only. The 100mm soft focus lens is as I understand it designed specifically for portrait work and is f2.8. With the focus limiter in operation on the macro, focus is more than fast enough for portrait work.

I always thought, the difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is two stops, Bill?

 

Stefan

Stefan - too true - forgot the blooming 2 in the middle !

Thought I'd posted this, but I think I only got to the preview panel !

 

I'd recommend a used Tamron 90/2.8 macro. Close in focal length. Good bokeh. Fast enough for portraits, even if two stops slower. I try to shoot portraits from f/4 to f/5.6 when possible for enough DOF to get the subject in focus and (when shooting moving subjects) account for a little subject movement. With my 28-75/2.8 on the 7D at 75/2.8 I find DOF a too shallow at times, but I'm usually shooting f/2.8 in low light. I have a 50/1.4 that's too soft to use at f/1.4 ... at f/2 it's fine, but I happily sacrifice the extra stop for the convenience of the zoom, especially given that it's a last resort because of shallow DOF.

 

The fast 85's can offer interesting super-shallow DOF effects, but I know some users love them for the bright VF image which makes composition & focussing a lot easier in dark situations (weddings & receptions). I'm not under the impression they're actually used a lot wide open.

 

- Dennis

An age-old problem, and one I've considered myself. The answer I like best is to get a manual focus lens and some sort of mechanical, lensless adaptor. I have not actually done this and can't comment on how well it works. I think an MD 85mm f/1.7 can be had <I>relatively</I> cheaply, so you might end up with something like, effectively, a 100mm f/2 macro. Of course, the regular Minolta AF 100mm f/2 sounds like a good choice, but is relatively rare and isn't really cheap.<P>

 

By the way, watch out for some bad information you've been given, e.g.:<P>

 

<I>i have a 50f1.4 with a front mounted 2X converter giving me ~100f1.4. Minoltas</I><P>

 

If you put a 2x TC on a 50mm f/1.4, you get a lower-quality 100mm f/2.8; you have to multiply the aperture number too. I'm not sure what he means by "front mounted", but I doubt it really affects the analysis.<P>

 

<I>The difference between 1.4 and 2.8 is one stop only.</I><P>

 

No, it's two stops. Which is why even the 100mm f/2 isn't a full answer--it's still a stop slower.<P>

 

So just beware that free advice isn't always worth what you're paying for it!

Dave Redmann wrote:

 

> greg heil wrote:

 

> > i have a 50f1.4 with a front mounted 2X converter giving me ~100f1.4.

 

> If you put a 2x TC on a 50mm f/1.4, you get a lower-quality 100mm f/2.8; you have to multiply the aperture number too. I'm not sure what he means by "front mounted", but I doubt it really affects the analysis.

 

Gotta love someone who dis's your experience w/o the faintest understanding of what you said;)

 

> So just beware that free advice isn't always worth what you're paying for it!

 

Tch.

Greg,

 

Sp explain it.

 

According to your math, a 50mm f1.4 with a 2x converter is equal to a 100mm f1.4, meaning that the largest aperture measurement is 70mm, (100/1.4) which also means that the front element must be at least 70mm in diameter.

 

The largest opening of the lens obviously does not change, but if you take TTL meter readings, you will see hat those do.

 

So, I don't get your math and what you are trying to say either.

 

chad

Chad, that's because your math is wrong. A 50/1.4+2xTC is, of course, equivalent with a 100/2.8. You lose two stops of light. Or, to look at it in a different way, the absolute aperture size does not change, but because the focal length becomes longer, the relative aperture becomes smaller.

Oops, Chad, sorry for the above! I totally misread your last message!

Chad

 

> According to your math, a 50mm f1.4 with a 2x converter is equal to a 100mm f1.4, meaning that the largest aperture measurement is 70mm, (100/1.4) which also means that the front element must be at least 70mm in diameter

 

That is about the ball park. i put a micrometer on it and the clear lens diameter of the front element is 62mm. That doubler, a Ricoh Teleconverter TC-200M, is not that much bigger than the 50f1.4 that it complements. So it is pretty handy;-) And durn cheap. It has 52mm threads, so i step down to 49mm to get it on my old 50f1.4. Probably Minoltas 1.7X is better though more expensive and not as strong. With a front mounted TC you don't lose any aperture, at least not until it starts vignetting because the clear lens diameter is too small.

 

You will have to excuse my putting in this trick that folks who use fixed lens cameras and video cameras are all too familiar with... but they do work. What i am really trying to get is a solution that goes in the other direction. So far i have only got a .8X. It works fine on a 28f2.8 ... but hardly worth the effort, a 24f2.8. Still i leave it on, being not that large, because it helps a little in combating that 1.5X crop factor. i have a monster negative diopter achromat which i think will do a good job, but i need to get some strong achromatic diopters behind it that will bring infinity into focus. That should give me a real WA.

 

We really need a WA that protrudes deeply into the mirror box, as the current WAs are just too expen$ive, too BIG, and too Slooow! Frustrating that flapping mirror;-}