Minolta maxxum 9 is it any good?

i just discoverd a maxxum 9 with 28-80 and 70-210 lenses brand new from my mother in law. I was wondering if the minolta glass was any

good. my line of work is mostly with leica and mamiya mediumformat so i know id of course wont touch them but are the lenses like the

70-200mm and 35mm 1.4 and 17-35mm any good? if anyone has samples thad be great too. thanks!

They are pretty good, yeah :-)

 

Maybe try google...?

 

Dyxum.com has a massive lens database, please look there.

The Maxxum 9 was the pinnacle of Minolta's film camera, having a rugged durable metal body. Is the 70-210mm a f/4? If it is then it is probably the 'Beercan' which is one of the most best of the Minolta lenses, and is still highly regarded. The 35mm f/1.4 is an excellent lens, as if the 17-35mm. The 28-80mm was also a good lens.

 

Looks like your mother-in-law, knew her cameras and lenses.

Yes it is good. Google the history of the Minolta Maxxum cameras and you'll find they were ahead of such icons like canon and nikon in certain specifications. A shame they never had the market strength .. to compete effectively. You've got the camera, you've got the lens .. compare your slides with the minolta vs whatever other brand you like .. I doubt there will be any difference if you mix up the slides. Yes, a very good camera.

Alright they look good, where do i get them? ebay dosen't have much of selection of the lenses i want. is there a place

where i can get the 17-35mm for film and a 35mm f/1.4?

There are two cameras I refuse to part with: (a) my Minolta 9 and (b) My Minolta XKs. Nuff said!

Tim

Those are two of the more difficult lenses to find on the used market. Especially the 17-35mm (expect to pay quite a lot for

it). Sony still makes the 35mm f 1.4 lens. dyxum.com is a Minolta/Sony users site that also has a buy/sell forum.

Members often have hard to find items in excellent condition for sale or trade.

I just checked dyxum.com and there are members selling the lenses you want, though both are located in Europe. The 17-

35 lens is priced at $1,200 euros and the 35mm 1.4 RS is priced at $675 euros. The dollar is so weak vs the Euro, you'll

probably do much better w/ a domestic seller.

That 35/1.4RS is priced terrifically, the guy, Bill, is a very good seller and easy to deal with. A nice guy.

 

The 17-35G is a bit overpriced to be though - maybe wait until the 16-35CZ comes out in a month or so?

Im alright with the euro, the dollar went up since i was there a month ago. Is this the link? http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=13

 

 

how do i contact him?

Cole, I would be shocked if it hasn't already been bought to be honest. But here is the correct link: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=35061

 

You need to sign up to dyxum so you can get his contact details: either a message via the dyxum service or just an email.

 

Good luck!

So is this lens a good deal? im guessing it is. consider my weak dollar! this is about $1200

also, will the current 35mmf/1.4 fit on my maxxum 9? full frame coverage?

Yes and Yes and Yes!

 

The "look" that you get from the results of this lens are simply amazing. It's not razor sharp wide open, but sharpness really isnt everything. It's an incredible lens from the results I've seen. Good luck!

if you are used to leitz glass nothing would touch that within 35mm. however, you seem to have asked your question taking that into account. minolta glass is not bad. for the price they were originally sold for, they would have been something of a bargain originally.

 

as for medium format, you didn't specify which mamiya you had. medium format still gets you 'better' quality pictures compared to the prosumer 10mp+ digital.

 

so the question is if you want to use the minolta or not. why not test it out a little and see how it compares to your existing glass?

Take a look at KEH.com for used lenses. They are reliable, fair-priced, and conservative in their ratings. I always had good luck getting my older MF lenses through them.

 

Minolta glass is excellent. Maybe Leica has some better lenses but I doubt you could tell the difference, and certainly Minolta prices can't be beat.

What would be considered the best minolta middle zoom range lens?

Best for what?

Well, i was thinking maybe there was a "famous" middle range zoom known among minolta junkies?

Oh, i see, sorry :-). "Famous", well, there are MANY.

 

28-85/3.5.4.5 lens is known for being very sharp, especially when stopped down. But it also has a wonderful colour/contrast/bokeh reproduction because its one of those "first generation AF lenses" from minolta.

 

Same goes for the 28-135/3.4-4.5 - excellent colour/contrast/bokeh. However, this probably has the edge with sharpness. It is known for outpeforming some primes infact. It is quite large, but has a rear focus mechanism which is meant to be quite fast. I think flare is a bit of a problem, as is mounting filters or any sort of hood (i dont think minolta made one). This one definately has the "famous"/legendary status though.

 

There is the 28-70/2.8 "G" too. Like all the "G" lenses, they have that special optical quality and build quality, that nearly all minolta fans love. I've only used/owned one "G" lens myself, and I can comfirm there is a magical quality about them. But it does come at a cost & not just financially. It doesnt have a great MFD (minimum focusing distance 85cm i think) and focus is very flow. I think it has a rotating front element off the top of my head, but maybe not.

 

Then there are some newer generation lenses. The 24-105/3.5-4.5 needs to get a mention. Very compact and light, but also very sharp. It doesnt have the best bokeh, but still good colour and is great for travel. The 28-75/2.8 is a rebadged/"tweaked" tamron lens, but has an excellent reputation, as good as any really. Very sharp stopped down, but also very usable wide open across the range. Colour, like most tamrons, is pretty good i think. Bokeh can be a little weird.

 

I use the 24-85/3.4-4.5RS. It is razor sharp with excellent colour and clearly a good range. On film though, it does exibit noticable distortion. But, I only use it on APS-C so its never a problem. This lens also has a very good reputation. There is the 35-70/4. A very special lens IMHO. The most compact 35-70 out there. It has better bokeh than many prime lenses that I have used/tested. Deals with specular highlights incredibly well. Colour is excellent and sharpness is never questioned - I've had many pin sharp enlargements frm it. It is let down by its MFD, which is why i let it go - it was just too long for me.

 

Last, but not least, is the 24-70/2.8CZ lens. You will find plenty on the net about this lens, as its very recent. However, your maxxum 9 will have to have had the SSM upgrade to be able to AF and its unlikely yours has had that... but you can still get it upgraded (not sure about fee) at Runtime, Germany.

 

Try the photo.net archives and search for which ever lens interests you above. You will find plenty. Or, again, look at dyxum.com and search the reviews for what people think of it.

What one do you prefer, richard. I trust you :D.

Well I will tell you that the 28-135 is one of my favorite lenses and until the CZ 16-80 was my standard!

Sure it has issues with close focusing, flare issues, and there is no hood that covers a 5x zoom range.

That said, it is pretty fast on the a700, very sharp and has a touch of less contrast which I tend to like since I am in

the desert and high contrast scenes are not uncommon. On an a700, it translates to a 42-200 (approx) which is

useful for walking around but less useful perhaps for interior architecture shoots. Nice color for portrait work!. The

difference between F and f4.5 is a 1/3 of a stop so it can be thought of a 40-200/F4 lenses on the a700. I am very

interested to see what it will do on the a900.

 

From what I've been able to read, all the 28-135 were hand built and hand collimated in Japan. The resultant

performance is supposedly of a "G" level and I think that is true. At least I don't see a lot of difference between my 28-

135 and my 300/2.8 as an example. It is as good as the 135/f2.8

 

 

Cheers

Tim

I dont suppose anyone knows where to rent such lenses in Los angeles CA?

"What one do you prefer, richard."

 

Well, obviously the lens that I use. It's cheap, very sharp, quick to focus, great colours and well built.

 

But, I'm not a zoom person. Its all about the purpose - what would such a lens do for you? Whats it for?

 

Mine is for filling in the blanks and on occations where I don't need a fast lens and just want to carry one. I'm more of a prime person, the 24-85RS is the only zoom i use. I find the 28/2RS the most versitile i own. Its a terrific "everywhere" lens and never lets me down - small, light, fast, great colours and its as sharp as anything i own, even at f/2. I use an 8/3.5, 28/2, 50/1.4 (or 1.2), 100/2.8 macro & 200/2.8. The zoom fills in the blanks at the low end and does it very well. So my preference is to the 24-85RS because of the above, not because its the best lens available for everyone, just for me.