Minolta's 2 most respected MD zoom lenses?

Thanks for all the help from this forum so far. We sold the X-700s

and X-570, and are moving up to XD-11 bodies. In regards to

my "prime lens" post last month, we ended up going with a 135mm f2.8

Rokkor-x, and it's a nice lens.<BR><BR>

However, after playing around with the Vivitar Series 1 70-210mm

zoom lens, I think zoom lenses might be more my style. Don't know

if I'm just lazy or what? They're just so easy to use :-) It would

be cool to cover as much range as possible in 2 zoom lenses to take

hiking with me - one in a back pack and the other on the camera

around my neck. Would be nice if they were both the same filter

size too, so I wouldn't have to pack around 2 sets...<BR><BR>

Do you think the 2 most respected Minolta zooms that would fit my

criteria are the <B>28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 MD Zoom</B> and the <B>70-

210mm f4 MD Zoom?</B> Both are 55mm, so that would be a plus.<BR>

Thanks for any discussion or caveats about these two lenses!<BR>

Jed

Hi Jed! I use the 70-210 f4 on my 600si. Awsome pics, no problems, super sharp....but....BIG,HEAVY and IN YOUR FACE lens. The plus side is with a big rugged lens like this it will take some bumps and bruises and I find it easier to hand hold at lower sspeeds. Very well made, great multicoating, a tad on the slow side for autofocus.

Also very reasonable pricing at KEH or Ebay.

mark

I believe the previous poster was referring to an AF lens, not an MD one, so here's my views:

 

the 35-70/3.5 is the best MD zoom I've used - it's basically like a slow prime. it's probably the highest 'rated' MD zoom as it was apparently built to a leica design (incidentally, i believe that leica used the XD7/11 body as the basis for some of their cameras, so the 35-70 would likely be a great match. not that the body really matters :)

 

I have also used the 24-35/3.5 and the 28-85/3.5-4.5, both of which are very good lenses. The 24-35 is IMO 'better' than the 28-85, though obviously they're both covering very different ranges. The 28-85 produces lovely photos, but i found them to be slightly lacking when compared to those taken with my 35-70. i also find constant-aperture lenses easier to use due to my exposure-measuring habits with zooms (zoom-in, take reading from part of scene, zoom-out, shoot) so i gave the 28-85 to my father, who now uses it as his main lens. you may find the extra range of the 28-85 is worth it (and it's still a very good lens). the 35-70 is also an inch or so shorter than the 28-85.

 

i have never used the 70-210/4, but have heard only good things. i used to own the 50-135/3.5 which was also excellent, but found the range inconvenient for general use.

 

in summary, i'd go with the 70-210/4, and depending on how relatively important image-quality/convenience are to you, either the 28-85 or 35-70

 

(note that at least in the UK, the 28-85 is not easy to find and can be expensive, whereas the 35-70 is very common and fairly cheap; some people claim the non-'macro' version of the 35-70 is better than the later 'macro' version, whether there's any truth to this i have no idea, having only used the non-'macro' version).

you should also consider the 24-50 f/4 - if you can find it. Both in manual focus and AF mount this is a truely great zoom lens.

I agree with Mark about the 35-70mm f/3.5 lens. The one I have is a two touch model. I shot a test roll of ACROS 100 speed black & white film with this lens and made 11X14 prints. The lens is excellent. If you can live with this range then go for it. I also have the 70-210-mm f/4 and I like it very much. The lens isn't terribly heavy and has close enough focusing for portraits.

 

I don't know if I agree that moving fron an X-700 to an XD-11 is an improvement. If you need and use the shutter priority feature then the XD-11 is nice. I have found the X-700s to be very reliable and nice to use. The X-700 does have the older style horizontally running cloth shutter with a low flash synch speed but it has many other attractive featuers. It has interchangeable focusing screens, TTL flash, a very bright viewfinder and it accepts a full 5 FPS motor drive.

Appreciate the advice so far. Yeah, the X-700 did almost everything I wanted, and wasn't a problem, really. The main reason I "upgraded" to the XD-11 is that I like the feel better, it has a decently higher flash sync for outdoor portraits, and it has the 2 mechanical shutter speeds (I would like to learn long exposure photography, and the "B" setting is mechanical on the XD-11, compared to the X-700 where it drains juice from the battery.)<BR><BR>

About these zooms - I'm set on the 70-210 f4 for sure then. I don't think there's a longer tele that is going to be any better. Still debating about the 28-85 and the 35-70. It would be nice to have that straight 3.5 apeture, but that also means for wide angle stuff I will have to pack my 28mm f2 along...was kind of trying to get it down to 2 lenses for hiking.<BR>

I'm watching a couple of each on Ebay now while I'm trying to decide.<BR>

Thanks,<BR>

Jed

Go with the 28-85mm. It's a great lens. The 35-70mm might be great as well, but neither 35mm not 70mm provide a significantly different perspective from 50mm, so you might as well use a standard lens and do some zooming by foot. Plus f3.5 is mighty slow compared to eg f1.4. I know that many people love their 35-70mm zooms, but I've always found them to be pretty useless. Just my 2c.

 

The one lens you could consider as an alternative to the 28-85mm is a Tokina 25-50mm f4. It has a 55mm filter thread as requested, and is very compact - harly larger than a standard lens. It's also very well made, excellent optically, and usually sells on eBay for $80 or thereabouts. They only catch is that it's fairly uncommon, so you might have to wait a few months for one to show up. In my hands this lens sees quite a bit more use than my MD 28-85mm f3.5-4.5, simply because the 25-28mm range is more important to me than 50-85mm. However, the MD 28-85mm is a very fine lens as well, and I wouldn't want to miss it in my set.

Thanks, Frank. I guess I just blew it, then. There was a 35-70mm going in like 1/2 hour when I logged onto Ebay, and I just threw in a bid for $55, and got it for $54.20. So...what to do...have to buy it now. :-)<BR><BR>

I think for my taste, I would like a wider angle at the wide end - like 24mm or 28mm or something. But I guess I'll play around with this and see if it works for me. If it's as sharp as the above two posts make it out to be, then maybe I'll like it? Suppose I could always sell it for what I got it for?<BR>

Jed

Ah, no big deal, my wife said she would love to use it if I don't. :-) It would match very well with her Series 1 70-210mm f3.5, and she never uses wider than 35mm. In fact, I think most of her shots are like 135mm plus. So we'll give it a try, and then I can always get a wider angle zoom later.<BR>

Jed

Might as well try it and see. As I said, many people love their 35-70mm lenses - maybe you'll be one of them ;-)

 

BTW - hope you got the 3.5 version as people suggested. It hasn't been pointed out on this thread, but the 3.5-4.5 version is a totally different lens, and it stinks! But you'd see that for yourself if you got one. I had the MD 35-70mm 3.5-4.5 for a short time and even 4x6 prints were noticably unsharp, especially when taken near close focus of that lens. It's the only really bad Minolta manual focus lens I have ever owned.

Hey Frank, I appreciate you sharing your experiences with me, because I'm pretty limited on the "left over" funds that I can play with when it comes to camera gear...that's why I'm always asking for feedback before I buy.<BR>

I got the f3.5 version, so as soon as I get it, I'm anxious to shoot a roll through it and see the results.<BR>

Jed

I really liked the MD 24-50mm f/4 zoom. Very sharp. The only reason I sold it was that it was too dark; I now use the 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 35/1.8, and 58/1.2 instead.

Minolta 35-135 f3.5-4.5. I've owned one since 1983. Sharp lens, low distortion. Close focuses at the 135mm setting. It takes a 55mm filter. However, it was an expensive lens when it was new and is still expensive on the used market.

Thanks for the recommends...I'll try to see what I like/dislike about the one I've got coming and go from there, I guess.<BR>

Jed