Zoom Telephoto AF D 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM

Why is this lense so much money? I've pretty muched talked myself into

the 7D over a Canon 20D, but I need a nice glass in the 70-200 range.

Canon and Nikon's counterparts are much cheaper and they feature in

lense stablization. I just don't get it. Where is the 7D supposed to

save you money in that case? Anyhoo, that might have become a rant, I

just don't want to throw away my money into a new system and glass.

Thanks.

I have the older 80 to 200 2.8 G lens. it is one of the most extrodianary lenses that I have ever used. You might think about that one instead. You can find them used for about half the price or so depending on the condtion. The only caveat is that it does not have internal focus and that is only a small inconvenience when using a polarizer. Since I use mine mostly on a tripod in manual focus, this is not any problem at all. But as a lens, the results are spectacular. For more info on the ssm lens, go to Minolta.com. You might want to read about it before you pan something you do not know about. As far as the 7D, all of your lenses become stabalized. You do not have to pay extra for that feature on any other lens. it is really remarkable. Think about using a 50 1.4 stabalized. You can practically shoot in darkness. And it works really well.

Thank you, I didn't think of that. How much did you pay for you lense?

Hi Mike, I purchased mine several years ago, when no one was buying Minolta gear. I believe it was around $850. in mint condition. Like I said, the image quality is really remarkable in clarity, color, crispness, and exceptionally beautiful bokah. Now, here are the down sides of the lens.

As mentioned, the front lens rotates with AF, but not with manual focus. Since I use it mostly on a tripod and manually focus, then it is no problem if I set my porlarizer after focusing.

also, the tripod foot is not removable. Other than that, it is a great lens. Now, there is an earlier model than the G. The G is a white lens. The earlier 80 to 200 2.8 is the same exact lens. The only differnce is that it is black, and AF is a tad slower. The G lens has a newer clutch in it for AF, as Minolta tells it. Otherwise it is the exact same lens. Since Minolta tells us that all of the Maxxum AF lenses will work with the 7D, it should be no problem. The older model sometimes is easier to find than the G now. It will give you the same exact images as the G model. Hope that is helpful. Finding a G might take a bit of work. Good place to check is KEH. If they do not have one, you can call and request to be notified when one comes up. They are a very good place to buy a used lens from. cheers, elijah. Here is a great site to compare lenses. http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e

Checking it out, both have nine blades with a circular aperature. but the older black model does not have a focus hold button like the G does. When shooting hand held, the focus hold button is helpful for sure IMHO.

Wow, Thanks a lot. I really apperciate the help!! Thanks a ton!!

Mike- One of the reason for the price difference is that Canon will sell alot more of their lens and therefore Canon can recoup their R&D costs over more lens. KM does have a 'professional' following like Canon and Nikon, so less buyers will have to share in the money it took to develop the SSM lenses. If you think the 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G SSM is expensive, look at the price on the 300mm f/2.8 SSM.

The KM 70-200 ssm out of my price league but every review I have read on it "amazing".

Although it's currently out of stock at B&H, the K-M 70-200/2.8

costs only $350 more than the black Nikon VR, $330 more than the

white Nikon VR, and $160 more than the Canon 70-200/2.8 IS.

You might be making a long-term mistake choosing K-M, but not

over this issue. A bigger issue if you ask me is the lack of a

24-70/2.8 G with 77 filter thread.

What would the benefit be of 77mm filter size when compared to the 28-75mm f/2.8 (D) 67mm? Is the 28-75mm f/2.8 (D) a good lense? I've read good things about it. Thanks guys!!

The benefit of a 24-75 w/77mm filter is having a single set of filters for a couple of nice lenses that cover your needs. I own a nice 77mm multicoated polarizer (and a UV, I think) ... I also own a 72mm and a few 55mm filters. Now my 28-75 is on order, and I have to either deal with stepup rings (yechh) or add 67mm filters to my collection.

 

As for the range, 24-70 v 28-75 on the 7D isn't a big deal because it would just be more overlap with the 17-35. Canon offers the EF-S 10-22 which complements the 24-70 nicely on APS; KM has the upcoming 11-18, so the 17-35 is still useful to fill the gap.

 

As for an SSM version, that would be nice, though I understand AF on the 28-75 is decent. I use the 17-35G and primes including the 100 & 200mm macros, 50/1.4, 200/2.8 and 400/4.5, and I'm expecting to enjoy the 28-75 very much.

 

I personally agree that the hole in the 70-200 range is problematic. I'd like to sell some of my primes and replace them with a 70/80-200 and 1.4X but the 70-200 and the SSM 1.4X add up to $2350; the 80-200/2.8 is commanding high prices used and doesn't work with any KM TCs anyway. Canon has the excellent 70-200/4. I priced up a Canon system comprising of the 20D, 10-22, 24-70, 70-200/4, 300/4 and TC before deciding to buy the 7D. It's a nice lineup that I wish I could duplicate w/Minolta gear (actually, I have the 400/4.5, so I'd skip the 300 :) I have the low end covered by the 17-35 and 28-75 (and may get the 11-18, but I'm going to shoot with the 17-35 for a while first) and so it's really just that 70-200 midrange where I'd happily go for a $1300 lens without SSM if there were a dedicated TC.

 

- Dennis

Since there is not a dedicated TC for the 80-200 G, I have used with very good results, the kenko 2x teleplus pro 300. The images have been sharp and crisp with no shift in color. A little sharpening up in photoshop and i have been very happy with the results. It is also a fraction of the price of dedicate TC's. Personally, my feeling about dedicated TC's is a good way for the company to sell you a piece of gear for a high price. Sound familiar? I have also used this TC with other Minolta lenses and it has given me great images. I even used it with the Sigma 170-500 way out at the 500 on a tripod for butterfies. I sold these images to a gallery. They were very beautiful. I did not even sharpen any of them. This was several years ago using a Maxxum 7 and Supra 400 scanned on a Nikon LS 2000.

Gentlemen, I thank you for the help. You are all very knowledgeable and kind for offering the help. Thanks again! I might have a few more questions for ya, if you don't mind, in a little bit.

 

Mike

ive been loooking at the ssm for some time and like you thinking about the price. happened to bump into an old 80-200 apo secondhand last week and bought that instead, obviously for a fraction of the price.i fitted it to my dynax 7d and was extremely pleased with the results, beautiful sharp images and excellent colour.my advice, forget the ssm get the older lens and pocket the money for other lenses ! its not perfect , a focus limiter would be handy as i think the 7d tends to hunt on af a little and the tc is a problem but its a fantastic lens.