Best manual zoom lens

[r d singh]

Hello friends,

 

Can somebody guide me which could be the best manual zoom lens (

sharp and good build )for below 300$ for my MINOLTA X-700 Camera ?

What about vivitar series 1 28-105/2.8-3.8 ? I am interested in zoom

from 28 to 200 or so.

 

Garry

[douglas_green1]

I would not get a 28-200mm zoom lens. That range is so wide that there are bound to be significant compromises made, in terms of speed, bulk, distortion, or sharpness. I recommend one lens in the 25/35 - 70/100 range, and another in the 70/80 - 200/250 range

 

Personally, I use a 28-70mm f2.8 Tokina ATX lens, and a Tamron 75-205 f3.8, but there are LOTS of good choices, so long as you get TWO lenses to cover that range, rather than one.

 

You could expect to spend $100-125 or so for used in excellent shape shorter zoom, and $50-100 for used in excellent shape longer zoom in those ranges.

[fmueller]

I totally agree with Douglas. A 28-200mm is a more than 7x zoom. To achieve that within a budget that keeps the lens affordable for anybody, significant compromises will have to be made with respect to optical quality. If you cover this range with two zoom lenses; eg a 28-70mm and a 70-210mm they will be 2.5x and 3x zooms, respectively. Results with good zoom lenses with these sort of zooming factors can be almost indistingushable from primes.

 

In the upper range of focal lengths I have owned the Minolta MD 75-200mm f/4.5 for about 20 years. This lens is awesome, and I can wholeheartedly recommend it. I have never seriously considered replacing it, also the MD 70-210mm f/4 is equally good. For a short time I also had the Tokina ATX 80-200mm f/2.8, but it's weight and size for me was too great a price to pay for the added speed.

 

I also have a Tokina 100-300mm f/5 in MC mount, that is astoundingly good optically, but it is much longer than the 75-200mm f/4.5, which can make it a pain to get it in a photo bag.

 

In the lower range of focal length I started out with an MD 35-70mm f.3.5-4.8. This lens sucked, being noticably unsharp even in 4x6 prints. Also, I have never understood people's fascination with 35-70mm zoom lenses. Neither 35mm nor 70mm seem to give me a significantly different perspective then 50mm, and I much rather have the speed of a 50mm f/1.4 and zoom with my feet.

 

Next I got a Sigma 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5. It looked very similar indeed to the Minolta MD 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5, and I always suspected some relationship in the construction. Optically it was more than sufficient for my purposes, but I found 35mm just too limiting on the wide angle side, while I rarely ever used the 105mm on the tele side.

 

Accordingly, I replaced it with a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5. This lens is awesome optically, but fairly large and heavy.

 

When I had a chance, I replaced it by a Minolta 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5. It is much lighter than the Vivitar and uses 55mm instead of 72mm filters, which is a great plus for me. Optically it is equally good. However, I still wanted to go wider.

 

When I recently had a chance to get a Tokina RMC 25-50mm f/3.5, I got this lens as well. The angle of view at the wide end is almost indistinguishable from my 24mm f/2.8 prime. I haven't used it enought to critically evaluate its optical performance, but it's rumored to be no slouch, and I sure like that it takes 55mm filters and isn't much larger and heavier than a standard lens.

 

Hope this helps a bit and - BTW - my Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f/2.8-3.5 is currenly for sale. Please feel free to email me if you are interested.

[michael_linn]

Actually there is a very good 28-210 zoom available in manual focus. It is a Kiron (makers of some of the best Vivitar Series One stuff-serial number begins with "22"). It's an excellent performer- see this site for more info: http://medfmt.8k.com/third/index.html. It's a BIG LENS. Minolta made some great Rokkor zooms; the 80-200 f4.5 MC is a great one but will not work in program automation on your X-700 (no great loss) but will work fine in manual or aperature-priority mode.

[douglas_green1]

That Kiron lens is still rather bulky and slow. I didn't say that the compromises all had to do with optical quality. In many cases, it's just that the lenses are quite bulky and slow, and thus, not the type that you wish to use all the time, especially compared to a smaller 28-80 class lens.

[Brian]

I've got one of these, and unlike Frank's, my experience is that it is very good in terms of sharpness. There must be a good deal of inter-sample variation. The build is all-plastic and lightweight, but it hasn't fallen apart in about 5 years' use. Anyway, my criticism of it is that the zoom range is not terrifically useful - I use it mainly as a 35, because I don't own a 35mm prime - and the max aperture is not very fast at f4.8. Because of its bad rep you can probably find a used one very cheap, but if you are able to test before buying, you may be pleasantly surprised.

[TomHildreth]

Hi Rajdev,

 

Though not covering the broad 28-200mm focal length range in which you are interested, I really like my Minolta 28-70mm f3.5/4.8. I purchased this lens new from B&H about 18 months ago for about $95 USD.

 

I have taken around 500 exposures with it and I'm very satisfied with the results. About half the exposures were at "normal" length of around 45-50mm, and the rest were all over the lot, from 28mm to 70mm.

 

I recently put this lens to work during a photo tour from a van, and while an accopanying photographer was very busy changing from 50mm prime to his telephoto to accomodate differing subject distance and size, I was able to blast away with the short zoom for most of the shots.

 

On one occasion I didn't have enough speed with this lens at 35mm in deep shade, trying to shoot a passing train. My fixed 35mm f2.8 would have allowed me to shoot at a faster shutter speed. This is one of the well-known compromises you make when purchasing a zoom.

 

I can't prove through personal experience that you cannot adequately cover the 28-200mm range with one lens. My feeling is the comments above are correct however, in that you are likely to need at least two zoom lenses for this.<div></div>

[michael_marsh1]

24-50 f4 rokkor x is very good.the 35-70 3.5 macro[the 2 ring one thatis 3.5 non variabe aperture]is excellent.i have an 80-200 mc f4.5

that is very good as well.tokina is middle of the road.i had the szx 70-210.it wasnt a bad lens but the build quality inside isnt near the minolta or tamron.i know they built some for minolta to specs,and these are good.i also own the tamron 24-48 sp.its nice but can be suject to flare.i have the tamron 71a 28-200 that i use casually on the go.better than the tokina and ok for what it is but not great and not even close to primes.

mj marsh

[john_horner]

The Minolta 70-210 f/4 MD lens is a terrific lens which I use all the time. I would not try to cover 28-200 with one lens.

 

My typical light travel kit is one body, the 70-210/4, a 50mm 3.5 macro and a 24/2.8 wide angle (assuming not very low light shooting).

 

Zooms are more useful in the long end IMO. With shorter lenses it is usually possible to slightly alter your position enough to get the composition you want.