brian304 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Hello, I just bought an 85mm f1.4 used. But it is not the G, are there any differences? thanks Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_garcia5 Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 I think the only difference between your lens and the G lens is that G lens is newer. Other than that you have the best portrait lens Minolta or anyone makes (drool). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christopher kink www.digi Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 No, there aren't any differences optically. However, the G lens has a redesigned lens barrel, a focus-hold button and wider, rubberized focusing ring. The G lens also has a circular aperture while I'm not sure if the original one does. The D version has all of the G's features with D-type flash integration and a clutch-type focusing ring (I think). None of these things make the original version much less usable. You have a fine lens - have fun with it. -Christopher http://www.digital-daydream.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesdak Posted December 15, 2004 Share Posted December 15, 2004 Brian - I bought the first edition of this lens used from KEH early this year. Remarkable lens that has quickly became one of my favorites. Enjoy it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian304 Posted December 15, 2004 Author Share Posted December 15, 2004 Thanks guys. That really helps. I also bought a few other lenses, the 28mm f2.0, the 24 -85 and a Sigma 500mm from KEH. Is the 28 ok? What I have noticed about the Minolta lenses is they have nice bokeh and pop like the Leica. We shall see. Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_dzo Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 yes, the 28 f2 is one of the top 3-4 lenses made by Minolta. Best 28mm I've ever used or tested (apart from the contax g 28mm). Enjoy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian304 Posted December 16, 2004 Author Share Posted December 16, 2004 How is the 135 STF? I would like a 135ish for indoor kid sports. In my Canon days the 135 L was pretty good. I am thinking I could skip the 135 and get a 200 if the 135 was not up to it. I have only seen a few web pics with the 200 and 135. Can anyone chime in with experiences with either lens? thanks again!! Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesdak Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 135 STF are super expensive. But the older standard 135 shows up a lot a KEH. I'm planning on getting one soon also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_dzo Posted December 16, 2004 Share Posted December 16, 2004 The STF is an ultra specialised very expensive lens. The 135mm f2.8 is an excellent lens and great value second hand, small light and very sharp. The 200 f2.8 is also excellent but also much larger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian304 Posted December 17, 2004 Author Share Posted December 17, 2004 Does the 135 STF have a ring on the lens to defocus like the Nikons? Or is its footprint a clean OOF region? thanks Brian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now