The best (among reasonably priced) super telephoto lenses for MD Minolta?

[ejstark]

Hello friends!<br>

I'm trying to add a super telephoto lens for my Minolta (500mm and

longer). I'm not going to buy reflex lenses because of their awful

bokeh. After searching ebay I knew that it's possible to buy 500/8

Danubia and Beroflex lenses for the reasonable price. Could you

please advice whether it's worth to spend money for them or not?

Maybe there are another alternatives?<br>

Thank you for your opinions!

[Brian]

<P>Check out this website: <a href="http://www.geocities.com/mikkonis/teles.html">http://www.geocities.com/mikkonis/teles.html</a>.</P>

[sknowles]

Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to invest in Minolta's manual focus system, simply because it's not going anywhere, and any money you spend will likley not be recoverable (ok some maybe). But having said that, and being a 36+ year user of their manual focus equipment (no AF or digital), I would suggest looking at Tamron lenses with the Adaptall-II adaptor, for several reasons.

 

One, they're more readily available as the adaptor makes them useable with many camera system. This avoid buying camera-dedicated lense. Two, they come in various focal lengths, but two are very useful, 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f4. Three, the have 1.4X and 2X teleconverters to expand their focal lengths without increasing the lens length very much. Three, you can get rear drop-in filter sets from Tamron and add 112mm front filters too. And four, their excellent quality lenses.

 

The concern I have with f5.6 and f8 lenses is the viewfinder display, it's hard to see when the light conditions aren't favorable, namely bright sunny days. You will find you can't see in some conditions, deep forest, overcast days, near sunrise/sunset, etc., and you end up quitting sooner than you want to get photographs (been there, done that). You really notice the difference with f2.8/4 lenses.

 

And having said that, you can expect to pay good money for these lenses which often comes in various conditions and with various stuff, from just the lens to the full system. But given time you can find one in the condition and setup you want and can afford. They're quite common on Ebay and other on-line shops and often in local pro shops, and all you need is the adaptor for your camera.

 

I've used one of these for some years now, with TC's, filters, etc. I keep adaptors on the lens and TC's with a spare to make changing things easier. I've never regretted the investment, only the weight of it hiking.

 

Good luck in your choice.

 

--Scott--

[User_502260]

Vivitar made 400mm lenses of four types. The first was the T mount. They may appear in f/8 or f/5.6 versions. These are pre-set lenses. Next is the fixed mount series. I know they were made in f/5.6 versions and possibly f/6.3. Vivitar also made 400mm lenses with interchangeable mounts. The earlier series was the T4. They are decent performers and sell for very little. The later TX series came in an older f/6.3 version and a newer f/5.6 version. The f/5.6 version has internal focusing and is a good performer. Either T4 or TX lenses will work with auto diaphragm coupling with Minolta MF cameras. Only the TX lens will work in Program or Shutter Priority modes with the correct mount adapter. These modes would be on the X-700 and XD models respectively. A good 400 will be much more fun to use than a mediocre 500.

[larry h.]

I will second what Scott Knowles said. Tamron Adaptall 300/2.8 and 400/4 lenses are by far your best bet. The other two possibilities you can look for are a Pentax Screwmount 500/4.5 (with adapter) or the Tokina 300/2.8 in Minolta MD mount (only if you can find the Tokina for a lot less than the Tamrons because of the tranferability and sunk costs issue Scott refers to). I would not bother with any other lenses.

 

I recently bought the Tamron 300/2.8 Adaptall. I chose it over the 400/4 (KEH has two 400/4 lenses right now) because I wanted the faster aperture. I will probably try it mounted to my telescope motor drive with my Minolta SRT, but I do not think I have patience for a guided exposure. The primary reason I bought it was that it was relatively cheap for such big glass and had the matched 1.4 and 2.0 teleconverters.

 

I will use it mostly adapted to my EOS system (use an Adaptall-Screwmount adapter and a Screwmount-EOS adapter). I bought it mostly for 'static' wildlife such as herons, deer grazing, birds on a feeder, sloths (just kidding). Mainly, it was 1/3 the price of a used 3rd party AF 300/2.8, 1/5 the price of a used Canon non-IS 300/2.8 and 1/7 the cost of a new Canon 300/2.8 IS. So even if it gets very limited use, it was still worth it. I even recently got a few keepers with it shooting my son's soccer games (one of them in absolutely perfect focus! Wow!).

 

So, again, my recommendations would be the Tamron 300/2.8, Tamron 400/4, Pentax 500/4.5 and Tokina 300/2.8, in that order.

[larry h.]

Scott, do you know if any currently available circular polarizers will fit in the filter slot of the Tamron 300/2.8? Does Tamron's new AF 300/2.8 lenses use the same 43mm slots? Even if a 112mm polarizer exists, I would never want to pay for it.

[sknowles]

Larry, I bought the rear drop-in filter set plus the linear polarizer (sold separately) from Tamron direct. Their web site list the AF and MF lenses with the same filter diameter, see:

 

http://www.tamron.com/lenses/default.asp

 

I didn't see any page about filters, but with the same filter size for both AF and MF, the circular polarizer filter should fit either as they share other filters.

 

As for 112mm filter I found a third party linear polarizer, Tamron normal, and B+W UV filter for $50 each on Ebay and bought plastic cases for each from the Filter Connection.

 

I also made a lens case from a soft vinyl 300mm filter case with half of a large fly-fishing reel case with a soft liner for the bottom. This case is the same size as the bottom of the filter case and just larger than the lens so it rests on the liner.

[larry h.]

Thanks, Scott. I will contact Tamron. Hopefully, they now make a thin 43mm *circular* polarizer as I also use this lens with my EOS camera. The used Hoya filter I bought and returned was too thick.

 

I do not understand your description of the case you made, but that is alright. My lens came with caps, hood, case, 43mm clear filter (but not the 112mm front filter) and 1.4x teleconverter. I bought the 2x teleconverter. It was worth the investment, even if it does not get a *lot* of use.

 

I have attached a detail image of my bird feeder to show the sharpness of this lens to Erick. The image is at actual pixels and shows safflower seeds and peanuts from about 25-30 feet, with no sharpening applied. You will notice the purple fringing which is generally thought to be due more to the digital sensor than the lens, so it should not affect film *as badly*. In any case, in full size images, it is barely noticeable.<div></div>

[larry h.]

Erick, I meant to also point out the extremely narrow depth of field when you use such a large lens. You will notice that the cage around the feeder is out of focus at the extreme right. It is about 1 inch from the feeder tubes.