Lenses for a manual focus Minolta

[richard_wallace2]

Hello again.

 

I'm trying to build my manual focus lens line-up. I've got a 50mm f1.7

Minolta and a Panagor 28mm f2.5 so far, what would you people advice

me to get as a zoom lenses? Brand and range? Something that could be

used as a "all-terrain" sort of thing (or a combination of lenses to

"get the job" done). I've looked at the 70-210mm Minolta lens since I

already heard some good things about that one, but I'd like to have

the opinion of those who have the experience.

 

Thanks for all the help,

 

RWallace

[greg_deprow1]

Try a Tamron 35-135 adaptall 2 lens with an MD mount. Bit heavy but a pretty good zoom for everyday shooting.

[smhawk]

My reseach led to these lenses:

 

MD 35-70 f3.5 NOT 3.5-4.8

 

MD 35-135 f3.5-4.5

 

MD 28-85 f3.5

 

MD 50-135 f3.5

 

MD 70-210 f4

 

MD 75-200 f4.5

 

I specifically was interested in just Minolta, and MD, rather than MC, lenses. There's some overlap in the focal lengths, but you get the idea. There are some good deals available on these used lenses, but be careful. It's easy to start collecting. I used to have some money in my PayPal account, but no more...

[rover]

I will put a plug in too for the MD 50/1.4 if you are looking for a fast lens. I really love the look of my images that I took with this lens.

[chris_accetta]

Richard,

 

I'm also a happy manual Minolta user. I only own one zoom lens - a Vivitar Series 1 70-210/3.5. It's a wonderful lens that I use almost exclusively for macro work.

 

That said, unless you shoot a lot of wildlife or nature I would advise you not to buy a zoom lens. My suggestion is to buy one or more of the excellent Rokkor primes. A 28 & 50 plus a 2x teleconverter makes a nice lightweight little kit. MF zooms tend to be heavy and slower and can make composition more difficult.

 

Just my two cents. Feel free to use whatever lens suits your style and makes you happy. MF lenses are becoming so inexpensive that you can try several before settling on the ones you like best.

[jack paradise]

"I've got a 50mm f1.7 Minolta and a Panagor 28mm f2.5"

 

I don't know about the Panagor 28mm. Is this a re-badged Kiron ?

 

The 7 elements Minolta MD 28mm F2.8 is really nice. I'd need some pretty hard convincing before I'd let go the Minolta 28mm MD for a Panagor. But maybe you know something I dont.

[david chau]

i have a 28mm f/2.8 chinon, 50mm f/1.4 minolta md, 35mm f/2.8 minolta auto-w.rokkor, 135mm minolta auto tele rokkor

 

i used to use the 50mm only because it was my only good lens at the time, but when i got the 28mm i seem to use that more because of the massive angle of view i get, perfect for street shots, i think you should get a set of primes instead of zoom as zoom technology wasnt as good as it is nowadays and primes are better

[alex_kinnan]

Howdy.

 

I shoot a couple of X-700s from time to time and have a few suggestions based either on my own use or on things I have read...

 

I definitely second the recommendations of the Minolta brand 35-70mm f3.5 and the 28mm f2.8. I've got both and they are terrifically sharp.

 

The MD 50/1.4 is sharp, too, though to be honest I usually use a Pentax SMC 50/1.4 via an M42 adapter as I prefer its look.

 

I have heard many good things about that 70-210mm f4 and have been trying to score one on the eBay for a while now but with no luck.

 

I once had a Vivitar Series 1 28-90mm f2.8-3.5 that was pretty nice, though looking back at prints made from negatives shot with that lens, I think that the MD 35-70/3.5 is noticeably sharper. I mostly miss the Vivitar for sentimental reasons. I've got a similar Kiron 28-85/2.8-3.8 that isn't all that sharp, but does have impart a pleasant "glow" to images.

 

I have heard that both the 35-70/3.5 and the 70-210/4 ended up forming the basis for a couple of Leica "R" series lenses, which implies to me that the latter optic is probably as nice or nicer than the one I have and, in that case, is one you might do well to seek out.

 

Alex

[ivan_dzo]

I've got many manual minolta zooms and versions of most of the primes focal lengths. the 28-85 3.5 and the 70-210 f4 are unbeatable. Find a good quality version of each and you wont need any other zooms. Don't overlook the primes however as they are dirt cheap and brilliant lenses.

[Brian]

If you don't mind using other brands, I can recommend the Tamron Adaptall 70-150mm f3.5. It's an under-rated lens that you can probably get very cheaply. It is smaller,lighter and faster than the 70-210 zooms, so if you can forego the extra reach you have a very compact travel/walkabout lens. It would also complement your existing 28/50mm set. And it takes 49mm filters, the same as your 50.

[ivo_stankus]

Speaking of 70-210 zooms, I bought a used 70-220/4 Tamron Adaptall lens because it looked really nicely built, but the internet has failed me to provide any info on its origin, and other qualities/faults. I shot only about a half a roll of film so far using the lens, so I haven't made up my mind yet whether it was a good buy (I more inclined to say yes). Any experience?

[cork_van_den_handel2]

I'm not a fan of zooms, but I've been impressed with the Minolta 28-85mm and 50-135mm. I particularly like the focal length range of the latter. I have a 75-200mm f/4.5 Rokkor that is a nice alternative to the later 70-210 f/4 version. To me, the 35-70mm doesn't offer enough difference from a 50mm prime to justify buying one.

[glen_johnson1]

I've got a similar Kiron 28-85/2.8-3.8 that isn't all that sharp, but does have impart a pleasant "glow" to images.

 

-You must have gotten a bad example. The Kiron is big and heavy, but lens softness is not its weak point. Back in the day, Modern Photography tested the Kiron 28-85/2.8-3.8 and gave it 34 out of 36 excellent ratings for center and corner sharpness. My own Kiron is razor-sharp, and I cannot differentiate this zoom at 28mm from any of the 28mm prime lenses. It certainly beats the Minolta and Nikon MF zoom lenses in that range.

[richard_wallace2]

Well, after all i have now 3 lenses two 50mm, f1.4 and f1.7 and the panagor 28mm f2.5.

As far as i know the panagor is a rebadged lenses, and is quite heavy for it's size.

 

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge and for your pacience with a "young" Minoltian,

 

RWallace

[alex_kinnan]

"-You must have gotten a bad example. The Kiron is big and heavy, but lens softness is not its weak point."

 

Actually, I may have simply gotten some so-so processing, as I recently pulled the Kiron out of mothballs and got some pretty darn sharp pix from it. My MD 35-70/3.5 still trumps it, but not by much.

 

Plus, a cat recently peed on the Minolta, so until I can find out a way to clean the aperture ring, the Kiron is back in service (assuming I can eat enough protein to actually lift the thing).

 

A.