Minolta 85mm alternatives?

[manuel_garcia5]

Thanks to all who replied. I haven�t seen the Minolta 85mm f1.4 under $500, even used and I�m not sure I want to spend that much on a single lens just yet.

 

Chad,

I agree, better equipment doesn�t always make a better photographer.

 

Ivan,

I�ve had my eye on that Tamron, and if I never get my hands on that Minolta I doubt I would be able to tell.

 

Bill,

That Minolta 100 f2.8 macro sounds like a winner. If I can find it under $300 then I�ll buy it.

[mark_albert]

I also have a Tamron 90mm f2.5 sp. Got it from KEH for a steal. I use it for portraits and of course macro. It becomes a 135mm equiv. on my 7D. Right now KEH has 4 Tamron 90 macro lenes starting at $159.

 

Mark

[bill_thorlin]

Manuel - for me the 100mm f2.8 macro is a winner both ways ( even if it is TWO stops slower than a 1.4 :) & I hope that is enough humble pie on that one ) and I got mine on fleabay for 125quid which equates to about $220 but you may need a little patience. Happy hunting.

[dave_redmann]

Greg wrote:<P>

 

<I>Gotta love someone who dis's your experience w/o the faintest understanding of what you said;)</I><P>

 

Greg, I know about the front-mounting adapters that effectively give you longer or wider lenses. It's just that I was surprised that you seemed to be advocating a type of device that's almost universally agreed to induce significant quality loss (admittedly, how significant is somewhat subjective) to someone who is looking for a reasonable substitute for a very high-quality lens like the Minolta AF 85mm f/1.4. That's why I said I wasn't sure what you were talking about!<P>

 

Then you went on to say:<P>

 

<I>i put a micrometer on it and the clear lens diameter of the front element is 62mm.</I><P>

 

By the math that you seem to acknowledge applies (I did not argue, and am not positive, that it is unequivocally appropriate for these devices, but I suspect it is), a 62mm front element is <B>not</B> large enough to give you a 100mm f/1.4. Assuming the usual math does apply, the <I>theoretical maximum</I> aperture is f/1.61. And of course, often for a variety of reasons lenses don't achieve this theoretical maximum.<P>

 

Tell you what: find a single-tone, evenly lit surface, set aperture priority to f/1.4, and meter it through the 50mm f/1.4. Now put on that front lens, and meter it again without changing anything else. Yes, I know the camera will still say the lens can open up to f/1.4, but I bet you will find that at "f/1.4", the meter says you need a slower shutter speed with the accessory lens on. That would tell you that your effective aperture is not f/1.4.<P>

 

Next try shooting something with straight lines near the edges, fine detail, etc., using a tripod and the 2 s timer so you get MLU. I bet you find that the front lens causes significant quality loss.

[greg_heil1]

Dave Redmann wrote:

 

> Tell you what: find a single-tone, evenly lit surface, set aperture priority to f/1.4, and meter it through the 50mm f/1.4. Now put on that front lens, and meter it again without changing anything else. Yes, I know the camera will still say the lens can open up to f/1.4, but I bet you will find that at "f/1.4", the meter says you need a slower shutter speed with the accessory lens on. That would tell you that your effective aperture is not f/1.4.

 

On my yellow wall they both say f1.4/15 on my 7000. There is a slight darkening (vignette) of the corners so there is no doubt a larger objective would be an improvement for the corners of a full frame camera. Also getting a good 2X which covers such a lens is relatively rare. A 1.7X is much more common, and less expensive, and will give one the 85f1.4 the OP was seeking, likely w/o vignette at all.

 

> Next try shooting something with straight lines near the edges, fine detail, etc., using a tripod and the 2 s timer so you get MLU. I bet you find that the front lens causes significant quality loss.

 

Sorry my 7000 does not have MLU, don't have time to get film developed for your experiment, and i don't own a tripod (not interested in the kind of photography which requires toting one around). However, looking through the viewfinder at the graph paper i have stuck on my wall i cannot detect any more edge curvature than is in the, admittedly old and warped, paper. You will probably have to go to someone else to do that level of performance testing, perhaps someone who owns, rather than borrows a dSLR?

 

> I'm not sure what he means by "front mounted", but I doubt it really affects the analysis.

 

> I know about the front-mounting adapters that effectively give you longer or wider lenses. It's just that I was surprised

 

Not sure which of the above statements you are standing by. What i am standing by is that for the cost of a cheap standard lens and a quality front mounted TC you can get specifications in the range of 85f1.4. i have gotten pleasing results on my A1 and my experiments with a 7D have been encouraging. i think it is an avenue others may like to pursue as well. If from your personal experience you have something useful to add to that, i am open to hearing it. But i am not interested in knee jerk reactions which IMO detract seriously from the quality of our inquiry. Nor is it useful to the discourse to call information "bad" which in fact is correct.

 

But i suspect you are now sure of what i mean, as you now indicate knowledge of the subject, and hence likely do now doubt that your analysis is affected. So in sum there you have it, free doubts, and advice freely dispensed, none of it worth the electrons transmitted with. But hey, a little different perspective, color, or sharpness can add interest to a picture, for what that's worth;)

[cmphoto1]

There has GOT to be an emotion icon for shaking one's head in disbelief.

[rokkor fan]

Amen to that Chad.

[lucio larangeira]

I know it is a bit out because of the crop factor, but I own an older 135 AF/2,8 and it is a beautifull piece of glass. For portraiture it is unbeatable (on my film camera of course) and by far my favorite.