In need of three lenses and then that's all

[cmphoto1]

I need three lenses and then I will be happy. (yeah, right)

 

1. Tokina ATX 100-300 f4 (not ATX Pro II)

 

2. Minolta 85mm f1.4 G (or not G, at least RS)

 

3. Minolta 17-35mm f3.5 G

 

At that point, my purchasing work will be done.

 

chad

[jeffery_pool]

instead of making a new thread I'll add my want:

 

-16mm 2.8 fish

 

and I swear, I'm done.

[weatherman]

Some years ago Minolta 85mm f1.4 G was really hard to find in the UK. I'm lucky to have found an old stock one, the all metal G. You won't regret if you can get one(well you'll see the imperfections in your zooms, if that is ok. So may be it'll make you regret in a way ;)

Good luck

[bill_thorlin]

I believe you but then again perhaps I don't :)

 

Also looking for the 100-300 f4 but the AT-X Pro version ( I think I have seen your one on fleabay UK so perhaps you might check it out ).

 

As for the other two - would be nice but not essential for me.

 

Pipe dream - 600 f4 APO.

 

Then I would be done - maybe.

[chris_harley1]

Yeah the 17-35 and the 85 are great lenses, managed to buy the last of each at cameraking in the UK.They were selling them a little below List as they were dumping their Minolta stock. Both great buys. My last few wishlist lenses are a 300 f4, apo ii teleconvertors and the 35mm 1.4 G.I'll wait for Ebay cos I've got enough lenses to be going on with !

[ivo_stankus]

Chad, if you want a brand new 17-35/3.5 G let me know, I know of a one for meagre $2500 :)

[cmphoto1]

Bill,

 

Check out the optical performance of the ATX Pro zooms vs the original SD ATX zooms. Tokina did a good job in build quality, but the optics took a significant leap backwards. I think the only exception to that is the 28-80mm f2.8.

 

Ivo,

 

What a bargin!!! Let's hope Sony reintroduces the lens at the original price, which is a mere grand less.

 

chad

[bill_thorlin]

Chad - I asked some while ago about the 100-300 f4 and got a very positive response on the AT-X Pro. Some of the references did seem to relate to the SD version. Are there in fact 2 versions as this does not seem to be very clear from what I have seen ? If there are 2 versions is there a comparison one can refer to ?

 

Have you set a hare running ? :)

[chris_harley1]

oops make that a 300 2.8

[scott_lewis3]

Every time i buy a new lens I say thats it I don't need any more.

[cmphoto1]

Bill,

 

Still looking. There is one or two pages that show the distinction between the two versions.

 

chad

[bill_thorlin]

Chad - effort appreciated. I hope you have more luck than I have had as I have also looked and found nothing definitive even on the Tokina US site which under the archives section shows an AF-X 340 AF-II. Other sites also show this with the SD as part of the specification of this lens.

 

The plot thickens !