Lenses for Maxxum/Dynax 600si

[john_gough]

I am a new contributer to this forum, though I have been 'lurking' for a little

while.

My Maxxum 404si recently died, and I took the opportunity to upgrade to a 600si,

which I found in eBay. My regular lens for the 404 is a 28-80mm f4-5.6 (Ser. No.

15707172), which I use for general purpose record and landscapes and which I

realise from my own experience and from your comments is a bottom of the range

consumer product. I think my 600si deserves something better than this but, when

I go on eBay to look for a replacement, I am flying blind, as I have no real

idea which are quality lenses and which are not. I had hoped to find a product

list on the Konica Minolta website which would at least tell me the original rrp

and perhaps the number of elements for each of their lenses but, perhaps because

they have withdrawn from this field, it didn't seem to be there.

After reading up everything relevant I could find in this forum, I have come up

with the following list of possibles, and would be grateful for your comments:-

24-85mm f3.5-4.5; 24-105mm f?; 28-75mm f2.8; 28-85mm f3.5-4.5;

28-135mm f4-4.5; 35-70mm f4.

I also have a Sigma 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 (Ser. No. 1015213), which worked fine with

the 404, but doesn't want to know the 600. I read somewhere that Minolta wanted

more money for the technical data on the 600 than Sigma were prepared to pay.

Whatever the explanation, I am now looking for a replacement to use for animal

and bird photography. Someone said on this forum recently that you need better

than 300mm for that job but, as that would be outside my price range, I have

just had to learn the art of stalking. Having recently managed to convince a

young fox that I was a tree, I'm feeling optimistic! My list of possibles, again

taken from this forum is:-

70-210mm f4 (beercan); 80-200mm f2.8 APO; 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO. Your

comments would again be appreciated.

Sorry to go on at some length for my first posting, but I notice that you often

ask for more detail - never for less. However, if I have got it wrong, I'm sure

someone will tell me!

[jos_roost]

John,<br>

For an extensive list of all the Minolta AF lenses, including different versions, release year and technical data, see M.Hohners page:<br>

<a href="http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e">http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e</a><br><br>

Regarding the standard-zoom lenses you list: I think most off them will indeed give you some improvement over the 28-80mm lens.<br>

I personally have the 24-105mm/3.5-4.5 and quite like it.<br>

Minolta also made a 28-105mm, which I think was also quite good.<br>

The 28-135mm seems to be very good optically, but is also very big and heavy.<br>

With the 35-70mm you'll be giving up quite a bit of zoom range - as there are so many alternatives available, I would choose a lens starting at 28mm or even 24mm.<br>

Just my 2cnts - Good luck !

[jpursley]

For a nice list of all Maxxum lenses see <a href="http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php" target="_blank">http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php</a>.

<br /><br />

I doubt you'll see all that much in quality difference between your current 28-80mm lens and the similar mid-range zooms you're considering, with the exception of the 2.8...but it's pricey and heavy.

<br /><br />

For an experience completely different from the zooms you're considering, you may want to try a 24/28mm 2.8, 50mm 1.7, 100mm 2.0, or 135mm 2.8. Not too expensive, fairly light, and all pretty fast.

<br /><br />

Sorry to not really address your specific questions, but IMHO you might be more satisfied by trying an entirely new kind of lens instead of a slightly better version of what you already have.

[sam_marsh1]

Hello John.

 

The 28-85 is an excellent lens which goes fairly cheaply (?30 or less on ebay). I think you'd notice a big difference over the 28-80 in terms of sharpness and saturation and if you liked the range of the lens you were using it seems like a natural choice.

 

As for the others, the 35-70 (old f4 version) is one of my favourites as it's very compact but is obviously a bit more restrictive in terms of range. The 28-135 is VERY big and heavy (as said above) but is thought of as the best of the bunch. It depends how much walking you do, I guess.

 

I've no experience of the final few I'm afraid!

[sam_marsh1]

... I just remembered the kit lens I was familiar with was the 28-100 not the 28-80. The 28-100 was terrible and I'm assuming the 28-80 is too. I might be wrong. Anybody know?

[machts gut]

Hello John,

the beercan, 1.7/50, 28-85 or 24-50.

 

Stefan

[patrick_mayer]

Well,

I personally own the following lenses: 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 (base kit lens), 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 and 28-75mm f2.8, the 70-210mm f4 (beercan) and cheap sigma 100-300mm f4.5-6.7.

 

Without a doubt:

The 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 is the cheapest of the lot. You get what you pay for, that is not a lot of sharpness and some distortion. I will get rid of it eventually.

 

Bang for the buck wise, the 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 is the best, especially considering you can get it for about 40-60$, in very good shape. Gave it to my girlfried who is astonished by it's sharpness (compared to the 28-80).

 

I recently bought a 28-75mm f2.8 for the constant aperture. It is also sharper than the two others, ever wide open. Got it for 300$US, which was a good price. Kept it for myself ;)

 

As for the beercan, if you like to travel heavy, that's one to get. It is very sharp, even at f4.

 

Forget the Sigma, unless you're using digital: it is slow, blurry, fragile and cheap... But it works wonderfully with a 7D for some reason!

 

Regards,

Patrick

[jeroen_b1]

I agree, the first type (all metal) 28-85mm is a great all-round lens that can be bought cheap. I like that lens very much. The second version of the 28-85 is a bit more plastic, but I am told this one focusses a bit faster.

 

I also have a Sigma UC 28-70 f/2.8-4, some report this lens to be as sharp as the KM 28-75 f/2.8, but is much cheaper. I haven't used a KM 28-75 so I cannot compare them by myself.

 

Don't forget the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5, small tele zoom, nice for travelingv, a bit plastic, but as sharp as the f/4 in the centre. The f/4 is sharper in the corners, if you look closely.

 

I don't think you can compare the 80-200mm f/2.8 apo and 100-300mm apo, when it comes to the costs. The 80-200 is in another league.

[dennis_fallon1]

The 24-85 and 24-105 are both nice compact lenses, great range down to 24mm; the 24-85 typically tests out sharper, but with more distortion. Neither is cheap, but reasonable. The 28-85 is a serious price-performer. I've owned both the original and restyled versions; the RS version (hard to find) has the nicer rubberized (and slightly bigger) focus ring; both have near-useless lens shades, but the RS model does AF noticably faster. It doesn't focus very close, but has a funky "macro" mode that allows close focussing only at the WA end ... ok for occasional effect. The 24-50 and 35-70 are other old bargains. The 28-135 is a legend; a great lens if you don't mind the weight. The 28-75 is popular with DSLRs, having been "designed for digital" (coatings, curved rear element) and released with the 7D; you can occasionally find someone who's tried it on a film body, but most reports are based on an APS-C sensor. Sharpness-wise, the 28-85 is a match for the 28-75 but the 28-75 focusses closer and, of course, offers f/2.8.

 

I'm surprised the Sigma gives you grief with the 600si; I owned the 75-300 APO (which was out at the same time as the cheaper "DL" version) and it was fine with my 7xi and 600si, but caused my 7 to lock up (the 7 gave many older Sigma lenses fits !)

 

For bird photography, you can do what you can do with a 300; learn to stalk, use a blind, be seletive about which birds you do & don't photograph, but you'll need longer lenses to be able to photograph more birds under different conditions. The 100-300 APO is unusual for an xx-300/5.6 lens in that it's actually pretty sharp at 300 wide open. (My older Sigma 75-300 APO, on the other hand, was a sharp lens overall, but very, very soft at 300/5.6 ... the Minolta is also smaller & lighter than the old Sigma). I wouldn't rely on teleconverters to go longer unless you've got a fast high end lens that's sharp wide open to begin with ... the 80-200/2.8s (note that the Minolta is only compatible with 3rd party TCs), 300/4, etc. At 400mm, the old Tokina 400/5.6 is pretty cheap, relatively compact, and reasonably sharp. The Sigma APO is bigger, a bit pricier, and sharper. And then you get to the very expensive and almost impossible-to-find Minolta. If an 80-200/2.8 is in your budget, Sigma makes a 100-300/4 that gets great reviews. For a longer lens, there's the "Bigma" ... the Sigma 50-500, which is very popular with DSLR shooters and seems quite sharp. It could very well be my long tele of choice if I were buying new. (I just happen to have one of those hard-to-find 400/4.5s :) And then there's the 500/8 mirror lens; hated for its donut bokeh (OOF highlights are ring shaped) but inexpensive, reasonably sharp, and fairly compact.

 

If 28mm is wide enough, I'd look for an RS version of the 28-85 or consider setting for the original. But if you're not going to have a wider lens, I'd consider the 24-105 and 24-85 ... I'd also consider complementing the 28-85 with a 24-50 or other wide lens, whichi may not cost any more than one of the 24-xx's but may be sharper. Then, for tele, a 100-300 APO or the "Bigma" depending on your budget, how much you're willing to carry, how good your tripod is, and how much you'd like a longer lens.

 

Hope that helps !

 

- Dennis

[ricardovaste]

I think I've read on a number of occations that the 600si is know for relatively poor [slow] autofocus, though i assume the accuracy is fine. To get around this you could use a bright lens, which improves the autofocus [so i hear]. So if you can afford it the konica minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 is probably the best option from that point of view. --- 150 GBP, if your lucky --- It gives you the close focusing aswel which is good for a carry around lens which you say you used you 28-80 for. After that there is also obviously the 50mm 1.7 which will be very bright, razor sharp and close focuses to 1:6 ish, if thats important i dont know.

 

But then, autofocus speed may not be important to you...

 

Though the 35-70 is sharp, its not all that practical in the field. The minimum focusing distance of 1.1 meters is incredibly annoying at times. Though it depends upon the situation and time you have as you can manual focus [via little switch] to 1:4 'macro'.

[scott_harmor1]

John,

 

For me, photography is like wine or stereo equipment. It is really a matter of what you like and how much you want to spend. I have had at least four different Minolta Film cameras over the years, and I have generally gravitated towards the low end of the price range when I buy lenses; or I will get whatever lenses come with a kit, especially if the kit comes with two lenses. The lone exception to this rule for me is my Tokina 20-35mm, which I paid about $300 for six years ago. I would consider this to be a medium priced lense. I consider this to be a great lense, one that I use for closeups in car shows, for instance, and it works well for nature shots too. I would advise you to get one lense that at least goes down to 20mm, or you might want to get something as wide as a 17mm if the price is right. You will want to get a second lense that starts where the wide angle leaves off and goes to at least 200mm if not 300mm or more. If you're not sure what to get, I recommend that you to go Pricegrabber.com and check for lenses there. You can look at several lenses at the same time and then go check to see who has the best prices. If you like to go into a camera store and you live on the west coast, I recommend that you make a trip to Samy's Cameras. If you live back east, then there is an endless supply of places to go. Beach Camera, Abe's of Maine, and B&H to name a few. Going to a big camera store can be a fun way to find your next camera or lense. Right now, I use a Minolta D7 with an 8gig compact flash memory card, and a Minolta 18-70 digital lense. My other lense is a Tamron 70-300mm. I have my Tokina 20-35 and a Minolta 28-70 with a 2x multiplier as backups. I am seriously considering getting two more camera bodies and three more lenses. Anyway, check Pricegrabber first to see what is available. You can always get your lenses somewhere else if you want to.

 

Later,

 

 

 

Scott<div></div>

[john_gough]

Thanks to everyone for a great response. Even after a first read through, I feel better equipped to go back to eBay and check out what is on offer. However, I shall spend some more time collating your comments first, and relating them to the data in the Hohner site. That is quite something - I had difficulty in tearing myself away from the Photography Myths section!

Best wishes,

John Gough

[matt_neighbour___york__u.k]

Hi,

 

My main lens on my Dynax 7 is the Sigma 28 - 70mm f/2.8. I love the fact that it is f/2.8 throughout; it allows me to work in low light and to get reasonable portraits at 70mm (although I have a Tamron f/2.8 90mm prime too). It is heavy but I don't mind, since if I only take that lens with me it is versatile.

 

I got that lens over the Minolta one due to cost - I paid 130 UK pounds for it. If the Minolta version has dropped in price I'd seriously consider it.

 

Matt