Gifted 2 Minolta lens 135mm f2.8 and 100-300 apo 4/5.6 tele zoom , how good are they ?

[navs]

<p>I just got these lenses from a friend who gifted them as he is not into photography and they belonged to his dad, he donated the camera to a school which was Maxxum 7D and gifted these 2 lenses to Me knowing my interest in the same. would like any inputs /suggestions on the same for use on A-700. My sincere thanks to all responses in advance. thanks</p>

[JAPster]

<p>Its hard to say objectively how good they are w/o knowing their actual condition.</p>

<p>Traditionally, Minolta ROKKOR lenses are very good, such as those found on vintage Minolta SLR 35mm film cameras.</p>

<p>They will probably make quite good images once you clean them and perhaps add a protective UV or Skylight filter.</p>

<p>The first lens you mention, the 135mm f-2.8, is a 'fixed' telephoto lens, which means it will give you a zoom in, magnified image when compared to a 'normal' 50mm lens on a film camera. Since its a fixed lens, it's always going to perform at 135mm focal length. You cant zoom in tighter than that, or zoom out wider. This kind of lens is good anytime you want to zoom in and get a magnified image compared to your normal lens. It would be good for indoor portraits of people and pets, where you want to take their picture w/o getting too close. The F 2.8 spec tells you the aperture size, which might be the MAXIMUM size aperture this lens supports OR the constant aperture. (If this lens has a built-in Aperture Ring at the base, that spells out a whole range of selectable apertures, then the 2.8 would be the Maximum aperture). </p>

<p>The other lens, 100-300, is a variable range zoom, that will operate anywhere from 100mm focal length all the way out to 300mm focal length. Again, this function allows you to zoom in or zoom out to get magnified views of your subject w/o getting too close. A typical use is when shooting wildlife pics, where you want the subject to fill the picture frame w/o getting so close that you scare them (or they eat you ...). You can also use this lens indoors to get nice shots of people across the room w/o getting too close to them. The 4/5.6 means that when the lens is set to its most 'zoomed out' position, then the max aperture available is f-4, AND when you turn the ring and zoom the lens to the most 'zoomed in' position, the max aperture available is F-5.6 ... At either end of the range, the max aperture will be the largest opening that lens can make under any condition.</p>

<p>(forgive me if you already know all this... i'm just stating basics..)</p>

<p>I've read in Magic Lantern book on the Nikon D-300, that it uses the same sensor chip as the Sony A-700. Nikon calls that a DX format sensor. That means that the sensor size (W & H) is 2/3 that of 35mm film frame. When used with older film lenses, this means the sensor picks up a smaller block of the image than what the film lenses actually deliver. And that means that when you use these lenses (assuming they are film lenses) on a A-700, you will see a view that is equivalenet to the stated focal length X 1.5 . So, the 135mm lens on a Sony A-700 will likely look equivalent to a 203mm telephoto. And the 100-400 will give you a view equivalent to a 150mm-450mm zoom telephoto. Again, the reason behind this is that the A-700 sensor dimensions are 2/3's the size of the traditional 35mm film frame, so the sensor "picks up" a substantially smaller portion of the optic image, and that makes the subject look magnified in the image frame. (You can verify this easily enough by going out and taking some pictures.)</p>

<p>These comments are based on an assumption that your new Minolta lenses will mount OK on a Sony A-700, something I do not know for sure.<br>

So, if I'm correct, the 135mm will actually function like a 203mm, and the 100-300 will look and function like a 150-450mm, if/when you mount and use them on a Sony Alpha 700 D-SLR.</p>

<p>You'll want to check the owner's manul for the A-700 to see if any of its 'advanced' functions are inoperable when you use these kind of lenses.</p>

[navs]

<p>Thks Allan Peed , the condition is near mint and very clean glass and barrel , stored in a pouch, 135mm 2,8 is fixed lens I notice its double crossed X kinda rare,while other is tele zoom as you rightly pointed out. I appreciate your input ,yes they are compatible with A-700 mount wise, no issues there. will chk the manual as suggested.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Both are great to excellent. They are higher end lenses and leave little to quibble about. Especially when they are free. ;-)</p>

<p>Do you have the A-700? Just try them out and see for yourself.</p>

[Matthew Currie]

<p>You have a very good friend there.</p>

[isaac_leung]

<p>Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Maxxum 7D was an AF DSLR using the same mount as the Sony Alphas. As such lenses which came with that camera would be using the Alpha mount, with AF capabilities, completely compatible with the A700 and other Sony DSLR cameras.<br>

Both are pretty good in quality: the 135 particularly, has great application in portraiture. Dyxum reviews suggest the 100-300 is also a nice piece of glass.<br>

Then again, as stated before, free glass is good glass.</p>

[navs]

<p>I agree he is a good buddy , gifts were given on My birthday btw :) thks</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The 135mm f2.8 will be especially nice on the A-700 since its effective focal length will be just over 200mm. Effectively you have a 200mm f2.8. Think about how much a full frame 200mm f2.8 would cost and you'll see why this a such a useful lens. I've owned one since the late 1980's and really like it.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Go out and give them a try and come tell us how good they are :)</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Mike,</p>

<p>Hey, no fair pulling that math. ;-) You're implying an APS-C camera is better than a full-frame camera because it crops out part of the image. </p>

<p>By that logic, my $300 P&S camera is worth more than my DSLR. I mean, it has a 380mm equivalent f/3.5 lens. That lens would cost over $5000 to make that same lens for a DSLR, and it wouldn't even be a 10x zoom!!!! So my P&S must be better?</p>

<p>But, if you must compare, then you have to proportion the effective aperture as well. Imagewise, a 135mm f/2.8 lens used on a crop camera is the same as a 200mm f/4 lens on FF. This makes depth of field and total light gathering capability equivalent.</p>

<p>Conversely, I have a 300mm f/2.8 lens for medium format. Its "equivalent" to about the 135mm 2.8 on APS-C...in fact, it's a little shorter. But it weighs probably 10x as much and cost MORE than 10x as much.</p>

<p>Do I consider them equivalent? Heck no. If I want to think equivalence, I think of it as a 120mm f1.2 lens on my DSLR...because that's what it would take to shoot the same image on the smaller sensor.</p>

<p>I wholeheartedly agree with this explanation...maybe you'll find it useful.<br>

<a href="http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/">http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/</a></p>

<p>In any case, I have both of these lenses and find them very rewarding.<br>

<br />Greg</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Greg, 'better' doesn't always mean, more expensive, bigger sensor, high quality build remember :-). For some or certain situations a P&S will always be better, regardless of how it is made or how much it costs etc. Comparing 135 on APS-C to 200 on FF is a fairly common comparison and it makes sense unless you want scrutinize it... A little too much coffee perhaps :-P</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Rich,<br>

Exactly...something that makes sense only until you scrutinize it really doesn't make sense, does it? Is that another way of saying "Ignorance is bliss"? ;-)</p>

<p>The point was...attaching "2.8" to both equivalent focal lengths is the kicker. Obviously, comparing just FOV, it makes simple and perfect sense. But a 200mm 2.8 lens is a LOT more expensive and a lot bigger than a 200mm f/4 lens. Plus, the latter usually comes with a 3x zoom. </p>

<p>And in any case, why compare it to a FF camera in the first place? What's the point? It's moot. All of the OP's lenses will be compared only to other lenses on the SAME CAMERA. </p>

<p>In that sense, Mike's comment is more confusing than helpful.</p>

[navs]

<p>Thanks Richard , I will and post some pictures soon , appreciate all comments and suggestions, Happy Hoildays everyone. Chill !!!</p>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>Not equivalent, but if a full frame lens is too expensive it does at least provide some flexibilty. Didn't mean to confuse anyone. But the difference in sensor size between APS-C and FF is not as drastic as it is when comparing a typical P&S sensor with APS-C. </p>

 

[kinjal_banerjee]

<p>@Navnitrai<br>

These lenses you mentioned, are they autofocus, or manual focus?<br>

I understand that they use the Minolta standard bayonet mount.<br>

Can you finally confirm once for me that they do actually fit the Sony DSLR-A700 and work fine?<br>

Thanks,<br>

Kinjal</p>

[navs]

<p>Yes Kinjal B , they are auto focus and they fit perfectly on My sony A 700 body , I just posted the pics taken in another post. do have a look, thanks</p>

[a._t._burke]

<p>Mr. Saini...</p>

<p>If you are wondering about the resolution, I have tested the Carl Zeiss 135mm F:2.8 Contax Sonnar with the "T" coating against my Minolta autofocus 135mm F:2.8 against each other about 10 years back, both on the same type film. My guesstimate was that the Minolta was about 90% as sharp as the Contax/CZ. I did not use my USAF1951 chart, so it was a guess looking at the results through a 100 power microscope.</p>

<p>Later, I found that Photodo rates them at 4.1 for the Contax/CZ here: <a href="http://www.photodo.com/product_840_p4.html">http://www.photodo.com/product_840_p4.html</a></p>

<p>and 3.6 for the Minolta (that I'm guessing that you have) here: <a href="http://www.photodo.com/product_769_p4.html">http://www.photodo.com/product_769_p4.html</a> </p>

<p><br />which is about the same difference that I found.</p>

<p><br />If you look at the charts for both you'll notice that there is a larger difference at finer resolution (40 lp/mm) than at lesser resolution (10 lp/mm) which was also consistent with my findings.</p>

<p>Tom Burke</p>

[navs]

<p>Hi Thomas , Thanks for your input appreciate it , I did have a feeling that Minolta glass are quite good and often underrated with other well known brands. Its nice of you to post those links for better understand ing.</p>

<p> </p>