going price for a Minolta 85mm f1.4 G lens?

[ken_c4]

<p>I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on this lens, but not sure if I wanna go new and get the Sigma? Or a used Minolta... I'm pretty sure the Carl Zeiss 85 is out of my budget... so, what would be a good price to pay? And also, are there any big differences between the G and none G 85mm f1.4's? </p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Minor differences between the Minoltas. I did a summary sometime ago, first and last post here:<br>

http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/min-8504714-za-8504714-very-different-lenses_topic39189.html<br>

What prices are you looking at? The Minoltas vary from around 400 gbp up to 850 gbp, depending on version and condition. I'd personally just skip the Sigma, because unless you prefer the look of the Sigma glass (can't imagine many do, I know I don't).</p>

<p>I'd just look at getting one that's well looked after, and from a reputable seller. I seriously doubt you'll ever want to sell it.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>There's obviously a lot of perceived difference between the Minoltas and the CZ. How much of it is real is arguable. ;) I haven't used the CZ, so I can't comment.</p>

<p>The three Minolta versions are optically similar, if not indistinguishable. (I'll ignore the LE, since it's a hen's tooth". The RS and G(D) are smoother looking and have circular(er?) apertures. The G(D) also has ADI, but you'll rarely use it.<br>

<br />Having shot all three, I didn't see a noticeable difference. They seem to run $600-700 for the original depending on condition, with $100 and $200 premiums for the later models respectively.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Greg, the difference between Minolta and ZA glass is quite obvious if you compare it, worth considering for Ken although he's already mentioned it's probably out of budget.</p>

[gregory_king1]

<p>Rich,</p>

<p>True. I guess I should have said which one is BETTER is arguable. Most seem to say the CZ is colder and more clinical, the Minolta warmer and cozier.</p>

<p>One thought to consider is the 100/2. I find it sharper than the 85/1.4. It's rarer, but usually runs about the same price. If you can find one, it's a reasonable alternate choice.</p>

[ricardovaste]

<p>Yeah, use words like "better" or "best" and you'll spend all day wondering aimlessly in circles ;)</p>

[elijah_free]

<p>I have a first edition of the Minolta 85 1.4. It does not have a focus hold button like later models. But the glass is exactly the same with same formulas and circular aperture. Unless you really need a later model, this one has beautiful bokeh, color etc. It has worked for years and cost the less. My two cent.</p>

[ilkka]

<p>In Japan they go for around 70-90,000 yen, for new models in good condition. New Zeiss is about 140,000 yen. Including tax, which can be discounted for foreign buyers.</p>

[scottelly]

<p>I just studied the 85mm f1.4 lenses at slrgear.com, and it looks like the Sigma is a very good lens. It is only about $900, and you can get an extended warranty on it (which I suggest, since it is a Sigma, afterall). There are reliability issues with them (as far as quality control), but if you buy new and test your lens carefully as soon as you get it, you should be able to return it for a better one, if you have problems with the first one. If you get a good one, you will probably be VERY happy with it. From the reviews I've read, some people are in love with it, and that includes people with high-end Nikon and Canon glass.<br>

-<br>

Surprisingly the Zeiss lens did not seem as sharp as the other lenses. I was very surprised to see those results. If you go to slrgear.com and look at the reviews, make sure you look at the graphs, especially the bigger one. It is a 3 D graph that shows lens sharpness, and you need to play with the sliders to see the way the graph changes as the aperture changes.</p>