lens_four

The simplest lens to design would be a 50/2.8. Then they go macro so concentrate on correcting or design out any close-focus issues that may occur from a straight 50/2.8 design. And as a downside AF speed isn't critical. So you tend to find that optically the 50/90/100/180/200 macro lenses will produce the sharpest images, but as a -ve they will have slow f stop, and will focus at less than lightening speed. basically all the cash goes into the glass and final image.

Designing a 50/1.7 is simpler than designing a 50/1.4 - at f1.4 all sorts of optical problems will come in and will need to be correct by either using more elements (price up) or asperical elements (price goes up).

So the f1.4 is almost a compromise on the design of the 50mm. This is the same case for canon & nikon. All of their 50mm f1.8 are better optically than the f1.4 versions (and some have f1.2, f1.0).

I would happily use a 50/3.5 1:2 macro as a standard lens if I didn't need the light gathering abilities of a 1.4 or 1.7. Price wise the 50/1.7 is a steal. This is also the case for canikon. they are the simplest lens to design, cheapest to make and (apart from the macros) represent pretty much the sharpest lenses available for an SLR.

The best advice I hav always ignored is to get the 50/1.7 instead of the 50/1.4. I'm new to KonMin and treated myself to a 50/1.4. Silly, I should have got the 50/1.7 and saved the cash for something more worthy! Not to say the 1.4 is bad, just non-sense for most users.

The only way the 1.4s can be said to be better than the 1.7 is that they sometimes use more aperture blades, the more blades the more circular the aperture, the better the bokeh (out of focus parts).

Minolta use the 'Cir' logo on their website to let you know which ones have 7 or 9 blades. Old, less sexy lenses will use 5 blades and the out of focus bits will look pentagonal in shape!

Some Leica/Voigtländer lenses use 9 or 10 blades!

As a wild guess the 300/2.8 will have more elements than the 300/4? And it will cost more! more glass need to correct the image, but the 300/4 willhave a better reputation for being a sharper optic!

Simple really!

Shaper than a 50/1.7 .... um, tough one. yep the 2.8 or 3.5 macro should be, but as a guess they won't focus as quickly?! The f2.8 are 1:1 and the f3.5 is only 1:2

Okay, linking didn't work!

Try this

<p><img border="0" src="http://gallery.photo.net/photo/3276380-md.jpg" width="679" height="459"></p>

This is a field test shot with the Sig 70-200/2.8 shot with the EX

1.4x converter. 7D set to f4 (so f5.6 in light terms), ISO 400,

1/350 f4. Hand-held with AS. In camera +1 step of sharpness and

contrast. Photoshop 50% USM.

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?

topic_id=1481&msg_id=00Bp7t&photo_id=3276380&photo_sel_index=0

I currently own:

- KM 17-35/2.8-4 D (bought with my 7D, maybe too wide for me?)

- Min 24-85/3.5-4.5 (soon to hit eBay)

- Min 24-105/3.5-4.5 D (one lens traveller)

In the post to me is also now the:

- Minolta 24/2.8.

I'm a big fan of primes, and the 35mm prime is my old prime of

choice. This will be a 37mm f2.8 on my 7D. Such a silly price on

this one (I paid 24% of new value, good old eBay!)

Q; What would you like to see in a test review of this lot? I got

the 24-85 & 24-105 as well priced used items to see which i

prefered, in the full knowledge that I would then move one on at

very little loss, but safe in the knowledge that I knew both lenses

and made an informed decision (I happen to have run a few tests with

both which will be published to the net in May-05).

The India trip with JUST the 24-105 will also help me answer the 'is

the 17-35 too wide for me question'. I won't ahve it with me, so if

I call for a wider optic, then I'll come home and keep the 17-35.

logical! If I don't WANT for a wide lens, then the conclusion is

that its too wide for me, and will have to go.

In my film days I would rarely shoot wider than 35mm, but figured

the 17-35 would be a good zoom to match with a 70-200 for travel.

And I thought if i had a wider choice, I'd use it!

Reality is the 24-105 may well be my coverall, and the 70-200 + 1.4

may not be sharp/long enough for my wild stuff. In which case my

low price purchases from HongKong will show very little loss on the

used market for any of these lenses. And from here on I'm buying

used and hunting the well priced stuff out.

back to the Q. before I made the final choices and move some of

these lenses on, I will of course have 4x 24mm lenses at my

disposal. For the sake of it. I shall test them. Usable as a

point of ref. on the net. To test:

- distortion (wall test)

- purple fringe

- centre/edge sharpness

- wide open, f8, stopped down performance

- colour/contrast

Anything missing?

Thanks for the feedback on this Q. I'm having a tough time deciding if my Sig 70-200 + 1.4 is long enough or sharp enough for my wild-life stuff. My shooting season doesn't really get into full swing until Jul/Aug, so I have time.

The Min 100-300 APO & 100-400 APO are now off the list.

Still on the maybe list:

- 200/2.8 + 500/8 mirror combo. (or Sig 400/5.6 APO Mac?)

- 300/4

- 400/4.5

Used I can get the Min 200/2.8 & Min 500/8 (or Sig 400/5.6) for less than a used 300/4. And this would give me low light in the woods cover and bright light in the field.

The 300/4 may be too long to hand-hold in the woods at f4. Longer than 200mm so needs a faster speed, and slower at f4. And there are some bargain 200/2.8s to be had.

I need to keep an eye on the market in terms of re-sale of the 400/5.6 & 500/8 just in case its not right.

400/4.5 is probably out of budget. And would mean this lens and this lens ONLY. Doesn't cover me for the lower light in woodland stuff,

The Sig 70-200 & converters would of course be sold.

Having seen the Tamron 200-500 extended I think this one is OUT in terms of hand-holding! And also out in terms of 200mm low light usage. Likewise Sig 50-500 (the Bigma!).

I !think! I need a two lens set to cover (given the last two years shooting)

a: low-lightin the woods

b: bright-light in the field

I'll see if I can link to an image, for the in woods low light stuff - a shot from last season.

Nothing published yet, will link when something is ready/live. But the 24-105 gets my vote and will join me in India for these reasons:

- better contrast (more contrast)

- the extra 20mm

- so little difference in sharpness.

But the 24-85 is sharper at centre & edge from 50->. The 24-105 is sharper from 24-35. The difference in sharpness is visble on 100% crops. But hey, that isn't real life, and the extra sharpness is so slight as to make no real difference in use. Look at on-screen 50% crops and the pics are the same.

Yep the 24-85 has a little more distortion (as we've all read). And in comparison shot the 17-35/2.8-4 is about the same in terms of sharpness, it maybe beats them both at 35mm! At 24mm I reckon the 24-105 is the winner. (I now have a 24/2.8 prime on its way to me too!!)

The 50/1.4 is sharper than both the 24-85 & 24-105. Only just though. Lining up against the 24/2.8 will be fun. 35mm in film days was my fav walk about lens in a prime, so the 24/2.8 may be my back to basics shooter/keeper?

Conclusion: Both the 24-85 & 24-105 are fine lenses. It was very tough deciding which one to keep. The 24-105 will come to India for a work trip (I hope i can get out for a few frames), and then the 24-85 hits eBay or gets posted on my website on a for sale page, or off to shop for comission sale. I should lose VERY little cash moving that one on. And it was well worth putting them up against each other. At least I now Know from my own pics that there is nothing to chose between them. If i can't sell it for a decent price, then maybe I'll put the 24-105 up for sale instead.

Confirming, as already stated elsewhere. The 24-85 is sharper but distorts more. But the 24-105 isn't exactly soft! And that extra 20mm make it worth the 15% in used price

PS Ans to a Q in another thread, can't find it though: - my 50/1.4 focused at f1.4 is sharp (just, not a lot of depth at 1.4!)

Hi there, I've looked here: http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?

lang=e#zooms

And there appears to be several versions of the 100-300 f4.5-5.6

APO. Could someone shed some light on why, and which ones are

good/bad - if any?

And any thoughts on the 100-400 would be much appreciated. Say up

against a Sig 70-200 EX with 1.4x. Or compared to the Sig 50-500 or

new Tamron 200-500

The 100-300 does offer a great change in range compared to the 70-

200 with converter. But the 100-400 may be a better wild-life lens

because you can forget about the converter. Although the f2.8 is

useful in low light, which I sometimes need in woodland.

Subject: deer, woodland (70-200/2.8) & field (need something longer

than 200mm, 400 is ideal).

Many thanks

Thank you. I was also reading reviews of the 50-500. I can't quite understand why anyone would need this lens to go all the way back to 50mm! But you hint that this is better than the 400/5.6 in several aspects. I don't mind spending the cash. If its a better AF and sharper images then the diff between a used 400/5.6 and a new/used 50-500 would be worth while. I need a 200/2.8 (got that already in my Sig 70-200/2.8), but then for the sunnier or bright days shooting wildlife I need at least a 400mm, 500mm would be a bonus. But there have been times when I had my ex-Canon 200 prime with 2x converter and was too close. So I am begining to realise the point of zooms! A little late I guess.

So the 50-500 is worth a look. This is for dSLR and I am happy with my ISO 100-400 results. 800 is okay if the subject fills the frame. 1600/3200 are only to be used in complete emergency! Or when 'recording' some behaviour.

Thanks

.... just as an aside. I don't own any manual focus kit. have owned minolta fit AF lenses since Jan-05.

Now I understand other people's comments about the photo.net forum being an unfriendly place! Thanks to several of you for proving this point! There are ways of disagreeing, and then there is the response I got.

Apart from using Voigtländer kit a few years ago I can't see the benefit (myself) of using manual focus. Apart from macro lenses of course.

But I still think that there is room for a dSLR from one of the marques in manual focus mount. Maybe Canon or Nikon? For the people (not including myself) who have a collection of usable manual focus primes.

Hey - it was just an idea, I'll keep them to myself or post them elsewhere in the future. I now fully understand that I should be asking how mnay aperture blades lens x has - Questions that have a definate answer, not open stuff. Don't care if I'm wrong, was just a thought! Hey even Epson brought out a manual focus body for rangefinders.

Hi there.

Could anyone point me in the direction of some in-depth reviews of

any of these lenses. Any comparison stuff. This is to go up

against a Sig 70-200/2.8 with 1.4x. The 2x isn't really up to the

quality I want. And I need a 400/500mm lens. So cheating and using

a 2x isn't the way to go.

I'm urging on the side of Sig 400/5.6 APO Macro (the latest

version). Anyone used the 400/5.6 and 500/7.2?

The two zooms? 135-400 and 170-500 (and Tamron also do this one as

a 200-500!). I don't quite understand the 50-500, I know its EX so

has a nicer finish. But I'm only really planning on using these in

their long end. Not just at the max, sometimes I have to pull back,

so I'm looking for a 300-500 lens really

If the 400/5.6 stands out as the clear winner then that's all I nned

to know.

I'm about to get a Minolta 200/2.8 prime for low light in-the-woods

work, so the longer lens is for sunny days in the field.

Subject: mainly roe deer (half size of a horse I guess), and some

rabbits. Pretty much that's it.

Ta

PS - KonicaMinolta 7D. So I'm looking independant here, the Min

400/4.5 is a little out of budget and the 300/4 not long enough, and

I'm already set on a 200/2.8 anyways. I've heard that most 300/2.8

aren't up to much (too pricey too!)

Firmware upgrade isn't a problem. It takes just a few mins. All makers do it: Sigma/Canon/Nikon/Kodak/Fuji for their dSLRs I'm sure?!

The firmware for the 7D VASTLY improved card write speeds. I guess new from factory unit will already have v1.1 installed? The only other thing I think it did was change a menu item from white to red! A tweak that one. The card write speeds was needed. Super now.

Not all KM7D will have back/front focus probs. Try one instore and shoot a few frames at high res jpg. take the pics home and see if its all okay. If it is okay, go back and get it (make a note of the serial number, or get them to get an image onto PC in store and get in there at 100% to check). Take you 50/1.4 or 50/1.7 in there to do it.

PS - I am glad to see that the other reply in here is from someone else who has jumped ship, from Nikon! You just DON'T change make when you are heavily invested unless something extra-ordinary comes along. I mean 17 years of Canon. All gone. KM7D. And I'd only handled it for 5 mins (decision as good as made before I handled it).

Canon & Nikon have lead the SLR and lens field in terms of volume and market share for years. Esp. in the AF times. I have seen several threads where people have moved from Canon/Nikon to KonicaMinolta just becuase of the 7D. We all know that there will be some sweet lenses in the line-up to chose from, all marques have some good optics (and they all have some lemons)

It must have been tough for Minolta AF users to NOT jump to Canon or Nikon to get a dSLR. And I'm sure loads have jumped because KM took so long to join the game.

It was worth the wait.

PPS - The KonicaMinolta 7D was the first/only Minolta camera I have even handled

I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THIS CAMERA!!!!

Well, I dumped all my Canon stuff to join the KM camp. I'd used Canon kit from 1987-2004. manual focus, then AF. I was already digital, migrated from EOS 600 then EOS 50 (Elan II) then EOs-1, then EOS 33 (Elan 7) to the D30. Actually had 2x D30s and a bunch of primes including 200/2.8 II L. I was just about to dump the 2x D30s and the 200/2.8 L and get a 10D (they went real cheap new when the 20D was launched) and get a 300/4 IS. Seeing as the D30s and the 200L was most of the cash I had invested in Canon (+ Tk17/C24/Sig50 primes). Previously owned Canon primes: 20/24/28/28/35/50/50/85/100/135/200 and zoom: 28-135IS/24-85

I figured that the KM7D was the better bet.

Better than doing to the 10D & 300/4 IS because ALL lenses I got would be AS. I could get a Sig 70-200/2.8 and it would be an AS. A huge saving on the Canon 70-200 IS. And/or a 200, 300, 400 prime. Even the 500/8 mirror is AS with a 7D!

And i wanted the spot meter.

AND I nearly jumped ship in the film days when I saw the layout of the film Dynax 9. (see the Canon EOS 50 for layout as near to dynax 9 as I could get, I actually down graded from a EOS-1 to EOS 33 becuase I missed the EOS 50s layout). That was one tough day in the camera shop. I saw the Dynax 9's layout and though, shit! This is the perfect layout of a camera.

OKay I wasn't really comparing a 10D to a 7D. I knew that 6 mega pixels was plenty, so there was no need to go the extra for the 20D. For the cost of what I was about to sell and then buy (10D and 300/4 IS) the KonicaMinolta looked really attractive. No regrets. i will probably add a 200/2.8 prime, a Sig 400/5.6 prime and the Sig 70-200/2.8 I already have before the end of the year. the 200 & 400 primes will be for my wildlife stuff and you just can't get a 200/2.8 (low light lens) or 400/5.6 sunny days lens in IS! If you could it would cost ?????? lots!!

I guess KM could bring out a 5D without AS and without the spot, and not the same grade of plastics/build to bring a really low price alterative to the Canikon camp. FOR the Minolta Af fans that have been waiting. the ones who don't want the 7Ds spec.

There must be 9 users who have moved to the 7D, and maybe 7 users gone to the 7D, but I can understand why a film 5 user would see the 7D as a: lets wait to the 5D arrives

In fact I see the 5D coming before the 9D. It makes sense, KM would sell a lot more 5D than 9D. And maybe the 12mega chip needed for a 9D isn't ready yet?

|dcap|

PS - I've tried 100 times to rename myself from "C L" but can't edit the fields, so I've re-invented myself as the name of my website. I'm the loon that got the 24-85 & 24-105 because I couldn't decide which to get. And the Sig 70-200/2.8 revu was mine too.

You know how (Konica)Minolta like to do things differently. AS on

body rather than in lens for example.

Wouldn't it be amazing if they came out with the first dSLR that was

manual focus!? I bet there would be a load of old MD lenses snapped

up quick sharp!

Just a thought ...