emaxxman

Tom,

 

That may have been me...although it was about 2 years ago. I do have problems with my Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 DF EX's DOF readout on my Maxxum 7. I was getting readouts where the DOF started behind the camera and readings such as the focus point being 35 feet in front of me when the camera was actually focused on something only 5 feet in front of me.

 

After seeing this erroneous readout, I took the camera and lens to a local store. They kindly let me compare to another Maxxum 7 with a Maxxum 24-105 lens. What happened next was totally weird. The 24-105 on my camera produced similar weird DOF readings. My Sigma on the store's M7 produced the same weird readings.

 

Either both M7's were defective or both lenses are defective in some manner. We couldn't figure it out.

 

Since then, I have purchased the 100-300 APO D and 100mm macro D. The readings they have produced are much more logical. In the end, I guess the Sigma does give some weird readings. However, since I rarely use it for macro (where I would want the DOF reading), I've kept the lens. Flash photography doesn't seem affected. In fact, some of my best flash shots (main and fill light) were taken with the Sigma, M7, and 5600hs flash.

Check out the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 HSM EX model. It's internal focusing and zooming. Plus it has HSM (Sigma's version of USM). It's optics are reputed to be just as good as the Canon L version. If I couldn't afford the f/2.8 version, I would go for Canon's f/4 version.

 

The Tokina, while reputed to be good, is quite old in technology. It won't give you HSM either.

I buy Hoya SMC or MC multicoated filters. I personally find no noticeable difference between images with and without them. My images are more affected by my skill and the lab operator printing them; not the filters. I guess if I was shooting digital or slides, I would notice the difference more.

 

At 72mm, you're going to find that filters will be expensive to extremely expensive. Then again, it's not much consdering the cost of the lens you're putting it on. I wouldn't mind having that lens but can really justify its cost.

 

Enjoy the lens for me...I'd love to see some images when you can post them.

I use Reala exclusively until hand holding becomes an issue. At that point, I'll switch to NPZ. Reala is a low contrast film with strong, but still natural, colors. It is great for sunny conditions and flash use. Printed on the Frontier, it's the best 100 speed film around in my opinion.

IMO, they would be better off producing a consumer level DSLR like the D70 and Digital Rebel. Developing a pro level spec has to be a tough market to break into and make your money back.

For Tamron, look for the Minotal AF-D designation for the mount. I think for Sigma it's either Maxxum D or Minolta D.

 

Read this link for more info on the Tamron. It appears that the newer Tamron lenses in Japan have the AF-D designation whereas the US site doesn't give this designation. Not sure what to make of it.

 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Minolta/message/96762

The standard alignment is that a circular aperture creates more pleasing bokeh; the out of focus areas in an image. There are some great discussions ( of which I would do no justice to describe them here) in the archives. Just do a search.

 

The other difference I believe is that the new version has a bayonet style hood. The 49mm version has a built in hood that extends/retracts into the body. I have the older version of the 50mm f/1.7 lens. I will say that the built in hood is worthless. As the lens focuses, it moves the hood in and out. That could be from wear and tear. It gets to a point where the hood is completely retracted. Instead of using it, I bought a 49mm screw in hood as a replacement. The newer f/1.7 lens has a hood that extends and locks in place. Much better design. Check to see if the 50mm f/1.4 49mm thread version has a locking hood design or not. If it doesn't, don't count on using the hood.

I would go with the 3600hs flash. The flash is a complex electronic unit that needs to be 100% dead on compatible with the camera. You're not guaranteed that with the 3rd party flashes.

 

The Sigma supposedly supports ADI but apparently not very well. Bill Tuthill bought one if I remember correctly. I don't think it worked very well for him.

One thing to note is that the distance scale on newer zoom lenses is not guaranteed to be for all focal lengths.

Conventional wisdom says there are really no bad macro lenses. The Tamron and Maxxum are incredible lenses. The Sigma is a good lens as well but has the a reputation for have the least favorable bokeh (out of focus blur).

 

The EX model is probably more durable than the Tamron but not as durable as the Maxxum. The Sigma and Tamron will also have much better ergonomics over the non-"D" version of the Maxxum because of their wider focusing rings. The focusing ring on the non-D Maxxum is just way too skinny. The Maxxum is a metal barrel though so it is more durable...not that the Sigma or Tamron isn't. The Maxxum has the highest rating at Photodo.com of any brand macro lens.

 

I'll add that in the end, I bought a new Maxxum D 100mm macro lens. I bought it for the wider focusing ring, metal construction, and D support. It's been worth every penny.

 

If I had to pick from the choices you have, I would go for the Tamron 90 (there's also a new DI version). It has better ergonomics than the non-D Maxxum, is in your price range, and has a reputation for great optics. Check the review site here for a comparison of the Tamron with the Canon USM 100mm macro.

This is a good site. Just use the search feature.

 

www.photographyreview.com

www.photodo.com

Buying used doesn't eliminate the D lens. I've seen a few of them used and for sale.

 

I bought the D lens about two years ago. It's a great lens. Tack sharp. I bought the D lens for it's ergonomics. The narrow focusing ring of the non-D didn't feel comfortable to me. This is where the Tamron will have an advantage over the non-D lens. I did buy the Maxxum also for it's metal barrel (again ergonomics). The Sigma and Tamron, while great lenses, didn't feel as good in my hands.

 

In the end, I chose the D lens for the wider focusing ring, non-rotating focusing ring, and the added features of the D lens (ADI metering and the great DOF scale on the Maxxum 7).

The 7 is currently their flagship product IMO. Discontinuing that would be amazingly stupid.

 

It's possible that Minolta has slowed down production but stopping completely sounds far fetched.

Here is a review of the lens in a Nikon mount. I haven't seen a review anywhere of the Minolta mount. I'm sure the performance is the same though.

 

The reviewer seems to like the lens and thinks the flaws that it had are well within acceptable ranges given its price.

 

http://www.bythom.com/1530lens.htm

You tried them both already. Is the increase in sharpness and better color worth the extra cost to you? You'll have to decide that.

 

The Canon is also better built and probably faster focusing due to the USM. Is that also worth the extra cost to you?

It's a great lens even for the $599 that I paid for it a year ago.

One more thing to consider is if you're using flash. When using flash, you don't really need to the filter. The cool light from the flash will balance out the extra warmness of the ambient lighting.

 

The only caveat to this is if you use bounced flash. Bounced flash tends to take on some of the color of the surface you're bouncing off of. For example, a yellow ceiling or wall may impart some yellow into the light vs a white ceiling.

 

I routinely use Superia-Reala ( a daylight film) with flash indoors and there is never any of that color cast in the prints. Part of that is due to the flash and part of that is the printer/photolab correcting the color.

The Sigma EX converters won't work with it.

 

You can try a Tamron, older Sigma, or Kenko converter. Or you can put an extension tube in between the converter and the lens. The converter may work then.

The 28-105 has a reputation for not being that sharp. I can't confirm though. I don't have either one.

I've noticed that the Noritsu images may give the impression that they are sharper. However, I think that is due to a higher contrast level.

 

One thing is for sure. I have received prints from both machines of the same negative and the Frontier is definitely more vibrant and saturated without being higher in contrast. I prefer the Frontier prints over the Noritsu.

 

It's a shame though. My Noritsu lab offers full 12x18 prints. I can only get 8x10's from my Frontier lab.

I don't know if they're "strong" photos but you can take a look at the few that I have posted. There isn't a huge amount of photos (I hate scanning film). I'm sure once I get the digital Maxxum 7, I'll be posting more.

The Sigma has a reputation for being a great lens. The Sigma is also internal focusing and zooming (length doesn't change). The Minolta is not. The Minolta has top notched optics though.

 

If you really want the Minolta, check out www.keh.com for a used one. I've bought lenses from them and their "excellent" rated lenses are in awesome condition.

+r/rw's are better for data storage because they can be used in multi session burning. -r/rw's are better for burning video because they tend to be compatible with more home theatre dvd systems.

 

Personally, I haven't seen a difference in quality over either format. I have the Sony burner which can burn all four formats. I tend to burn -r's for video and use +rw's for data storage.

I prefer Minolta simply because that's how I've known it, I'm used to saying it that way, and Konica Minolta doesn't roll off the tongue as easy yet.

 

Also, if Minolta doesn't come thru with a competitively priced and well featured Maxxum 7D, I'll be preferring Canon as a brand name. :-)

On an off topic note, I would prefer that it was 1.5x rather than the 1.0 that the focal reducer would give. I tend to shot in the tele mode more. Having a 200mm prime with a 1.4x tc, a 1.5x crop, and AS would be kick ass! That would be one of the lightest 400+mm f/4 setup around.

 

Unless I need the distorting perspective of a wide angle lens, I can always just digitally stitch two images together.