Author Topic: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.  (Read 11774 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline swanseadave

  • Regular Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 203
  • Gender: Male
  • Married,retired,two sons,one grandson
    • swanseadave
    • Flickr
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2015, 01:08:09 PM »
I recently picked up a mint Minolta 35-70 f4 for just £19 from Ffordes.
It`s really sharp wide open and makes a good walk about lens on my Dynax cameras.


I find the "macro" function useful though at only 1-4 it`s not really macro.Good for flowers.
Sony A350
Dynax40
Minolta28-100
Minolta50 1.7
Minolta50 2.8 macro
Konica Minolta 18-70
Minolta 35-70 f4
Minolta70-210 3.5-4.5
Sony HVL F36AM flash
Olympus XA/A11
Ricoh CX1
Canon A530
Pentax Optio Zoom140(35mm)
Fujica X outfit,now unuseable.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #16 on: August 26, 2015, 04:58:31 PM »
I have 2 (or is it 3), Minolta lens`, and they are all primes.

I have the 500mm a/f mirror lens which is great, although it does have its limits, but will do until I can get something like the Tamron 150-600, or, dare I say it, the Sony 500mm f4.

the other two are the Minolta 135mm f2.8 pocket rocket, a  true legendary lens, not much bigger than a 50mm and is stunning, even wide open.

last but not least, the 50mm f1.4, badged as a Sony, but maybe in reality a Minolta, a cracking lens at f2, but sharp enough in the centre at 1.4.

you can find images from these on my flickr site

A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline Ferin

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #17 on: August 26, 2015, 09:13:34 PM »
Therefore we could assume the Sigma 10-20 will be the same/similar to a 15-30 FF lens.
Does that have you confused? If not, can you explain it to me? :D
No, it doesn't confuse me, i know what's the difference between Full Frame and APS-c.
Just for some reason i assumed that Minolta lenses are APS-c. Don't know why. i wasn't
thinking about that since they worked very well with my A290 and do so with A77II.

I'll try to explain to proof i know the difference ; ).
FF sensor is bigger than APS-c one so spot of light needs to cover bigger area
in order to avoid vignetting, but on other hand the same lens "waists" a lot of
light in case of APS-c sensor because some of light is cast on the interior of camera
encompassing sensor. The cure for that would be moving an APS-c sensor forward.
Because of above, field of vision is smaller in APS-c than in FF cameras.

Just to be sure, is Sigma 10-20 an APS-c lens?
I need to more carefully look up lens specs in the future.

Quote from: swanseadave
I recently picked up a mint Minolta 35-70 f4 for just £19 from Ffordes.
That's a bargain and thanks
for letting me know about that shop, i didn't know it. They have quite good prices in sale - department.

@Gordon McGeachie
Yes, Minolta 135mm F2.8 seems to be very good, but on my APS-C it gonna be more than 200mm...
I really like prime lenses ever since i got my 50mm F1.4 :D.
Btw. very nice pictures Gordon, like them very much.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2015, 09:25:17 PM »
@Ferin

Sigma DC lens` are for crop sensors, DG are for full frame so can also be used for cropped sensor, DN ones are for micro 4/3

Tamron DI ii lenses are for cropped sensor, DI are for full frame and cropped sensors.

Tamron DI iii are for micro 4/3 sensors

hope this helps with any future queeries
A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2015, 12:50:28 AM »
There are two Sigma 10-20 lenses. Both are for APS-C sensors. If you decide to get one, make sure you get the Sony mount version. Obvious I know, but I believe in covering my rear. :)

The oldest version is the Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM ?. For a review, look here.

The newer version is the Sigma 10-20mm F/3.5 EX DC HSM. For a review, see here.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 08:12:59 PM by AScot »
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline Ferin

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #20 on: August 28, 2015, 05:35:37 PM »
Thank you very much  Gordon McGeachie and Ascot. That will be helpful in the future.

I've got one more question regarding ultra wide lenses. Although would be nice to have
one of Sigmas mentioned above, i was thinking about getting something cheaper,
it can be with manual focus and even with manual aperture ring, as long as i can set it
to desired value. It seems that nowadays we can buy adapters for many type of mounts.
I used to have with my A290 adapter that allowed me to use K-Mount Luxon MC 80-200mm.
It was all manual in that case, but i don't mind, because i want to use ultra wide lens on tripod
only/mainly.

Any chance you have any recommendations? Only thing that i want is decent IQ.

I know that there may not be anything suiting my needs since all film interchangeable lens cameras
were full frame, were they?

Ahh, one (really) last thing, when using FF lens on APS-C body apart from changing focal length,
does it change minimum focusing distance too, and if so what's the ratio? Just out of curiosity.

Offline Gordon McGeachie

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 4427
  • Gender: Male
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #21 on: August 28, 2015, 10:03:53 PM »
if you want to stay with A mount lens` and have manual focus, then why not try the Samyang range

http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-lenses.html

they have great reviews

they have an 8mm f3.5 lens for £199 for example

A700, VG-C70AM, Sony 50mm f1.4,SAL1870, Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G SSM, A350,A550,3600HSD, Minolta 135, 500 Reflex, Sigma 10-20,  Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 XR Di-II LD ASP IF, Sigma 400, Tamron 90, ,Nissin Di866 MKII,Interfit 150w 2 head kit, Giottos MTL9351B/MH5011
My flickr site is here http://www.flickr.com/photos/35699306@N04/

Offline Ferin

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #22 on: August 29, 2015, 06:47:52 PM »
if you want to stay with A mount lens` and have manual focus, then why not try the Samyang range

http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-lenses.html

they have great reviews

they have an 8mm f3.5 lens for £199 for example
Yes, Samyang lenses look like good value for many. But I read some reviews first.
Thanks for link.

Offline Ferin

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2015, 10:06:10 PM »
Hello again guys,

Recently i bought of ebay minolta 28-135 secret handshake, but i'm disappointed with picture quality it takes.
This lens gets good reviews so i only my does not perform very well. Even before i've taken first picture
i've noticed in EVF that picture is a bit hazy. I was looking carefully inside it but it's looking nice and clean.
Below i attach three images of the moon to demonstrate difference between Minolta 50mm F1.4, 28-135 S-H
and Tamron 18-270. All at roughly 75mm F4-5.6. Pictures are cropped of course. It's obvious that something
is wrong with that lens, i was expecting it to be better than Tamron.






« Last Edit: November 24, 2015, 11:50:37 PM by AScot »

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #24 on: November 25, 2015, 01:22:54 AM »
There certainly is something wrong with that lens. That is why I advised you in a previous post "Be warned that due to it's age (1985) it is advisable to buy from a dealer to avoid getting a hard used/damaged version."

From the photos you supply, it is difficult/impossible to tell what the problem is.

1)  If you are sure the lens elements are clean inside by looking from both front and rear with the iris diaphragm held fully open and the lens at 210mm, then we can rule out mould.

2) Looking at the front lens element with the lens at 210mm, in a moderately dark area with a light or flash light held at an angle, do you see approximately seven coloured reflections, going from green to red and back to green. That is the reflections from the element coatings and is typical for early Minolta lenses. Each reflection should be a small sharp spot with a light halo around.

3) While checking (2) above, you will also see the diaphragm in an almost closed position. Look at it from front and rear, do you see any oil or dirt on the iris?

4) Take photos of a static subject at varying focal lengths. First try with the camera Set to A and auto focus then try again using manual focus.  Is the subject sharp or out of focus?

5) Does the Macro feature work in manual or auto mode?

6) When you turn the small focus ring is it smooth and easy to turn or stiff or jerky?

7) When you turn the big zoom ring from 28mm to 135mm does it move out smoothly and easy to turn or stiff or jerky? How is it when zooming back to 28mm?

If you can answer these questions and possibly provide a few photos, we may be able to tell/guess what is wrong. A picture of the moon is not the best to provide us with information. Too many variables including user error. :D

If it is a broken lens then claim through eBay or PayPal as soon as possible and you will have to send the lens back.

Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline Ferin

  • Enthusiast
  • *
  • Posts: 22
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #25 on: November 25, 2015, 05:35:10 PM »
Thank you Ascot for you reply and really good tutorial how to check lenses, i save it for future reference.
I took some photos of the inside of that lens, and it's clearly visible that at least one element has something
on it. Look yourself and tell me what you think. I think i need to send it back to seller. Photos are smaller
than original and resolution is quite low but even though it's easily visible, that thing, i'm not sure if that's
mould, very fine dust or something else.

From mechanical point of view lens works very well but i never had one of these before so it's hard to say
(I had 28-85mm but it's not the same). From the outside it looks very well either, that's why i decided to
bid on it. Well i bet that's the risk of buying remotely.

I wish we have on this forums place where we can sell and buy all photography related stuff.






« Last Edit: November 25, 2015, 06:01:23 PM by Ferin »

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #26 on: November 26, 2015, 01:29:29 AM »
I'm not sure if that is mould (lens fungus) or not. The large white spot in the 3rd photo looks like a reflection of the light you used but the white powdery stuff around it certainly looks like mould. Here is a macro photo of mould on a lens. It normally appears on the inside of a lens and entails dismantling the lens. Even then it is difficult to remove and some moulds excrete an acid substance that etches the glass.

We do have a photography equipment for sale thread here. You must have 25 posts minimum to list an item and conform with the posting for sale rules. No mouldy lenses allowed. :(
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline CHOLLY

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1457
  • Gender: Male
  • Relaxing On The Beach....
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #27 on: November 26, 2015, 02:07:11 PM »
I have the Sony 16-80 ZA which is a DT lens. All DT lenses are optimized for APS-C cameras and produce an image circle large enough to cover an APS-C size sensor only. If used on a Full frame camera the DT lens photo will be cropped to the APS-C size, using only 50% of the sensor. If used on a APS-C camera at 16mm it will produce the same Aspect ratio as a 24mm lens on a FF camera. Therefore we could assume the Sigma 10-20 will be the same/similar to a 15-30 FF lens.
Does that have you confused? If not, can you explain it to me? :D

I have both the Minolta 28-135 (complete with it's idiosyncrasies) and the 70-210 f4. They appear to be about the same weight with the 70-210 being about 33% longer. The 28-135 increases in length when zooming with no front element rotation when focusing, a very good feature (the focus ring is located close to the mount, awkward when manual focusing). The 70-210 increases considerably in length when focusing and the front element rotates (not good). Quality wise I would say the 28-135 has it, both in build and optically, although I admit that is a very subjective statement. I seldom use the 70-210, but that may be because I own the Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS APO, a superb lens. For you the 70-210 would be a good buy as it is cheaper ($150 vs $350 approx), there are lots more out there and it is rated quite highly, but only If you get a good one. :| Both are Full Frame lenses and subject to the 1.5 crop factor, as are all Minolta's. For me the crop factor is of no consequence, you quickly get used to it.


Addendum: IF you acquire a Minolta 70-210mm lens, you want the Minolta Maxxum AF 70-210mm f/4... the original Beercan lens... which is internal focusing and has a constant aperture.

It is an outstanding performer provided you avoid the low angle lighting conditions that result in strong chromatic aberration in lenses of this vintage. ;)
There are people who actually think LENS stabilization is better than sensor shifting!

Offline AScot

  • Administrator
  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • ******
  • Posts: 6042
  • Gender: Male
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #28 on: November 26, 2015, 08:06:20 PM »
Cholly, the Minolta Maxxum (or Dynax) 70-210mm f4 is not internal focusing, it is internal zooming. When you turn the narrow focusing ring at the front from infinity to 1.1m, the lens increases in length by about 1". When you turn the wide rubber zooming ring from 70mm to 210mm, the lens does not increase in length, therefore internal zooming. The 28-135mm is the opposite, internal focusing, and when zoomed it increases in size to the same length as the 70-210mm. Internal focusing is the preferred option by most photographers.

There is no question that the 70-210 is an outstanding performer, although I personally believe the 28-135mm f4-f4.5 is a little better in sharpness, plus it is true internal focusing. That is an objective statement as I own good versions of both lenses, and can compare then directly. Also it is supported by the price difference of each lens but does not take into account the possibility that I may have a less than perfect 70-210mm. I don't think I do.

I think, but I'm not certain that I have covered your Addendum concerns. Please correct me if I am wrong. The CA aberrations are indeed a problem with older lenses generally and with newer lenses to a lesser extent. However all these CA aberrations can be corrected in post processing.

 
« Last Edit: November 26, 2015, 08:09:07 PM by AScot »
Sony A7, A850, A77, A700 || Sony>> 70-300G, 28-75 f2.8 SAM, 16-80CZ, 50 f1.4, FE 28-70 OSS, FE 24-70CZ f4 OSS, LA-EA4 || Minolta>> 300 f4 G HS, 200 f2.8 G HS, 100 f2.8 (D) Macro, 50 f1.7, 28 f2.8, 28-135 f4-4.5, 70-210 f4, 500 f8 Reflex, TC x 1.4 HS, TC x 2 HS. || Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2. || Tamron SP 24-135.

Offline CHOLLY

  • Friend of DynaxDigital
  • *****
  • Posts: 1457
  • Gender: Male
  • Relaxing On The Beach....
Re: Minolta lenses - some advice needed.
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2015, 10:33:41 PM »
You did, and thank you for that.

Charles, my nephew and I did a little experiment yesterday as we sat around digesting our Thanksgiving meal. When he asked about the quality of the 28-135mm... a 30 year old lens and 31 year old design... I demonstrated both it's strengths and weaknesses.

Super sharp... ESPECIALLY on an APS-C camera. But a real problem with ghosting and flare with the light source in the center of the image. When I pointed the lens directly at a light source he could see the multiple "reflections" in the image and even on the camera LCD with both the 28-135mm and the 70-210mm. When I switched to the 24-70mm CZ and even the 16-50mm the difference was CLEAR, as in, with that light source, at those distances, there was very minimal or zero "reflections" visible in the image or on the LCD screen.

So even though older glass is optically EXCELLENT, the coatings of modern lenses give them superior anti-flare and ghosting characteristics.

It should be noted here that he was amazed at the image quality of the older lenses, ESPECIALLY considering the relative cost of those lenses in comparison to the newer lenses. ;)
There are people who actually think LENS stabilization is better than sensor shifting!