How Good are Minolta A-mount Lenses?

[FilmOnly]

I have had good expereinces with MC and MD lenses, but know little about Minolta's A mount lenses. From what I can tell, they look like plasticky types. Do they feature an aperture ring? How does the glass compare to MC and MD glass? I welcome any comments, as I am considering a Maxxum 7 or 9. The 9 looks like a fabulous AF body--a real heavyweight. I wonder if the 7 is just another plastic-cam?...

 

[Wade D]

The only A mount lens I have is a Tamron 28-200 AF which came with my Maxxum 7000 body. It does have a lot of plastic but zooms and focuses very smoothly. Seems to be nice and sharp throughout the zoom range. I've had it for a little over a year and have had no problems with it.

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, Wade...any other views--especially in regard to Minolta AF primes?

 

[jtzordon]

I'm a big fan. I have the 24mm 2.8 and 50mm 1.8. You can check out some shots here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/jasonthomas/page11/. I believe most of these were with the 24mm. I have lovely 12x18 prints from this lens on a Maxxum 5D hanging up at my house. The 50mm is noticeably sharper. I did have the Sigma 24mm f1.8 at one point. It actually focused better on my 5D than the Minolta prime, and might have been a tad sharper. It was so big, though!

 

[jtzordon]

Oh, and though the outside is plastic, they are very solid lenses. Yes, they have been dropped, but not thrown. My 5D was dropped as well from about 3 feet. No problems.

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks...

Did you mean the 50/1.7 lens? I do not think Minolta made an AF 50/1.8.

Does your 50 have an aperture ring?

 

[David Brown]

Does your 50 have an aperture ring?

My 50, 28, 135, the 28-80 zoom, the Tamron zoom - none have "aperture rings". You set the aperture, as well as the shutter speed on the camera body.

I wonder if the 7 is just another plastic-cam?...

http://photo.net/equipment/minolta/maxxum7

 

[FilmOnly]

I gather the lenses can be manually focused? How good is the MF with these lenses?

 

[FilmOnly]

Any other opinions out there--especially from Minolta AF users?

 

[chorleyjeff]

Any other opinions out there--especially from Minolta AF users?

Yes.
My 28-135 f4-f4.5 is a wonderfully sharp and contrasty lens, but weighs a ton, will not focus closer than about 5ft and the front element is a whopping 72mm. With this lens you suffer for the quality but it is worth it. It has rear element focussing so has quick responsive focussing.
Cheers
Jeff

 

[Antonio A.]

I have a few Minolta AF lenses. the 28mm, 50mm, 28-85, 28-105, 70-210. no aperture ring on ANY of them.
I think the AF is fast enough for what i shoot. Manually their just as good, because the minolta viewfinders are very bright, much brighter than my 35mm nikon F80.
I can't really compare them to the rokkor lenses. i only have one rokkor 50mm. which i think is amazing.

I can also say that i like the quality of the minolta lenses (1st gen AF) compared to the lens kits that came with nikon d80.

 

[jtzordon]

Sorry I meant 50mm 1.4. Manually focusing the older AF lenses is a pia. Small focus ring on the end of the lens. It works, but it's definitely not a pleasure.

 

[jtzordon]

VF are usually excellent, though.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate the information. If I buy a 7 or 9, I will be after a 1st gen. 50/1.4. It looks like these are a bit harder to find. The 50/1.7s seem to be everywhere.

Greg Davis: How do you like your 9? It would seem to be quite a camera.

 

[jtzordon]

Forgot to add that I had a Maxxum 7 once. It was the most enjoyable camera I've used, on par with the Bronica RF I just recently purchase. Never held a 9, but the 7 is more than just a plasticy camera. It's very nice.

 

[FilmOnly]

I appreciate the input on the 7. I am bouncing back and forth between the 7 and 9. I tend to favor the 9, though. It looks like one of the most solidly built cameras ever.

 

[polyglot]

I have a whole bunch: 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 28/2, (Sony) 50/1.4, 85/1.4. All of those have metal bodies except the 50, and you can get that in metal if you buy an original Minolta one. However, the plastic version is really quite rugged and is optically as good if not better than the metal 50/1.4: it has a circular aperture and a changed rear element that will not cause a central reflection-spot on a digital sensor.

Minolta made a 50/1.4 and 50/1.7, Sony now makes a 50/1.8 but it covers only APS-C so is not particularly useful on film.

You can get AF Zeiss lenses in M-AF mount: 85/1.4, 135/1.8, 16-35/2.8 SSM and 24-70/2.8 SSM. They are as good as or better than any of the Canon and Nikon equivalents, though you will need a 5, 7 or upgraded 9 body to use SSM focusing. The 135/2.8 T/4.5 STF lens has the best bokeh of any lens ever made, due to its apodisation filter. You will not get it in any other mount.

Like any lens brand, there are good ones and bad ones, and you must read reviews/tests to figure them out. By far the best source is the dyxum lens database, which has every Minolta, Sony and 3rd-party M-AF lens. There are individual reviews as well as sample-image threads. Though dyxum is a digital forum, it is very film friendly - I was first coaxed into B&W film by one of the moderators there!

They do not have an aperture ring because the aperture is controlled by the body via a lever in the mount. Manual focusing is not viscously damped like a classic MF 35mm lens (eg Takumars) because the AF motors need to drive them quickly, but they are quite easy to focus accurately manually.

 

[Ralph Javins]

Good morning, FilmOnly;

You asked for Minolta AF users. I also have a Minolta Maxxum 9 with the SSM upgrade. The cost of the upgrade at Runtime exceeded my cost of the Maxxum 9 with the shipping and everything else included. I have a 24, 50, 85, 100, 200, and 500mm lenses. Also there are some zooms. Not as much as my MF Minolta lenses, but a good usable selection.

There is no aperture ring on the AF lenses; that is done through the camera. So far, I have been reasonably happy with the lenses. You can manually focus with that little thin ring out on the front of the lens, but it is easier to just let the camera do it. The focusing speed is actually pretty good. All of that plastic does make it lighter so it can be faster when focusing. Make sure that the spot that is selected for focusing is also on your subject. So far, the durability of those high polymer plastics has not been a problem.

The Maxxum 9 will do just about anything you can think of having it do. Except feel as light as an X-700 after you have carried it around for three hours. It is a quite durable camera mechanically. I like the idea of the 1/12,000 second shutter speed, and I have tried it, but I have not yet used it. The 1/300 second X sync is handy. If you have any experience with one of the modern DSLR cameras, the Maxxum 9 will feel very familiar.

 

[FilmOnly]

I thank you, Ralph.

Just to be clear, please let me explain why I ask about manual focusing with AF lenses. In some circumstances, a shot is improved by focusing via the DOF scale on the lens (a gain in overall DOF is accomplished). Hence, I would not be attemting to focus on a particular subject via manual focus. I am somewhat surprised that I keep getting comments in regard to the relative ease or difficulty in focusing on subjects via MF.

 

[polyglot]

The DOF scales are quite readable. It's very easy to set hyperfocus, for example. Many of the zooms are not parfocal though, so you get no DOF scale on those.

(you did ask "How good is the MF with these lenses?", hence the general assumption of how easy it was to MF, which requires that there be no grittiness or slack between MF ring and lens motion and that you have a decent viewfinder, the latter obviously being body-dependent. It's easy even with the 5)

 

[FilmOnly]

Thanks, polyglot...yes, I realize that my original post was not as precise as it could have been with regard to MF. My previous comment, though, was aimed more at my mild surprise in regard to folks picking up on my intent. I was just saying that I thought more folks would pick up on it, as there are some savvy shutterbugs here.

 

[flashgumby]

I have (and love) a Maxxum 7. Prior to this, my loyalty was split between my 600si and Dynax 5 - if I needed excellent AF, I'd use the 5, otherwise I'd choose the 600si for the superb ergonomics, more comfortable size/weight and the simple, intuitive, common-sense control layout.

Enter the 7 - now I don't have to choose. Brilliant AF (better than the 5), and the same near-perfect handling as the 600si.

As for lenses, I have original (read 'early') 50/1.7 and 50/2.8 Macro lenses, as well as the (late model) 28-105/3.5-4.5 RS zoom. My other lens is a Tamron 70-300, which is fine for what it is.

The two fifties are both excellent, with 'non-metal' bodies that are a good compromise between build and weight. I have complete faith in their ability to stand up to 'normal' use - note that I am fairly careful with my gear, regardless of what it is or how tough it is.

The 28-105 is a good lens too, decent wide open and improving when stopped down a bit - it gets a bit less use since I got the fifties though, coz I just like using those smaller, faster lenses when I can.

I almost exclusively use AF, with MF being mostly reserved for macro - yeah the focus rings could be bigger, but I've gotten used to the size and location so I'm sure you could too.

Good luck, and have fun.
Regards,
Gordon

 

[Marvin]

I have a Maxxum 9000 and several lenses and never had any trouble with any of the lenses. I also have an 8000i body that is broken it will advance 2 frames sometimes.

28 2.8
50 1.7
28-80
35-70
100-200

Marvin