Minolta AF lenses

[Firestarter]

Recently picked up a Minolta AF body and now need to get a lens or two for it. Can anyone tell me if there is much difference in build and optical quality between the original 50mm 1.4 AF and the new version ?

Thanks.

 

[xkaes]

Most of Minolta's MAXXUM lenses were simply adding auto-focusing to their amazing ROKKOR-X lenses. They all had FIVE-YESR warrantees. Their optical designs didn't change. Why should they? Take their 50mm f3.5 macro, for example. It first came out before 1960 -- with a LEICA screw-mount thread. But the optical design was exactly the same in every later Minolta & Maxxum 50mm f3.5 macro.

You can buy the lastest and greatest. You might get a different lens coating. Better? You will get newer parts and more plastic. Minolta -- and others -- made MILLIONS of MAXXUM lenses that you can basically get for free nowadays -- compared to the "latest and greatest". Pick your poison.

 

[David Brown]

Don't flame me for bringing up digital, but ...

When I decided years ago to buy a dslr, I chose a Sony A mount precisely because I already had a collection of Minolta AF lenses (for my Maxxum 7). in the 10+years I have owned and used that camera (the Sony) I have bought another lens for it, but it, too was a Minolta.

To the OP, I don't think you can go wrong with almost any Minolta lens, as long as the glass is clean and everything is in working order. BTW, which body did you get? (just curious)

 

[Paul Howell]

The original 5 pin 50 1.4 is a darn good lens, opticas are excellent. The later 8 pin lens has more features when using a Minolta dedicated flash, the gears that drive lens' AF might be faster and has updated coating. If have you an older body with 5 pin interface I would stay with the 5 pin first generation. as the lens is cheaper. If you have an 8 pin body and use external flash then the 8 pin version makes sense. As noted by David Brown all Minolta lens from early 5 pin to Konica Minolta 7 pin including SSM lens will work on Sony A mount bodies. But, later model SSM lens will only work on last generation Minolta bodies, the 7, 5, and 3, Minolta 9 came out before the 7, 5, and 3 and had to be factory modified to work with SSM lens.

 

[Paul Howell]

Double checked my answer, as it turns out, Minolta only made the 50 1.7 in a 5 pin version. So little to gain by buying the last version.

List of Minolta A-mount lenses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BMbikerider]

Possibly the finest 'walk about' Minolta lens is the 28/85 f3.5 I had one when I owned an early AF9000. I now have a Minolta XM and have the same manual focus MD lens which is superb. Both versions have a high proportion of metal in the construction. If wide angle is your thing then the prime 20mm/F2.8 is well worth a second or third look. Again the MD version is probably the same design and quality Best of all is the price. They can be picked up for about half the price of a Nikon 20/2.8 either manual or AF or AIS versions.

 

[xkaes]

Don't flame me for bringing up digital, but ...

This is a good reason to bring up digital because if you have or plan to get a Maxxum/Dynax 35mm SLR, you can go digital by getting a Minolta or Sony a-mount digital camera. And since Sony is no longer producing a-mount cameras you can get some of these pretty cheap -- at least for now.

 

[xkaes]

If wide angle is your thing then the prime 20mm/F2.8 is well worth a second or third look. Again the MD version is probably the same design and quality Best of all is the price. They can be picked up for about half the price of a Nikon 20/2.8 either manual or AF or AIS versions.

Here are Minolta's 20mm & 21mm manual-focusing lenses over the years. The 55mm filter thread on the 20mm is too narrow for my taste, but a step-up ring solves that problem.

The 20mm is probably optically the same as the Maxxum version.

http://www.subclub.org/minman/2028.htm

 

[Paul Howell]

If O/P's body is a 5 or 7 and I think a 3, the Sony A mount 50mm 1.4 will work just fine as will the much more expensive Sigma 50 1.4 art.

 

[xkaes]

If O/P's body is a 5 or 7 and I think a 3, the Sony A mount 50mm 1.4 will work just fine as will the much more expensive Sigma 50 1.4 art.

I'd slap that Sigma on my Maxxum 5, but putting a lens that costs 20 times what the camera did is -- in the caase of the Maxxum 5 -- gilding the lily. It weighs almost three times the camera weight.

 

[Paul Howell]

Its all about the image, I have a Sigma 50 1.4 8 pin, not the art's version, don't recall the specs but it has fewer elements than the arts and is likely not as sharp wide or stopped down. I do have the 50 1.4 arts in Sigma SA mount it is a great lens, I still have a couple of Sigma SA film bodies, it is sharp up and down the pike. On the digital body, nothing bad to say about it. Sigma also makes a 40 1.4 and 35 1.4 in Sigma Art line, full frame, what would I chose for Minolta 5 or 7, maybe the 40 1.4.

I think in the 50mm world of lens, a sleeper is the Sigma 2.8 macro, it is 5 pin and will work with older Minolta bodies as well as the last of the line.

 

[xkaes]

I think in the 50mm world of lens, a sleeper is the Sigma 2.8 macro, it is 5 pin and will work with older Minolta bodies as well as the last of the line.

I recently got a Sigma 50mm f2.8 macro in MD mount. Apparently there were different versions made. Mine has an extension tube built-in for 1:1. Another version only goes to 1:2, and has a screw-in macro lens to get to 1:1. I had a really great Vivitar 50mm f2.8 (Komine) which also went to 1:1 without any "help", but the Sigma lens is not recessed, like the Vivitar -- which is a big deal with a 50mm. It has twice the glass as the Vivitar as a result, but for $20 I couldn't resist.

 

[Paul Howell]

The A mount version does not go to 1:1, I don't use it for macro as I have a 100 2.0 macro and extension tubes, I like to use in bright light as it is very sharp. In reality with film I think all will resolve Tmax 100.

 

[xkaes]

I guess macro lenses with AF are trending toward the supplementary lens approach for reaching 1X, instead of the extension tube/built-in extension approach. Using extension is too much for the AF systems, while an add-on lens resolves it -- kinda sorta.
I don't use an AF macro lenses, not only because I have manual focus macros, but because I've tried AF macro and it doesn't really work. It won't focus on what I want it to focus on automatically.

 

[grain elevator]

Most of Minolta's MAXXUM lenses were simply adding auto-focusing to their amazing ROKKOR-X lenses. They all had FIVE-YESR warrantees. Their optical designs didn't change. Why should they? Take their 50mm f3.5 macro, for example. It first came out before 1960 -- with a LEICA screw-mount thread. But the optical design was exactly the same in every later Minolta & Maxxum 50mm f3.5 macro.

You can buy the lastest and greatest. You might get a different lens coating. Better? You will get newer parts and more plastic. Minolta -- and others -- made MILLIONS of MAXXUM lenses that you can basically get for free nowadays -- compared to the "latest and greatest". Pick your poison.

It seems more likely to me they would use the MD (without Rokkor designation) lenses as a basis for the AF lenses, as those were the last manual focus lenses they made, and many were quite different from the earlier Rokkkors, many of them are much smaller.

 

[Paul Howell]

If accurate, I found the following site that list most of the useful information about various A mount lens including a few of the Sony follow on. The 50 1.4 in Minolta and Sony version all had 7 elements in 6 elements. There were some changes to the build quality, metal gave way to plastic.

Minolta A system

lens-db.com

 

[neilt3]

If accurate, I found the following site that list most of the useful information about various A mount lens including a few of the Sony follow on. The 50 1.4 in Minolta and Sony version all had 7 elements in 6 elements. There were some changes to the build quality, metal gave way to plastic.

Minolta A system

lens-db.com

There's another Sony 50mm f/1.4 available that's nothing to do with Minolta , it's the

Sony Carl Zeiss 50mm F1.4 ZA SSM Planar T*​

https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sony-Carl-Zeiss-50mm-F1.4-ZA-SSM-Planar-T*_lens693.html

Image quality is apparently much better than the Minolta and Sony rebranded version , naturally it's much dearer .
it's an SSM lens , so the AF only functions with compatible cameras such as the Dynax 7 onwards or SSM/ADI upgraded Dynax 9's .

I'm often tempted to get one , but still carry on using my Sony branded 50mm f/1.4 .
I'm not sure I'd prefer the images it'd produce as it's designed for shooting MTF charts , and it's often the flaws of older lenses that give them the character that's preferred .

@ the O.P .
Regards the Minolta 50mm lenses , assuming you don't need a macro , you've got the f/1.7 and f/1.4 versions .
Typically the f/1.7 has better image quality , but if you intend shooting at f/1.4 , that's another thing .

You might want to consider the Minolta 24-85mm RS as a decent walk around lens , I've used one for many years along with the 28-105mm RS , depending on if I'm likely to be wanting a longer or wider F/L .
The 70-210mm f/4 or 80-200mm F/2.8 APO G depending on budget .

If it's prime lenses your wanting , depending on what your preferences are I use Minolta 24mm f/2.8 , 28mm f/2 , 50mm f/1.4 and either the 100mm f/2.8 macro or 135mm f/2.8 .
But it depends on what I'm doing and where I'm going .
I've got all the lenses between 16mm and 500mm in primes and between 12mm and 400mm in zooms , but what I use on any given day depends on the needs of the day .
without knowing your needs and preferences , it's hard to make suggestions .

 

[xkaes]

It seems more likely to me they would use the MD (without Rokkor designation) lenses as a basis for the AF lenses, as those were the last manual focus lenses they made, and many were quite different from the earlier Rokkkors, many of them are much smaller.

Most of the Minolta MD lenses used the same optical design as their earlier Rokkor MD predecessors. Minolta wanted to produce smaller and lighter lenses with smaller filter threads, and they succeeded with most without optical design changes. But some of the Minolta MD lenses where optical designed were made (typically less glass) aren't quite as good as the Rokkors, even though the newer lenses might have had slightly different coatings. A good example is the 35mm f2.8 that changed from 7/6 to a 5/5 lens. Not all of these changes happened when the label was changed from Rokkor to Minolta. And several of their late zooms were designed and made by Cosina and Tokina (these were also sold as Cosina & Tokina). Most are good lenses, but they have a more plastic "feel".

 

[Paul Howell]

I keep forgetting about the Sony Zeiss lens. Not sure who makes them, likely Cosina (?) most of the Sony A mount and E mounts are still designed by Konica Minolta who kept the lens plant, Sony got the camera plant. A few years someone posted the Konica Minolta patents for the E mount versions of the 70 to 200, 24 to 90, and G lens. I only one Sony lens as I tend to buy lens that will work with all my Minolta bodies, the 800SI, 7 and 9Xi and my 9 which was not upgraded for SSM lens.

 

[Firestarter]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. The body I picked up is the odd looking 7Xi. I am looking for a 9Xi but wanted to try the cheapest I could get to see if I liked the feel of the camera, which I do. Will look out for a 9xi also, now that I know I like the body style and hand fit. Main reason for getting one is to have something fast to use with AF and a compact enough body. The 9 looks lovely but is much taller than the 9XI. Bought a new 800Si before but sold it years back, was a very nice camera, might pick one up again. That is the great thing about the Minolta stuff, you can get it for a song.

Had a Canon EOS3 before for AF but found it just felt oversized on the hand grip, just couldn't get comfortable with it, my T90 feels perfect in the hand compared to the EOS3.

This 7Xi feels really nice in the hand, only thing i'm not sure of is why they put the front control dial at an odd angle, it doesn't feel natural but looking at pictures the 9Xi is at a more natural angle for the fore finger. Not a major issue but .....

Lens wise I will probably stick with 28, 50, 85 and 135 primes. Reason I'm considering the later versions is because they have a lrger manual focus ring, may not use it often but when I want to would prefer something decent to get my fingers around.

 

[Firestarter]

Here it is....excellent condition and working perfectly, well as far as I can tell until I attach a lens ! fingers crossed.

 

[Paul Howell]

Thanks for all the replies and suggestions. The body I picked up is the odd looking 7Xi. I am looking for a 9Xi but wanted to try the cheapest I could get to see if I liked the feel of the camera, which I do. Will look out for a 9xi also, now that I know I like the body style and hand fit. Main reason for getting one is to have something fast to use with AF and a compact enough body. The 9 looks lovely but is much taller than the 9XI. Bought a new 800Si before but sold it years back, was a very nice camera, might pick one up again. That is the great thing about the Minolta stuff, you can get it for a song.

Had a Canon EOS3 before for AF but found it just felt oversized on the hand grip, just couldn't get comfortable with it, my T90 feels perfect in the hand compared to the EOS3.

This 7Xi feels really nice in the hand, only thing i'm not sure of is why they put the front control dial at an odd angle, it doesn't feel natural but looking at pictures the 9Xi is at a more natural angle for the fore finger. Not a major issue but .....

Lens wise I will probably stick with 28, 50, 85 and 135 primes. Reason I'm considering the later versions is because they have a lrger manual focus ring, may not use it often but when I want to would prefer something decent to get my fingers around.

I have both the 7 and 9XI, of course the 9 has a very fast top shutter of 1/12000 of a second, good build quality. AF is pretty good, if get a 9xi look for the battery grip so you can use AA batteries. Good reason for the later models. The Minolta primes primes were pretty much the same design, Konica Minolta updated the designs when Sony bought the camera division. I've done some digging, as I am a long time Minolta/Sony A mount user I should have done more research. Not all Sony A mount lens are SSM, this includes some of the Zeiss lens. The one Sony lens I own the Zeiss 25 to 70 is an SSM lens.

Category:Sony A-mount lenses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[neilt3]

I have both the 7 and 9XI, of course the 9 has a very fast top shutter of 1/12000 of a second, good build quality. AF is pretty good, if get a 9xi look for the battery grip so you can use AA batteries. Good reason for the later models. The Minolta primes primes were pretty much the same design, Konica Minolta updated the designs when Sony bought the camera division. I've done some digging, as I am a long time Minolta/Sony A mount user I should have done more research. Not all Sony A mount lens are SSM, this includes some of the Zeiss lens. The one Sony lens I own the Zeiss 25 to 70 is an SSM lens.

Category:Sony A-mount lenses - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A good source of information on A mount lenses ( all brands ) is over on Dyxum.com .
If there's a specific lens your after you can use the filters to narrow it down .
The lenses have user reviews on them as well .
https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp

 

[mgb74]

I like the si series. In particular, the 600si that has controls like you'd find on a film slr.

 

[neilt3]

I like the si series. In particular, the 600si that has controls like you'd find on a film slr.

The 600si is a nice camera to use with it's traditional layout with dials .
Much better to use than having to press this button while moving that wheel etc with the earlier cameras .