Recommendations for minolta af lens

[colin wells]

Hi can anyone recommend any good minolta af zooms. Looking at the choice I don't know where to begin. I am on a small budget. Thanks

 

[M-88]

I had only two AF Mino lenses, one was 35-70 f/4 Macro and other was 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 Macro. 35-70 was really cheap and really slow too, but you get what you pay for, plus you can close focus (not an actual macro IMO), although AF isn't working when macro switch is on. Same for 28-85, but it's bigger and clunkier than 35-70.

I paid 15$ for 35-70 and around 30$ for 28-85. It was long ago so can't recall really. But I clearly remember that neither of those two lenses were remotely as good as was 50 mm f/1.7 AF. Although zoom lenses offer some versatility that prime doesn't. If I was up against that choice again today, I'd go for 35-70 for compactness and for close focusing feature and save up the money for a good 50 mm prime.

P.S. I used them om Maxxum 9000. Focusing was reasonably quick and accurate in good and moderate lighting conditions.

 

[neilt3]

Hi can anyone recommend any good minolta af zooms. Looking at the choice I don't know where to begin. I am on a small budget. Thanks

Hard to advise really , as you don't say what focal length you need and how much you consider a small budget .

One option 1 ;
Minolta 24-85mm and a minolta 100-300mm APO .( don't get the non APO)

Option 2 ;
Minolta 28-85mm and Minolta 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 ( note the aperture , the one whose aperture is f/5.6 at the long end isn't as good ). OR the 70-210mm f/4 ( beer can)

Option 3 , cheapest option ;
Minolta 35-70mm f/4 and a Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 .

The first option is a combination I tend to use on both film and full frame digital when I want to walk about with a light weight option . they give good results .
Also consider a 50mm f/1.7 prime for low light or when you want a bit less DOF .
One of the above options should work for you .

 

[Paul Howell]

I agree that 35 to 70 F4 is a best bet lens, regardless of budget, rumors are that is based on a Leica design, think of it a normal range zoom. My 80 to 200 F4 is very sharp at working aperture F8 to 11, it is decent a F4, not as good as pro level 80 to 200 2.8, but under a $100. My third is a Konica Minolta 75 to 300 D 4.5 to 5.6. I find it sharp up and down the pike. For a wide to short tele Konica Minolta 28 to 100 D. Only lens I would avoid are the power zooms, I have several and although sharp the power zoom motors are prone to failure.

 

[Meyer Trioplan]

The 50/1.7 is a great value to me, and likely the cheapest "nifty 50" autofocus out there. Be sure to look also at spare 1st generation camera bodies with lenses attached as this was a great way to get some of the lenses.

I actually like my copy of the (2nd Gen) 35-105 f/3.5-4.5 N. Good Range of focal lengths and very good performance for the price.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-35-105mm-F3.5-4.5-N_lens45.html

Dyxum can be very helpful in decoding where to start.

One lens that is well regarded, but I don't have is the 28-135mm typically called the "Secret Handsake" for supposedly being a reward lens supplied at cost when it was released.

 

[Wallendo]

I own the 35-70 f4 "mini beercan" which is my favorite Minolta zoom. It is great for 35mm film use, but an awkward length for APD digital.. The 35-70 f3.5-4.5 is not a bad lens either. At the longer end, the 70-210 f4 "beercan" is a nice lens, but very heavy, and I'll frequently carry the 70-210 f4.5-5.6. The latter is not as well thought-of as the beercan, but is a lot easier to carry around while travelling.

Both of the f4 lenses mentioned are good lenses available at budget prices.

 

[colin wells]

Thanks for all the replys I should of stated I already have the 50,1.7. And the 35_70 4, also the 70_210 4 I just wondered if their's any hidden jems .

 

[Paul Howell]

You already have the hidden gems, the other that is inexpensive but a decent performer is the first generation 70 to 300 4.5 to 5.6, I like the 75 to 300 Konica Minolta D, but the first generation is well built, all metal, decent performer. Not a zoom but the 28mm 2.8 is quite the bargain.

 

[neilt3]

Thanks for all the replys I should of stated I already have the 50,1.7. And the 35_70 4, also the 70_210 4 I just wondered if their's any hidden jems .

There's plenty of really nice Minolta lenses .
But without you saying how much money you have to spend on one , and what sort of focal length your thinking about , it's impossible to make a suggestion .
i.e , the Minolta 200mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens , the earlier non HS ( high speed) is relatively cheep , small and light .
That's the one I have , it's still a fast focussing lens on later cameras ( film as well as digital ) so I saved money by buying this instead of the HS version .
Works well with both the original , matched Minolta 1.4x and 2x teleconverters .
Does that meet your budget ?

 

[WilmarcoImaging]

Since you already have a core set of lenses, here are ones you should consider. They will take some time to save up for, and it will be worth the effort:

AF 28-70/2.8 G
Zeiss 135/1.8
AF 300/2.8 HS