Which Minolta lenses...?

[melmoth]

Hallo all,

To cut a long story short - and also knowing that Minolta are withdrawing from film cameras - I have decided to buy another lens (or two) for my Minolta Dynax 5 (maxxum 5) - this currently holds the stanard 28 - 80 mm AF lens that came with it when I bought it. I need advice about lenses and would be most grateful for any suggestions.
I am strongly thinking along the lines of a 135mm telephoto and something for portraits, maybe 100/105mm? I am not really into sports so a long telephoto is not an immediate concern. My budget is not limitless but it is not the main worry.
But what? Minolta? Tokina? Sigma? Which one? Others? I am confused and again would be very grateful for any suggestions.

Many thanks for any help

M.

 

[Dave Parker]

Well virtually my whole career shooting has been with Minolta, the 135mm is probably going to be your most used lens, I have alot of them, I also shoot the Tamron SP lenses, the 24mm-50mm is a stunner for landscape to normal, the 35-105 and the 28-150 are both very good lenses, I am back to doing weddings and the lenses I use for them are mainly the 35-105mm macro, if you need a little reach, the 75-300 APO is good, albeit a bit expensive, another moderate telephoto zoom is the 80-200 f2.8 lens..

So many choices, so little time..

Dave

 

[Changeling1]

Minolta has produced some excellent glass and the Rokkor series of lenses are superb.
I have used the 28mm, 135mm 2.8 and the 58mm 1.2 for many years. There seems to be many manual Rokkor lenses on the auction site for reasonable prices along with the 100, 101, and 102 SRT bodies. A camera store owner once told me-
"While the rest of the world are buying Nikons, the Japanese are buying Minoltas".
(I really admire, use and own some nice Zenza and Zuiko glass as well- but you can't go wrong with Rokkor lenses!)

BTW, the 135mm Rokkor lens was my favorite for shooting b/w actor's headshots.

 

[melmoth]

excuse my ignorance but can you tell me more about BTW? cheers M

 

[Dave Parker]

BTW=By The Way...

The lenses that Changling is talking about will not fit your Dynax 5, without an adapter, they are great lenses, but you are talking about a Dynax/Maxxum System the SR series is the older Manual focus system, great stuff..but for us that are older, a bit more difficult to shoot, I still have a couple of XD-11's and alot of great lenses.

Dave

 

[melmoth]

Thanks Dave.

This is possibly a dumb question but is there a particular calibre/type lens that is particularly good for 'stacking' within foreground in a picture but not excessively?

M

 

[Dave Parker]

Hi M,

the 135mm has a moderate amount of stack in the forground, the best that I have found is the 200mm length lenses, they give you the stack/compression of the telephoto and also give you good enough magnification with close enough focus to render people pictures, the 135 and the 200's are my favorite lenses for general all around use, they work very good in portraits, and still ahve good enough capabilites to work with wildlife and work great for landscape...just good focal lengths in my opinion.

Dave

 

[melmoth]

Again cheers Dave. This is good stuff. If I were to press you to name a specific lens for this purpose, would it be Tamron? or.. ? M.

 

[Dave Parker]

In these two ranges, I have both the 135 and the 200 Minolta glass, there were a few tamorns made in this range, but they are not common and vary rarely seen, the 200 f/2.8 Minolta in my opinion is a very underated star, the quality from this lens is fantastic, the 135 is a great performer as well, although it is about what it should sell for, but as long as it does not brake you bank, I would recommend either one of them, however, if not familer with the characteristics of telephoto photography, I would set my sights on the 135 first, this will give you the moderate stack that you asked about, and still allow you to learn a bit about the difficulties with telephoto work, but with either, I think you would be quite please..

Dave

 

[melmoth]

That's great. I will have a good look at both. Thanks Dave. Gotta dash. It's late here. Will check back tomorrow. Good night and good luck. M.

 

[Lee L]

My son picked up a mint 135mm f:2.8 MC Rokkor (with mint original case) about a year ago that has become his favorite lens. He often uses it with extension tubes, and I've seen the results from it on the old Velvia 50 at large projection sizes alongside the same subjects shot on the Zuiko 90 Macro and the 100mm f:4 Macro Elmar. It does a very fine job in this company, and was a huge bargain at the $50 he paid for it.

He also picked up an SRT 101 with MLU in excellent condition today, only needs light seals and mirror pad, meter is working fine, no evident wear on the film pressure plate, for $20. I'd have bought it if he'd turned it down, and I don't shoot Minoltas myself.

Lee

 

[naaldvoerder]

You might want to consider the MD 85/2.0. A lovely lens and stil nice and small.

I use it on my X700

 

[Dave Parker]

All of the suggestions are good, but he is talking about an AF Auto Focus Camera, the MD lenses will not fit without an adapter, and the adapter negets the benefits of a good lens, I have a couple of them and then degrade the image quality a great amount..

The MD lenses will not fit on his camera.

Dave

 

[df cardwell]

Minolta made some of the finest lenses ever made... it would be a waste of time and money to buy anything else.

Any 'G' lens would be superb, but more expensive. An 85 to 100 is a fine choice.

.

 

[Dave Parker]

Minolta made some of the finest lenses ever made... it would be a waste of time and money to buy anything else.

Any 'G' lens would be superb, but more expensive. An 85 to 100 is a fine choice.

.

Well, I can't say buying anything else is a waste of time and money, I have some extrememly good lenses for my Minoltas that were not made buy them and have severed and continue to serve me very well, but for ease of use and to be non-confusing, I would get the Minolta glass, good stuff.

Dave

 

[unohuu]

I love my 135mm and will never rid myself of it. It is also the old double crossed X version that has contributed to Minolta's myriad problems. I shoot with a 600si and 7. My top favorite lenses are the 50mm f/1.7; the 135mm f/2.8; the 28-135mm f/4-4.5 (a beast of a heavy lens, but wonderful) and for traveling my 35-70mm f/4 and 70-210mm f/4. Neither of the last two are extremely fast, but they are stellar performers. My $.02. Luke

 

[unohuu]

Hallo all,

I am strongly thinking along the lines of a 135mm telephoto and something for portraits, maybe 100/105mm? I am not really into sports so a long telephoto is not an immediate concern. My budget is not limitless but it is not the main worry.
M.

I have heard, and have long wanted to try the Minolta 85mm f/1.4 (any version). It is purported to have an excellent bokeh and is noted to be a bright and crisp portait lens. I would have to move out if I spent the $600 for this lens (used). Of course, I continue to save with the hope the penny jar will fill eventually. Luke

 

[benjiboy]

If you're going to buy a lens for portraits and general shooting I would suggest you consider a 100mm lens to me this will give the most " bang for your buck " these are usually quite compact in size and most are capable of focusing close enough to use indoors for head and shoulder shots in fairly small rooms, yet are still very useable as a general telephoto outdoors giving twice the image size of the standard 50mm lens

 

[joeyk49]

If your not as cheap as I am, I would warn you away from the cheaper model Sigmas. I've had a couple that I picked up at VERY reasonable prices, but turned out to be quite dull, even dogs. At first I thought it was the AF function, but I soon learned it was the glass. Even when I focused manually, the image just wasn't very sharp.

I shoot a 450si with a Sigma 28-105 IF that I picked up for a song...Well the damn thing vignettes at 28mm and is not very sharp at all. I've been quite disappointed and shopping for a replacement...