Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta AF lenses recommendation needed
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Fri Dec 11, 2015 8:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:

Added this one today


congrats! One of the very best Minolta AF lenses.. "G" included Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Just won a MINOLTA AF 35mm 1:1.4 Very Happy

Should get it soon......images to follow...


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Congrats!Happy Dog
One of the most sought-after Minolta AF lens.
Usually it's quite expensive. May I ask you how much you paid for it?

I'm currently considering a 35mm for my A7RII and this Minolta AF lens was on the top of the list but now I'm more and more looking at the E-mount 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss or at the 35mm f/1.4 Sigma + Sigma AF adapter. Probably Zeiss will won due to its dimensions, weight, IQ and due to the fact that I don't really need f/1.4 for my 35mm lenses.

Waiting for the images!


PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2016 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
€486.00 shipped...

I got lucky with the auction, they most often go for EUR 650 BIN


PostPosted: Tue Jan 01, 2019 12:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Those being able to read German can download my "Sony/Minolta full frame book" here on my website:

http://www.artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/alpha-systembuch

On the pages 28-98 there's plenty of information on most of the classical Minolta / Sony a-mount lenses.

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 6:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Are the lenses mentioned above the ultimate Minolta AF lenses?
I have a 35-70mm 4 and a 70-210mm 4 which I listed for sale until I came across this forum.
I especially like the coating on the 70-210mm and am considering keeping it.
Which of the zooms are worth acquiring if I have primes at the same focal lengths?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 7:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:
Are the lenses mentioned above the ultimate Minolta AF lenses?
I have a 35-70mm 4 and a 70-210mm 4 which I listed for sale until I came across this forum.
I especially like the coating on the 70-210mm and am considering keeping it.
Which of the zooms are worth acquiring if I have primes at the same focal lengths?


Well, in this thread there are several very good recommendations.

You may find some orientation on Minolta AF AKA Sony A-mount lenses here as well (including newer Sony ones): https://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Regarding zooms: That's primarily a matter of taste. Besindes the Minolta 80-200mm/F2.8 H.S. APO I prefer to use primes. However, for travelling and hiking the usage of zoom's may be still a good compromise. Generally the primes are the better options if best quality should be achieved. At least I see it like that.

My travel zoom set is the Minolta AF 24-105mm/F3.5-4.5 D and Minolta AF 100-300mm/F4.5-5.6 D APO, relatively small and light but still acceptable quality.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 21, 2021 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
Dan, ok i am very qualified to answer this, being a Minolta nut and owning a lot of the glass.
Will give you my views on the stuff i own
I also have the LA-EA4 adaptor

The 28-135 (secret handshake) has all the fame and relatively is more expensive but to me a real gem that gets overlooked is the 35-105
1st version
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Minolta-AF-35-105mm-F3.5-4.5_review44.html
I own this lens and it is razor sharp, fast, can be macro modified so AF works in Macro the colours are superb and would be in my top 3 to own
cost around �40-50
If you can't get the 35-105 the 28-85 is also a fantastic lens is almost as good as the 35-105 but not quite colours are better on the 35-105
cost �25-40
The 70-210 F4 Beercan what can i say its a great lens sometimes for me my copy will either produce amazing results sharp as anything or bad results, i find it needs a nice sunny day to work well (maybe its just me) great lens and everybody should own it
The 80-200F2.8 a magnificent lens truly deserves its reputation the lens makes images that seem 3D and will blow you away at the quality i don't regret paying what i paid.
The dark horse of all the lenses the Minolta 24-85 i got this with a camera that i wanted something else from the bundle , and i thought plasticy crap almost tossed to a side and sold. Amazing colours and very nice weight and compact my default choice lens
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-24-85mm-F3.5-4.5_lens29.html
And another dark horse is the 100-200 strange range but is the perfect trackside lens, its AF is super fast, keeps up with the action superb colours sharp wide open at 4.5 and fits anywhere and weighs almost nothing especially compared to 70-210

35-70 F4 good lens not massively used due to odd range on APSC and i have better ranges
some samples from the odd balls





These two from the 100-200 at F6.3



Some from the 24-85 lens



Minolta 80-200 F2.8



-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you do any post-production on the photos that you took with the 24-85mm?


PostPosted: Thu Apr 22, 2021 12:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No there is none on the 24-85


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 6:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
No there is none on the 24-85


Wow, the colours in those photos made me put the 24-85mm on my hit list.
I purchased a Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm 1.4 recently but I never knew that the AF lenses were this good.
The more I looked into the history of Minolta the more I discovered how important Minolta was in the game.
How do you all rate the the MC lenses versus the AF lenses?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:

Wow, the colours in those photos made me put the 24-85mm on my hit list.
I purchased a Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm 1.4 recently but I never knew that the AF lenses were this good.
The more I looked into the history of Minolta the more I discovered how important Minolta was in the game.
How do you all rate the the MC lenses versus the AF lenses?


The old MC lenses are not bad but the newer MD ones are in most of the cases optically better.

AF lenses are rather a mixed bag. There are really excellent ones, even for todays standards, but also dead ducks (particularly if zoom lenses are concerned).

That means that there are MC lenses which will easily beat AF lenses and the other way round. Wink


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 9:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Example from AF 24-105mm at 24mm/F8 from A7R II uncropped.

Lockdown in my hometown (clickable for best quality viewing):



I consider this quality as good enough even for landscapes hence I take this lens as small travel and hiking lens.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
cjewelz wrote:

Wow, the colours in those photos made me put the 24-85mm on my hit list.
I purchased a Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm 1.4 recently but I never knew that the AF lenses were this good.
The more I looked into the history of Minolta the more I discovered how important Minolta was in the game.
How do you all rate the the MC lenses versus the AF lenses?


The old MC lenses are not bad but the newer MD ones are in most of the cases optically better.

AF lenses are rather a mixed bag. There are really excellent ones, even for todays standards, but also dead ducks (particularly if zoom lenses are concerned).

That means that there are MC lenses which will easily beat AF lenses and the other way round. Wink


Are there two versions of the 35-105mm? If so, which is better?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:

Are there two versions of the 35-105mm? If so, which is better?


The 35-105mm which I have (second version from 1988) falls rather in the category dead duck and I wouldn't really recommend it. However, it is said that the very first model introduced 1985 is performing better. I don't know.

My recommendations are rather the 24-85 or the 24-105 which perform equally good when stopped down. For me a lens only qualifies if landscape shooting with acceptable sharp edges is possible. You may have other criteria.

It certainly also depends on your camera; i.e. if you intend to use these lenses on APS-C or FF. I'm talking about FF usage (A850 24MP and A7R II 42MP), for the usage with APS-C camera the 35-105 in the second version may be good enough as well.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 3:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:
eddieitman wrote:
No there is none on the 24-85


Wow, the colours in those photos made me put the 24-85mm on my hit list.
I purchased a Minolta MC Rokkor 50mm 1.4 recently but I never knew that the AF lenses were this good.
The more I looked into the history of Minolta the more I discovered how important Minolta was in the game.
How do you all rate the the MC lenses versus the AF lenses?


Which version of the 24-85mm did you use? And, is that the best version?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
cjewelz wrote:

Are there two versions of the 35-105mm? If so, which is better?


The 35-105mm which I have (second version from 1988) falls rather in the category dead duck and I wouldn't really recommend it. However, it is said that the very first model introduced 1985 is performing better. I don't know.

My recommendations are rather the 24-85 or the 24-105 which perform equally good when stopped down. For me a lens only qualifies if landscape shooting with acceptable sharp edges is possible. You may have other criteria.

It certainly also depends on your camera; i.e. if you intend to use these lenses on APS-C or FF. I'm talking about FF usage (A850 24MP and A7R II 42MP), for the usage with APS-C camera the 35-105 in the second version may be good enough as well.


Is the first version of the 24-85mm the best?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 27, 2021 4:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:

Is the first version of the 24-85mm the best?


AFAIK both versions (1993 and 1997) are optically identical. Only the outside design was changed.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 12:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
cjewelz wrote:

Is the first version of the 24-85mm the best?


AFAIK both versions (1993 and 1997) are optically identical. Only the outside design was changed.


Were there only two versions, produced in 1993 and 1997?


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:
Were there only two versions, produced in 1993 and 1997?


Please refer to this list:
https://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?ov=1#zooms_a


PostPosted: Wed Apr 28, 2021 4:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
cjewelz wrote:
Were there only two versions, produced in 1993 and 1997?


Please refer to this list:
https://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php?ov=1#zooms_a


Thank you, sir.


PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2021 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
cjewelz wrote:

Are there two versions of the 35-105mm? If so, which is better?


The 35-105mm which I have (second version from 1988) falls rather in the category dead duck and I wouldn't really recommend it.


The first MinAF 3.5-4.5/35-105mm has the same optical construction as the second version of the MD 3.5/35-105mm. It is much better than the later, smaller and lighter AF 3.5-4.5/35-105mm (II). In fact at f5.6 or f8 it is as good as the Zeiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm. Biggest drawback is the MFD of 1.5 m (!!).

S


PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2021 1:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Do 24-85mm, 28-135mm and 35-105mm do anything different to each other?

Does anyone know how the 24-85mm compares to the 24-105mm?


PostPosted: Fri Jun 18, 2021 9:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cjewelz wrote:
Do 24-85mm, 28-135mm and 35-105mm do anything different to each other?

Does anyone know how the 24-85mm compares to the 24-105mm?


The Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm clearly is the best of the three as long as you limit yourself to the 35-100mm range and f-stops 5.6 ... f111. While its contrast is a bit low (many lenses and oldest coatings), its detail resolution at apertures like f8 or f11 is better than the Zaiss ZA 2.8/24-70mm for the A bayonet. See here in my website at f=70mm:
http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sony-af/objektiv-vergleiche/311-70mm-pisa-2008

The 1st full metal version of the MinAF 3.5-4.5/35-105mm has the same optics as the 2nd version of the MD-III 35-105mm; it is a solid perfomer and a bit weaker than the 28-135mm.

The MinAF 24-85mm and the later 24-105mm are optical "twins"; their strengths and weaknesses are pretty much identical. Both lenses have extreme vignetting at 3.5/24mm, and pretty lousy corners. Even at f8 they are not really good; f11 is the sweet spot, and here they are useable aslo for landscapes (unless the distortion disturbs too much). I consider the 24-85mm as well as the 24-105mm as nice travel lenses eg for mountain hikes - however you have to be aware that they should be stopped down to f11 for good performance (on 24MP FF cameras). Portraits are someting else - here you can use them wide open (which is f4.5).

S
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Film SLR / TLR Cameras
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4