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's best
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
hoanpham wrote:
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


This is the best comparison I could find:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm

In terms of sharpness, they seem equal wide open but the 50/1.2 is sharper when stopped down. The 58 has smoother bokeh.
I think the 58 is the better choice on APS-C (equiv. to 89mm, smoother bokeh) while the 50 is a better general purpose lens on FF.

As far as I know, the 58 (like the 85/1.7) has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberrations that give it a smoother background bokeh.

I haven't tried my 58 on a MILC yet (I have an X-e1 on the way) but it has an added benefit on my old Minolta XD:
With a 58mm lens the viewfinder magnification is 1.00x (0.87*58/50)


memetph wrote:
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?

Minoltas AF lenses use the Minolta/Sony A mount (like the current Sony SLTs), you can adapt them just like the MC/MD lenses and the adapters are actually a bit more common. I don't know if the AF would work with Sony's adapters, the MF versions will be easier to focus manually.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In its comparison test on Rokkors standard lenses, Mr Suaudeau gives high marks to the 58mm 1.2 wide open. In general, it seems better at close subjects than at landscapes. Apparently a portrait lens.
As allrounders the MC 50 1.4 PG and the MD 50 2 receive the best marks. This seems to be conform to the opinions on this forum.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


PostPosted: Mon Apr 07, 2014 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


I've got the MF version lying around here, the long minimum focus distance is a bit annoying (the macro mode only works at 105mm) but I've always liked the results.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
hoanpham wrote:
Interesting.

I have a few 50-55mm fast f1.2 but no minolta.
Did anyone compare the 58/1.2 or 50/1.2?
I am mostly interested in 58mm, just to see how it performs at f1.2


This is the best comparison I could find:
http://www.rokkorfiles.com/Battle%20of%2050s1.htm

In terms of sharpness, they seem equal wide open but the 50/1.2 is sharper when stopped down. The 58 has smoother bokeh.
I think the 58 is the better choice on APS-C (equiv. to 89mm, smoother bokeh) while the 50 is a better general purpose lens on FF.

As far as I know, the 58 (like the 85/1.7) has deliberately undercorrected spherical aberrations that give it a smoother background bokeh.

I haven't tried my 58 on a MILC yet (I have an X-e1 on the way) but it has an added benefit on my old Minolta XD:
With a 58mm lens the viewfinder magnification is 1.00x (0.87*58/50)


memetph wrote:
I have two questions.

I know this artaphot site. Are there other good sites in german about lenses ?

I can find easily "beercans" in Poland ( I mean the Minolta !).It is easier to find than mf versions. Can I use them on a A7?
Do they have a similar mount to alpha FF ?

Minoltas AF lenses use the Minolta/Sony A mount (like the current Sony SLTs), you can adapt them just like the MC/MD lenses and the adapters are actually a bit more common. I don't know if the AF would work with Sony's adapters, the MF versions will be easier to focus manually.


Two little additions:
-Yes the AF of all the Minolta AF lenses works perfectly with the original (and expensive) Sony LAEA4-Adapter, there are also cheaper manual adapters for AF-mount lenses but most cheaper AF lenses are not nice to use with MF. To use the Minolta MD/MC lenses on Sony A7 you do only need such an cheap E-Mount - SR Mount adapter Click here to see on Ebay.de

-I heard that the 50/1.2 is also contrastier at all apertures and has less distortion. Though as said most prefer the 58/1.2 due smoother bokeh wide open anyway.

woodrim wrote:
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I'm discovering the AF 3.5-4.5/35-105 is really superb


Yup, the only AF and the only zoom I use. BUT, the later one isn't quite as good as the early. The early one is a bit noisy focusing, but dead on. I understand the MF version that preceded it is same optical formula.


I also have it, it's very decent for a zoom indeed, especially on APS-C.
The 28-135mm is even more fantastic as far as I know.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:



PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:

Looks like condensation on the back of the front lens. Shouldn't be too difficult to clean.


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens. But please do not talk about it. we dont want the secret getting out


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
aoleg wrote:
Looks like condensation on the back of the front lens. Shouldn't be too difficult to clean.

I wish, it's the result of fungus eating it's way into the front surface of the front element. I removed the front element and spent the better part of two hours trying to get that stain off.
What you see in the picture isn't on the glass, it's etched into the glass by the acid that the fungus excreted.

Here's the result:

The 85/1.7, shot with my 58/1.2 @ f/1.2


My 58/1.2 shot with the 85/1.7 @ f/1.7


Stopping down only lowers the contrast further.

At f/4:


Last edited by Boris_Akunin on Tue Apr 08, 2014 10:15 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens. But please do not talk about it. we dont want the secret getting out


What's the famous handshake lens?


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
http://kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_28_135mmid56.html

Thats the handshake lens very very good still goes for over £250


PostPosted: Tue Apr 08, 2014 11:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Cheers, not one I see for auction often,usually listed Buy it Now for high prices.

Why is it called 'handshake' BTW?

I wonder if it's related to the Tokina AT-X 28-135 which I have in the guise of a Konica Zoom-Hexanon and it is truly excellent, perhaps the best zoom I've ever tried but it is a big heavy beast.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've never been much of a Minolta user, although I do have a decent respect for their lens and camera quality -- especially from the MC and early MD days. In an earlier life as a camera dealer, however, I owned two stand-outs: the MC 16mm f/2.8 full frame fisheye and the MD 100-500mm f/8 zoom.

The 16mm fisheye was a remarkable lens. I wish I would have taken more pics with it than I did. It was inventory, though, and as I recall, I ended up selling the lens before I got the pics back from the lab. And they were wild! The lens had a set of built-in filters, too -- built-in being just about the only way you could go with a 16mm fisheye.



The 100-500mm f/8 zoom I was attracted to just because of its focal range. As far as sharpness goes, at 500mm, it was just okay. But it was a cool looking lens:



It needs a ruler put next to it. As I dimly recall, it was about 15" long. I shot a few slides with it, but I was shooting freehand and only a couple came out without camera shake. But those two showed that it was unremarkable optically.

Some folks here are most likely aware of the Joseph D. Cooper handbooks for Nikon. He also wrote one for Minolta. I have a copy of both the Nikon and Minolta System Handbooks (each is a two-book set). Mine show copyright dates of 1972, 1973 by Joseph D. Cooper and 1976 by the American Book Publishing Company. So it has all the MC lenses of that era, including the optical diagrams.


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 6:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Boris_Akunin wrote:
nurkov wrote:
there are many excellent Minolta lenses as seen here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_aKWZEK9sWYeHQzdjUxTkdtbVU/edit?usp=sharing


This one once was one of them:



The damage might be mitigated through polishing.
I'd ask here about options.
http://www.focalpointlens.com/fp_intro.html


PostPosted: Wed Apr 09, 2014 8:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
The 35-105 is a magnificent lens, I own this and it is highly underated, as good as the famous handshake lens.


the 35-105 is a very good lens... the 4-4.5/28-135 is better. Actually the 28-135 is even better than some Minolta G lenses like the Minolta AF 2.8/28-70 G, especially on a FF camera like the Sony A900 or A7. 1985 when introduced their price was on the same level and much higher than what was asked for a 35-105 (which is still a little gem).


iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I wonder if it's related to the Tokina AT-X 28-135


I don't think it's related to the Tokina, but I'm not familar with this one.. here you can find the specs for the Minolta:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens/af28-135f4

and this may help too:



PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks to all for your input !


Now... one of two things...
Prices will rise on most of the selected ones
and/or i'll be ruined....


PostPosted: Thu Apr 10, 2014 10:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yup, I started collecting Minolta AF lenses last year while they can still be had cheap.

I've got 6 rolls of film shot with the 3.5-4.5/35-105 and 3.5-4.5/28-85 to develop now,I'll be sure to post samples.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 6:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
here you will find specs for every Minolta AF/Sony (incl. Zeiss ZA) lens:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php

You can't make anything wrong with most of them (especially the first generation with metal focus ring), another real gem is the tiny Minolta AF 4.5/100-200 which most times can be found really cheap.

But stay away from any "Power Zoom" or "xi" lenses.. also those with the build in lens cap (35-80 & 80-200) or lenses which was avaible in black and silver.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, those built-in lens cap lenses are awful, sadly I own both of them. Not all the Xi lenses should be avoided, some are very good like the AF 35-200 xi F4.5-5.6, AF 28-80 xi F4-5.6, AF 100-300 xi F4.5-5.6 and AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5.


PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Mir wrote:
Thanks to all for your input !


Now... one of two things...
Prices will rise on most of the selected ones
and/or i'll be ruined....


Razz

True.
About 4-5 years ago they could be found for low prices.. Then m4/3 and nex cameras came in and they got rediscovered and highly demanded.. Now there is another factor - a full frame mirror camera (A7/A7r).

Good luck in your quest.. (you should start earlier) Very Happy
Btw, let me know if you are looking for a MC 1.7/85mm


PostPosted: Fri Apr 11, 2014 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These two lenses both work perfectly and have excellent IQ, best of all they cost me less than 25ukp for the pair. You simply can't match this level of quality at anything like this price with either Canon or Nikon. I have the Nikon AF 28-85, it's probably as good as the Minolta 28-85 but cost 4x as much on ebay, doesn't feel as well built either. I also have a Canon 24-85 and it's a decent ens but can't mach the Minolta and is flimsy feeling by comparison. It cost 6x as much and I got it cheap. In an informal shootout between the Minolta 35-105 and a Canon L 24-105 last week using an EOS 7D and a Sony A55 the Minolta was much better in sharpness, distortion, colours, every aspect apart from flare and even then, the Canon was barely better.




PostPosted: Sun Apr 13, 2014 11:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wink
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4