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

What can be adapted to Sony A mount?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:

There are plenty of a850s ad a900s on ebay UK, they tend to go for 500-600ukp, sometimes a little less or a little more. Mine is body only, with charger and battery, cables, software CD, shoulder strap, printed manual and a 4gb compact flash card. I've bought a pair of 32gb compact flash cards from China, 9ukp each, probably won't be the fastest cards around but certainly cheap and should be fast enough for my purposes.

Buying cheap CF card from China is risky because you might not receive a genuine one. The memory chips inside the the memory card might be made from 'black chips' which is prone to failure.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hmm, lets' hope these ones work okay.

I had a bad experience with a pair of batteries I bought for my NEX, one worked great, the other didn't hold a charge. The seller just refunded me the cost of both.

If these cheap ones are not good, I'll seek a refund and buy Kingston or Sandisk.


PostPosted: Sat Aug 23, 2014 8:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
75-300 'big beercan' - cheap easy to find, but a monster Cost ios around £80 the Apo can be had for £120
75-300 later version - cheap, smaller, lighter, but how is the IQ? I have one its ok no worse than the Tamron 70-300 DI LD
100-300 - easy to find, cheap, but again, how is the IQ? Dyxum says that it is pretty good
100-300 APO - not so easy to find, not so cheap, but probably the best IQ of the bunch Cost £120 great lens from what i have seen
Sigma 75-300 APO - the old one that also appeared a sa Jenazoom, gets rave reviews, not easy to find but when it comes along, it's cheap
Tamron 75-300 - supposed to be the pick of the current 75-300s, don't know how good, plasticky I have the SSD version of this very good lens

I have a Tamron 200-400 that always goes cheap and is a very good lens


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 5:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
75-300 'big beercan' - cheap easy to find, but a monster Cost ios around £80 the Apo can be had for £120
75-300 later version - cheap, smaller, lighter, but how is the IQ? I have one its ok no worse than the Tamron 70-300 DI LD
100-300 - easy to find, cheap, but again, how is the IQ? Dyxum says that it is pretty good
100-300 APO - not so easy to find, not so cheap, but probably the best IQ of the bunch Cost £120 great lens from what i have seen
Sigma 75-300 APO - the old one that also appeared a sa Jenazoom, gets rave reviews, not easy to find but when it comes along, it's cheap
Tamron 75-300 - supposed to be the pick of the current 75-300s, don't know how good, plasticky I have the SSD version of this very good lens

I have a Tamron 200-400 that always goes cheap and is a very good lens


don't trust dyxum, they over inflate the old lens rating (same with pentax forum), the thing we really need to look at is the trend in this cults, they love old lens because it's cheap and therefore over inflate the rating. And don't worry, I do the same thing too once in a while. The truth is this, most good lens that's on par with canon L lens will be similarly price to canon L lens, "good" is depending on who's asking the question.

So really, prices determine how "good" the lens is. is the 70-200 f/4 lens 6X as good as the minolta 70-210 F4? no, it costs 6-7X more and you will probably see a slight increase in sharpness wide open. I won't even talk about stopping down because 80% of the lens stop down to F8 will have great performance, that's a moot point, most people don't stop down their lens anyways.

Back to the point, the performance increase you get on every picture you take, I honestly think you can't put a hard figure on it, it really depending on what type of work you do. If you're just taking picture of your friend's cat, then you don't need to spend the money, if you're taking picture of your friends cat, turn around and sell it for money, I would put down the extra 500-600 and buy the best that you can get, simply because it's no longer a hobby, it's now an investment to increase your wealth down the road.


PostPosted: Sun Aug 24, 2014 4:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
clockwork247 wrote:
eddieitman wrote:
75-300 'big beercan' - cheap easy to find, but a monster Cost ios around £80 the Apo can be had for £120
75-300 later version - cheap, smaller, lighter, but how is the IQ? I have one its ok no worse than the Tamron 70-300 DI LD
100-300 - easy to find, cheap, but again, how is the IQ? Dyxum says that it is pretty good
100-300 APO - not so easy to find, not so cheap, but probably the best IQ of the bunch Cost £120 great lens from what i have seen
Sigma 75-300 APO - the old one that also appeared a sa Jenazoom, gets rave reviews, not easy to find but when it comes along, it's cheap
Tamron 75-300 - supposed to be the pick of the current 75-300s, don't know how good, plasticky I have the SSD version of this very good lens

I have a Tamron 200-400 that always goes cheap and is a very good lens


don't trust dyxum, they over inflate the old lens rating (same with pentax forum), the thing we really need to look at is the trend in this cults, they love old lens because it's cheap and therefore over inflate the rating. And don't worry, I do the same thing too once in a while. The truth is this, most good lens that's on par with canon L lens will be similarly price to canon L lens, "good" is depending on who's asking the question.

So really, prices determine how "good" the lens is. is the 70-200 f/4 lens 6X as good as the minolta 70-210 F4? no, it costs 6-7X more and you will probably see a slight increase in sharpness wide open. I won't even talk about stopping down because 80% of the lens stop down to F8 will have great performance, that's a moot point, most people don't stop down their lens anyways.

Back to the point, the performance increase you get on every picture you take, I honestly think you can't put a hard figure on it, it really depending on what type of work you do. If you're just taking picture of your friend's cat, then you don't need to spend the money, if you're taking picture of your friends cat, turn around and sell it for money, I would put down the extra 500-600 and buy the best that you can get, simply because it's no longer a hobby, it's now an investment to increase your wealth down the road.


I agree with much of what you have said, some not so much. I do trust Dyxum at least as much as any other non scientific collection of opinions. If they do inflate ratings, it is done relative to other lens ratings and you can still see the ones that are most highly regarded. The expensive lenses do typically receive the highest ratings, or maybe it's the other way around - the highest ratings result in the most expensive lenses.

The beercan, as an example, is in my opinion a tad overrated, although a very good lens. The early 35-105 is rated higher, which is appropriate and in my opinion not overrated. Regardless of all the excellent lenses out there, many people, including most of us, are on a constant mission to discover one that we like .5% more than another. I agree that stopping down is an equalizer and I never pay much attention to a comparison at f/8. Our appreciation and ratings will always be relative to our individual experiences; one must keep that in mind when reading. This site, MFL, in my mind is all about finding the quality lenses from the past that are competitive and affordable. The are many new lenses that have benefited from decades of development that are indeed superior in technical measures and those are for the people who value that performance edge and who can afford them. For me, I relate my lens appreciation to my appreciation of classic cars, both being from the same time periods. I can pay (actually, I can't) huge amounts of money for a top performing modern sports car, or I can have a classic. I choose the classic. ...... But as I was making this comparison, it occurred to me that the classics are becoming equal to and in some cases exceeding the cost of new. Oh well.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have a question.

I've bought various M42 to Sony Alpha adapters, with and without chip, thin and thick. All have common problem. I only can get infinity focus (and even focus past infinity), only with soviet lenses (helioses, jupiters, mirs, etc). With all chinons, yashicas, vivitars or whatsoever for M42, I get infinity at about 3-4 meters on 28mm and wider lens, about 10-12 meters with 50mm lens and say 40-50 meters with 135mm lens. Why so?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I would agree to some extent that how good a lens is, is related to cost.

However, much more of it is related to market forces.

e.g. Up until about 5-6 years ago, you couldn't mount a Canon FD or Minolta MC/MD on an affordable digital interchangeable lens camera, and expect infinity focus. And for APS-C, that was 4 years ago.

And for full frame, it's less than a year.

In that time I've seen these lenses go from being very cheap, to what they would actually be worth, if optical performance is the main consideration. The reason is clear: You can mount a previously "unmountable" gem of a lens and use it to the full.

So, for example, I picked up a Minolta MD 85mm F2 lens 6 years ago for the equivalent of about $15, but you'd be struggling to find a good one on ebay for less than $230.
Much of that price increase has happened in the last year. Even in the last 6 months, I've seen one of my favourite shops in Tokyo increase prices..... lenses that could be had for about $35 are fetching almost twice that now. So up until recently, the price of lenses was not dictated solely by quality, but by popularity.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't know about Dyxum's ratings, all I know is what my eyes tell me about the lenses I've owned and used.

The 1985 Minolta 'beercan' 4/70-210 is a better lens, overall than the current Canon EF L 4/80-200.

The beercan is readily available for 20-30ukp, and the great build quality means almost all of them, even after 30 years, still works properly. The Canon L lens is not junk build quality like the cheaper Canon stuff but it's still pretty poor in that regard, I doubt they will last 30 years of use.

The Canon EF lenses I've owned (excluding the cheapest junk) were nothing special, and were definitely inferior by a fair margin to the old Minolta AF lenses I've also owned. The Canon EF 3.5-4.5/24-85 USM I have is quite good, but it's markedly inferior to the Minolta AF 3.5-4.5/28-85. The Canon costs about 4x as much secondhand. The Canon EF 3.5-4.5/28-80 USM I used to have was less good than the EF 3.5-4.5/24-85 USM, but it was decent enough. However, it didn't stand comparison to the Minoltas.

These older Canon EF lenses have much better build quality than the current Canons, but they all feel quite flimsy, all have become 'loose' feeling, they all have zoom creep and wobbly focussing barrels. The old Minolta AF lenses are so much more strongly built, far ore robust, none of mine have zoom creep, none feels loose, they were built to such a higher standard.

The 'normal' lens situation is illustrative of the difference in build quality. The current Canon EF 1.8/50 II is utter junk, cheap nasty quality, they fall apart frequently. However, I have owned my Minolta AF 1.7/50 since 1993, used it a hell of a lot and it still work perfectly today. The Canon might be 75ukp brand new, but it will last maybe a year before it breaks; the Minolta is 40-50ukp secondhand and will last decades. The Minolta lens is much better optically too, the bokeh is much more pleasant, it's sharper at f2.8 than the Canon lens is at f4.

Okay, so the old Minoltas are much better than their Canon EF brethren, but how good are they?

In my opinion, the 4/35-70, 3.5-4.5/28-85, 4/70-210 and 3.5-4.5/35-105 are as good as most old prime lenses and easily a match for the equivalent Canon L glass with the added benefit of being better built, more robust and longer lived than the Canon stuff. They are a fraction of the price too.

The 1.7/50 and 2.8/28 AF Minoltas I have are so good that I think the only upgrade possible without spending a lot of money would be to the Zeiss Planar T* 1.7/50 and Distagon T* 2.8/28, neither of which is AF and the upgrade in IQ would be tiny.

I honestly think that for the very cheap prices they cost, the old Minolta AF lenses offer one of the biggest bargains available in the used lens world.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have some of highly praised 1st gen Minolta AF lenses (In brackets I provided price I paid for them):

28/2.8 ($11)
35-70/4 ($21)
50/1.7 ($16)
100-200/4.5 ($22)
75-300/4-5.6 ($19)

For the absolute price/quality ratio, they are best and can't be beaten. But, they are big, heavy, subject to flaring and lack of contrast sometimes. So, if photography was my main income source, then I'd definetly invest in modern lenses, which provide same quality, but for much less weight, size, and better handling of CA & flaring.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 4:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yes, the weakness of the old Minolta AF lenses is the CA and flare. Then again, where I live the sunlight is usually not strong so neither is much of an issue for me.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
eddieitman wrote:
if you want a really great minolta lens i can recomend the http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-24-85mm-F3.5-4.5_lens29.html


good lens but not better than 35-105 or 28-85. If you want a visible better lens get the 4-4.5/28-135.. a lens which later would be labeled "G". I agree with the 100-300 if you are talking about the later APO.. it's the better lens compared with the big beercan, the later 75-300 isn't that good


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for the info Jan.

The 28-135 and 100-300 APO are top of my shopping list.

I'm thinking of selling a few lenses I have that won't fit on the a850 such as the Yashica ML 2.8/24, Komura M39 3.5/135, Canon RF 3.5/135 etc. in order to finance the Minolta AF lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
I have a question.

I've bought various M42 to Sony Alpha adapters, with and without chip, thin and thick. All have common problem. I only can get infinity focus (and even focus past infinity), only with soviet lenses (helioses, jupiters, mirs, etc). With all chinons, yashicas, vivitars or whatsoever for M42, I get infinity at about 3-4 meters on 28mm and wider lens, about 10-12 meters with 50mm lens and say 40-50 meters with 135mm lens. Why so?


The reason is that it seems all Chinese M42-Sony Alpha adapters are out of specification. I had to sand the three that I bought to achieve focus to infinity. Very frustrating.

As you can see in the table that I posted at the beginning of this thread, the registers (distance from flange to sensor) for the two mountings are as follows:

M42: 45.46mm
Sony Alpha: 44.6mm

Therefore, an M42 - Sony Alpha adapter should have a thickness that is the difference between the registers, i.e. 0.86mm.
Two adapters I bought from Big_Is had thickness of 1.0mm, i.e., they were 0.14mm thicker than the correct value. An error of 0.14mm means a 50mm lens cannot focus to more than 17.9m, and a 28mm lens, to more than 5.6m.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 1:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my opinion, Kurt Munger is the most reliable reviewer of Minolta AF and Sony Alpha lenses:

http://kurtmunger.com/lens_reviews_id21.html


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 2:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The adapters I have are 0.8mm thick, and still, above mentioned problems.


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 3:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
CuriousOne wrote:
I have a question.

I've bought various M42 to Sony Alpha adapters, with and without chip, thin and thick. All have common problem. I only can get infinity focus (and even focus past infinity), only with soviet lenses (helioses, jupiters, mirs, etc). With all chinons, yashicas, vivitars or whatsoever for M42, I get infinity at about 3-4 meters on 28mm and wider lens, about 10-12 meters with 50mm lens and say 40-50 meters with 135mm lens. Why so?


Are you or are you not reaching (or going past) infinity on all lenses?


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
iangreenhalgh1 wrote:
I don't know about Dyxum's ratings, all I know is what my eyes tell me about the lenses I've owned and used.

The 1985 Minolta 'beercan' 4/70-210 is a better lens, overall than the current Canon EF L 4/80-200.


There isn't a current Canon 80-200/4, do you mean the 70-200/4? If so, the Canon feels better built to me. Plus the Minolta suffers horrible purple fringing. It was the biggest Mintola AF let down for me after all the hype (I tried two). Was very good for portraits though, and I do get what people mean when talk about Minolta colours Smile


PostPosted: Mon Aug 25, 2014 7:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Yeah 4/70-200; a friend has one an I've played with it, a good lens but I was surprised it wasn't better than a good old equivalent like the Viv Series 1 3.5/70-210 or Tokina 4/80-200, contrastier in tricky lighting but often less sharp - auto focus accuracy perhaps?

I've never had particularly noticeable purple fringing with my beercan, copy variation maybe?

This comparison shows the old Minolta can easily match the Canon:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2012/03/24/minolta-70-210mm-f4-versus-canon-70-200mm-f4-l-is/


PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks Ian! Great article, never seen that website before!

I must say: i did not ever own any of those. I did move from Sony to Canon because the 5D was the first full-frame DSLR that came within my budget. I did however own the plastic Minolta 70-210 and once i had a 75-300, i sold them both quickly, they were very dissapointing to me back then.
Maybe because i compared them against a Sigma 75-200 2.8-3.5, which i still have, a metal built and heavy lens, but a very good performer! Funny fact: it does not get a very high rating on Dyxum, however that could be because of the push-pull and the fact that some examples don't seem to work on all Sony cameras.


PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 8:17 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Photoclub Alpha is a really good site, their reviews are great.

I've been looking for that 75-200 Sigma for months, but it's really hard to find, only ones I've seen have been in the Olympus and Yashica AF mounts, which were hardly popular or long-lived systems. Sad


PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
I did however own the plastic Minolta 70-210 and once i had a 75-300, i sold them both quickly, they were very dissapointing to me back then.


must have been the Minolta AF 70-210/4.5-5.6.. this really isn't a very good lens.

http://mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens/af70-210f45

However another plastic lens (but metal mount at least).. the Minolta AF 70-210/3.5-4.5 isn't bad, to be true I liked it even more than the beercan. This could be a good and cheap option.

http://mhohner.de/sony-minolta/onelens/af70-210f35


Oh and don't forget the Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 (mini beercan).. this tiny zoom is really impressive. Just stay away from the Minolta AF 80-200/4.5-5.6.. one of the worst Minolta AF I ever tried!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 10:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tedat wrote:


Oh and don't forget the Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 (mini beercan).. this tiny zoom is really impressive.


True! I have one, really good performer!


PostPosted: Tue Aug 26, 2014 11:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
Tedat wrote:


Oh and don't forget the Minolta AF 100-200/4.5 (mini beercan).. this tiny zoom is really impressive.


True! I have one, really good performer!


Yep the 100-200 is really good, and in my opinion better than the 70-210, I use that lens trackside for Bike and car racing, as it will push through fences, and the autofocus is dementedly quick. has no problem being used for track days, it is light and well built
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3