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

Another lens ID question.
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:00 pm    Post subject: Another lens ID question. Reply with quote

Hey guys. So another local seller has popped up, this time with a set of what are definitely SLR lenses, ha. The pictures are considerably less horrible, and the owner has provided some information, but not a ton.

They seem to be Rokkor lenses, given the camera they're for. The focal lengths are 50, 20, 28, 135, and 200mm. The f/numbers are 2.8, 2.5, 2, 2, and 2.8, but she hasn't gotten back to me on which is which. The 50mm has got to be an f/2, the 28mm is probably the 2.5, and I'd be surprised if the 200mm and 20mm aren't the 2.8s. But I've never heard of a 135mm f/2 lens for Minoltas. She also claimed the lenses are all Sigma-branded, but I'm not so sure.

Here are the photos she's put up. Still pretty crappy. Hopefully with the info provided someone has a more concrete idea.




Any ideas?


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://minolta.eazypix.de/lenses/index.html

there was 135mm/2 in rokkor lineup


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes. Don't buy it if this is all info you have received.


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pancolart wrote:
Yes. Don't buy it if this is all info you have received.


erm wouldn't it depend on the selling price Wink


PostPosted: Wed Oct 26, 2011 11:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Managed to get a bit more info. It turns out the 200mm is actually a 70-200mm zoom lens, 2.8-3.5, and that one is the Sigma.

The 135mm is also a 2.8, the 28mm is the 2.5, the 20mm is a 2.8, and the 50mm is the 2. And those, apparently, are Minolta-branded.

All of them are supposedly clear, no fungus or dirt in the lenses, no scratches on the glass, etc.

She wants $250 for the lot, along with the camera pictured (I believe it's an SR-T series), a flash, and a bag. And of course it's local, so I can go by and inspect them before buying if I like. Is it worth the effort? Seems like the 20mm might make it worthwhile, but unsure.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 12:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sounds about $100 overpriced to me.


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 1:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

abe in space wrote:
Managed to get a bit more info. It turns out the 200mm is actually a 70-200mm zoom lens, 2.8-3.5, and that one is the Sigma.

The 135mm is also a 2.8, the 28mm is the 2.5, the 20mm is a 2.8, and the 50mm is the 2. And those, apparently, are Minolta-branded.

All of them are supposedly clear, no fungus or dirt in the lenses, no scratches on the glass, etc.

She wants $250 for the lot, along with the camera pictured (I believe it's an SR-T series), a flash, and a bag. And of course it's local, so I can go by and inspect them before buying if I like. Is it worth the effort? Seems like the 20mm might make it worthwhile, but unsure.


Pricing depends on exact model and condition.
For the Minolta lenses. These are estamates please check the pricing for yourself.

135 f2.8 USD $20-50. Really depends on the exact model for this one.
50 f2 USD $15-20
28 2.5 USD $50 +
20 f2.8 USD $250-300


PostPosted: Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You understand that these are Minolta MC lenses (for SRT/X MF cameras) right? With a flange distance that.. oh I don't know, but I think they can be reasonably well adapted only to 4/3 and NEX