A100 and Old Lenses--Help Needed

I am seriously looking at the A100 for my first dSLR and I've been reading all the wonderful threads offering advice and help. In a current thread by Mister Mike, Keith Schmidt wrote that an old Minolta 50mm/1.7 lens would work on the A100. I need clarification here, please. I own a Minolta X-700 35mm "film" camera with four lenses. I became a digital camera user in 2001 and have never looked back. Before I spend about $2000 on lenses I want, I am wondering if the lenses I have will work on the A100. They are all 7 - 10 years old and manual focus:
MD Minolta Celtic 28mm/F2.8;
MD Minolta 50 mm/F1.7
Sigma Zoom-Master 35-70mm/F2.8
Sigma Zoom-KII 70-210mm/F4.5

Thank you for any help you can give me in this matter.
--
Cindy Young

Cindy - only Minolta A mount (maxxum mount) lenses will work on the a100. I believe you can use MC or MD mount lenses with an adapter, but you lose some functionality and f stops. From what I've read, there are very few MC or MD mount lenses that are worth the trouble to use on the a100.

There is a Minolta Maxxum mount 50mm 1.7 - that's the one I was referring to.

Hope this helps.
--
Keith
equipment in profile
http://www.pbase.com/themitty/
http://www.picasaweb.google.com/themitty

Thank you, Keith, for your quick response. I now know that I won't be spending my money foolishly buying new lenses. I am trying to capture my fast-moving grandchildren instantaneously and my P&S cameras weren't cooperating (it very well could be the operator of the cameras, too!). These are the lenses on my list which I feel I need to have. Do you think I can make better choices?

Sony 50mm/F1.4 AF
Tamron 90mm/F2.8 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Macro AF
Tamron 17-50mm/F2.8 XR Di II LD
Tamron 18-250mm/F3.5-6.3 Di II Aspherican [IF] Macro AF

Thanks again for your time and any advice
--
Cindy Young

Cindy Young said:

Thank you, Keith, for your quick response. I now know that I won't
be spending my money foolishly buying new lenses. I am trying to
capture my fast-moving grandchildren instantaneously and my P&S
cameras weren't cooperating (it very well could be the operator of
the cameras, too!). These are the lenses on my list which I feel I
need to have. Do you think I can make better choices?

Sony 50mm/F1.4 AF
Tamron 90mm/F2.8 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Macro AF
Tamron 17-50mm/F2.8 XR Di II LD
Tamron 18-250mm/F3.5-6.3 Di II Aspherican [IF] Macro AF

Click to expand...

I'd skip the 50mm 1.4 and just get a used Minolta 50mm 1.7 - about 1/4 or 1/5 of the price and no real noticeable difference between the two. You can find them on either ebay or reputable online stores like KEH.com or B&H Photo for $75 or less. The 50mm 1.4 can be found used for just over $200 and I think a new one is over $300.

The Tamron 90mm macro is a very good macro lens and the 17-50 2.8 is also an excellent choice as a replacement for the kit lens.

The 18-250 isn't out yet, so you're best bet is to wait for reviews on that one. I have the Sigma 18-200mm and love it as a walk around lens, but it's only good in good light, or with a flash.

Hope this helps.
--
Keith
equipment in profile
http://www.pbase.com/themitty/
http://www.picasaweb.google.com/themitty

Buying into a system is scary! Thanks for your help and your advice is much appreciated. If anyone else has recommendations for other "fast" lenses, feel free to jump in.
--
Cindy Young

You can't go wrong with some form of a 70-200 2.8. Can be expensive, but it will become one of your favorite lenses.

Jason
--
'Just take the picture already.'

http://www.pbase.com/jasonshaffer

Just in case you don't know the tamron 90 doesn't focus very fast -- none of the macro's do. The tamron is very sharp but it may not be great for fast moving kids.

Cindy,

I have the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and it is currently my primary lens. Its fast, focuses well and produces an IQ at least one notch better than the kit lens. Most of the reviews rate it "almost equal" to lenses costing three times as much. I like it and would recommend it.

Mike

--
'Better' is the enemy of 'Good Enough'.

I will look into a 70-200mm/2.8 lens. Any suggestions of where to order lenses other than B&H and Adorama?
--
Cindy Young

laguire said:

Just in case you don't know the tamron 90 doesn't focus very fast
-- none of the macro's do. The tamron is very sharp but it may
not be great for fast moving kids.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. No, I didn't know that the Tamron 90/2.8 doesn't focus very fast. I just assumed the 2.8 would focus fast. However, I did read that it is a good lens for portraits--that is IF I can get the grandkids to sit still long enough! I really appreciate your reading my post and knowing what I needed.

--
Cindy Young

I have put a big check mark beside this lens, thanks to you. I am enjoying your thread on A Beginner's Guide to the A100. Good things to know. I appreciate you taking the time to help others.
--
Cindy Young

Cindy Young said:

I will look into a 70-200mm/2.8 lens. Any suggestions of where to
order lenses other than B&H and Adorama?
--
Cindy Young

Click to expand...

Well Cindy, I have to say right now that type of lens is a very hard lens to come by. Most websites say they have it in stock, but its not really the case. The only one you can buy new at this point is the Sony model, but that will set you back around $2500 depending on the dealer. Sigma did make a very nice one, (which I happen to have), but right now it is not in production for the Sony mount. They do supposedly have plans to start producing it in our mount again, but that has yet to be seen as of now. Your best bet is Ebay, or you can post a Wanted ad over at the forums at Dyxum. You would want to look for a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 EX, a Minolta 80-200mm f2.8 G lens, a Minolta 70-200mm f2.8 G, or a Tokina 80-200mm f2.8 ATX-Pro. If you are willing to spend some cash, here is a beautiful lens at Ebay: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ih=011&sspagename=STRK%3AMEWA%3AIT&viewitem=&item=320082059384&rd=1&rd=1 . All in all it will just take some patience, but I can assure you, you won't be dissapointed with a lens of this type.

Jason

PS: Here is the Buy/Sell forum at Dyxum: http://dyxum.com/dforum/forum_topics.asp?FID=7 .

If you aren't familiar with Dyxum, it is a wonderful resource for the Minolta/Sony mount, with great equipment reviews and a really helpful, friendly, user-base.
--
'Just take the picture already.'

http://www.pbase.com/jasonshaffer

Jason Shaffer said:

If you aren't familiar with Dyxum, it is a wonderful resource for
the Minolta/Sony mount, with great equipment reviews and a really
helpful, friendly, user-base.

Click to expand...

I must say that was a sweet lens on eBay, but $1,666 is a little bit out of my range . Also, I have looked at the Dyxum site, but couldn't seem to navigate it very well. Now, that doesn't say much for my computer abilities, does it? I will keep trying to find the Used Lenses area. Yea, your link sent me to the place I needed! Thanks so much for the links, Jason.
--
Cindy Young

A sweet lens indeed

Out of my price range as well, however. Thats why I went with a Sigma, when I purchased mine I was able to have it for $800. If that is still out of your price range, let me know, and there might be an alternative. Actually the Tokina I mentioned just went on Ebay for around $400. There are pretty hard to come by though. Let me know how the search goes. Just post a Wanted ad on there and specify what you are looking for. You will get responses quickly.

Jason
--

'Just take the picture already.'

http://www.pbase.com/jasonshaffer

Cindy

There are lots of good used KM lenses out there, some of them are real bargains.

For portraits, go with the old 35-105 (there is a newer 'RS' one, which is smaller, focusses closer, but does not have the image quality) You should be able to get a good one for $50 on ebay KEH or Adorama. For longer lengths, there are still some bargains at Circuit City. I saw two 75-300, unused in boxes for $60 ea in Circuit City NY, on 86th st near to 2nd, in January. Don't know if they are still there. These dont have the IQ of the top lenses, but they are light on your camera and you can't really go wrong at that price. That still leaves a wide angle. KM 24-105's are small and good (not as sharp as the 35-105, though), and are about $230 s/h. KM 18-80's have had surprisingly good reviews although I have not used one. They are around at about $100 if you look hard enough. If you want an all purpose lens, the 18-200's are convenient but the IQ, especially at the long end is not so hot. Sigma, Tamron and KM/Sony make these, I would personally now go for the Sigma (I tried Sigma and KM and kept the KM, but I don't think it is as well made, and suffers from Zoom creep a lot after 12 months' use)

Unless you really need one, I would not buy a prime 50mm yet. Get a selection of the other lenses I mention and see how you get on first.

There may be more shorter lenses about, once the Carl Zeiss 16-80 is available in a month or two. Lots of people are waiting to buy that one and may sell their old ones.

Hope it helps

Tom

Not sure if this is a consideration but the 70-200 2.8 lenses are quite large and heavy (I have 2 versions of the 70-200 sigma). Of course if you do get one of the super zooms, you can choose between lenses as needed.

You may also want to pay attention to the minimum focusing distance on the different models/brands.

laguire said:

Not sure if this is a consideration but the 70-200 2.8 lenses are
quite large and heavy ...

You may also want to pay attention to the minimum focusing distance
on the different models/brands.

Click to expand...

Yes, the weight of a lens is indeed a consideration. Being a "Grammy," I would need to think that through. Even Sony's SSS may not be enough. I saw where one of the 70-200/2.8 lenses weighed 3.3 lbs. And the minimum focusing distance was about 4 feet. There's a lot to think about.
Thank you for your advice.
--
Cindy Young

tomhongkong wrote:
For portraits, go with the old 35-105

I have noted this so I can do some more "homework/research."

For longer lengths, there are still some bargains at

tomhongkong said:

Circuit City.

Click to expand...

I am looking for IQ as well as fast shutter response. I'm not really searching for bargains unless I can find really good lenses at a bargain price (unlikely, huh?). However, lenses in the $250 - $400 range are reasonable for me right now.

That still leaves a wide angle. KM 18-80's have had surprisingly good reviews although I

tomhongkong said:

have not used one.

Click to expand...

I will do my homework on this one, too. Thanks.

If you want an all purpose lens, the 18-200's are

tomhongkong said:

convenient but the IQ, especially at the long end is not so hot.
Sigma, Tamron and KM/Sony make these, I would personally now go for
the Sigma.

Click to expand...

Thanks for this suggestion. I've read about the dreaded "lens creep" and want to avoid that.

tomhongkong said:

Unless you really need one, I would not buy a prime 50mm yet.

Click to expand...

I was thinking I would get the Minolta 50mm/1.7 to photograph my newest grandchildren (to be born soon) in low light situations without a flash. Am I wrong in thinking this lens would be good in that capacity?

tomhongkong said:

There may be more shorter lenses about, once the Carl Zeiss 16-80
is available in a month or two. Lots of people are waiting to buy
that one and may sell their old ones.

Click to expand...

I would really like that CZ 16-80 lens. However, the cost is pretty prohibitive unless I can prove I deserve it by getting some good results with the other lenses. Will keep checking for used lenses once the CZ comes out.
Thanks, Tom

--
Cindy Young

Cindy Young said:

I am trying to
capture my fast-moving grandchildren instantaneously

Sony 50mm/F1.4 AF
Tamron 90mm/F2.8 Di II LD Aspherical [IF] Macro AF
Tamron 17-50mm/F2.8 XR Di II LD
Tamron 18-250mm/F3.5-6.3 Di II Aspherican [IF] Macro AF

Click to expand...

Couple quick comments:

The 17-50 is a beautiful alternative to the kit lens, offering you nice wide angle coverage and a fast, sharp lens. Personally, I prefer the 28-75/2.8 (I have the Konica Minolta version, but Tamron makes the same lens) for shooting people as it gets into "portrait range" ... you can zoom in on a face easier, but might find it a little "tight" at the wide end for group shots.

18-250 ... why two lenses that both cover wide angle ? Would the 18-250 be a single-lens option for travel ? If so, that makes sense. Otherwise, I'd look at a faster telephoto zoom with a smaller zoom range (Sigma 70-300, Minolta/Sony 75-300, Minolta 100-300 APO, used "beercan" - Minolta 70-210/4, etc).

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

Cindy Young said:

laguire said:

Just in case you don't know the tamron 90 doesn't focus very fast
-- none of the macro's do. The tamron is very sharp but it may
not be great for fast moving kids.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your response. No, I didn't know that the Tamron 90/2.8
doesn't focus very fast. I just assumed the 2.8 would focus fast.
However, I did read that it is a good lens for portraits--that is
IF I can get the grandkids to sit still long enough! I really
appreciate your reading my post and knowing what I needed.

Click to expand...

It's actually a little long for portraits on a DSLR. It has the FOV of a 135mm lens on film. I used a 135 briefly on film and found it handy for a few head shots in a big room ... nice outdoors where there's often room. I would not buy such a lens for people photography unless I also happened to need a good macro lens. Sigma makes a 70/2.8 which makes for a better all purpose people lens (and I think it has faster AF than the longer macros). The problem with the macro lenses is that they rotate a kazillion (give or take) times from minimum focus distance to infinity (and if you use the focus limiter, then you're down to half a kazillion). See my other post for the recommendation of the 28-75/2.8 for people shots. I find myself occasionally wishing for a wider lens, occasionally wishing for a longer lens, but all in all, finding 28-75 a nice range for shooting kids given that I'd rather a fast lens than a wider ranging lens.

Another option would be something like 24-105 for bright light and a faster lens (17-50/2.8 or 28-75/2.8) for low light.

• Dennis

--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com