-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Discontinued Minolta lenses you'd like to see be remade?
- Thread starter bloodycape
- Start date
Ed at Ridersite
Forum Pro
No way. The 70-300mm G is far better - no CA and quieter focusing. Not sure about focus speed though. I doubt the difference would be much though since it does have the focus limiter. I think the 70-300mm G is also sharper wide open.
I almost opted for the 70-300mm G instead of the 70-400mm G II - just because of weight. But, the sharpness, faster focusing and extra 100mm won out handily in the long run. I'll just have to live with the extra weight ;-)
jwkphoto
Active member
I had a Maxxum 100mm F2 that was a great lens and I had to sell it a few years ago. One other lens that was utterly fantastic was a Vivitar Series One 90mm F2.5 Macro from 1979 in the Minolta SR mount. It's probably the sharpest macro ever made and the build quality was outstanding.
Photo made with the Vivitar 90mm F2.5 Macro, 1980, Kodachrome 25 film
I do have a 58mm F1.2 Minolta SR lens for my old 101. It never was very good on the film cameras. When I got my A100 in 2006, I converted the lens by removing the lens mount and replacing it wit a modified T mount adapter. I don't know why, it seems to make a much better digital lens than it ever did with film.
Photo made with the Vivitar 90mm F2.5 Macro, 1980, Kodachrome 25 film
I do have a 58mm F1.2 Minolta SR lens for my old 101. It never was very good on the film cameras. When I got my A100 in 2006, I converted the lens by removing the lens mount and replacing it wit a modified T mount adapter. I don't know why, it seems to make a much better digital lens than it ever did with film.
Last edited:
Amateur Sony Shooter
Veteran Member
If Sony make new version of 24-105/f4, SSM and weather sealing, for $1000 I would buy it.
bloodycape
Senior Member
Really like the 100-300mm APO(I think D variant) that I have, and would agree a modern version of this would be pretty nice. Really, like it more than Sony and regular Sigma 75-300mm I have tested.
Faith Yeung
Leading Member
200 f4 macro
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
24-85, 35-200xi (without powerzoom), 100/2, 135/2.8, 400/4.5 APO, 200/4 Macro, 200/2.8 APO, 600/4 APO, 28/2, dump the cheap 75-300 and replace with 100-300 APO. All with SSM and modern coatings.
Last edited:
Bruce Oudekerk
Veteran Member
I know NOTHING about lens design but if Sony or Zeiss could work its magic on the old Minolta 28-135 design formula but with modern coatings, SSM and a non rotating front element and somehow get rid of its tendency toward axial CA (purple fringing) as well as decreasing its MFD a bit (maybe by making it a 24-115?) ... this would be a killer lens.
Of course I’ve added a lot of qualifications to the mix. LOL It would be a VERY costly lens in today’s market but it might be THE killer walkabout lens for FF on any platform. It would obviously be good enough that I have to believe that cost might be its own poison hemlock. OTOH Sony expects the expensive 70-400G to sell well enough to justify its existence.
Bruce
Of course I’ve added a lot of qualifications to the mix. LOL It would be a VERY costly lens in today’s market but it might be THE killer walkabout lens for FF on any platform. It would obviously be good enough that I have to believe that cost might be its own poison hemlock. OTOH Sony expects the expensive 70-400G to sell well enough to justify its existence.
Bruce
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
Definitely the 24-85. It's much more compact than the 28-135 and focuses much faster. Aside from some distortion at the wide end, the 24-85 is as good or better sharpness wise than the 28-135, and it has far less CA, much better MFD, and better color/contrast. The 24-85 used to be considered the mini 28-70 G, and it's better than the 28-75/2.8. It would be the perfect kit lens for a future sub $2k FF camera. This lens is very sharp wide open and only needs to be stopped down if you need more DOF.
Photodo who tested these lenses with a Hassy Optical Test Bench scored the 24-85 @ 3.5. The 28-70 scored 3.7 and the 28-135 scored 3.6. Anything 3.5 or higher is a pretty sharp lens, and I've owned all of these lenses. They are virtually identical in prints, louped chromes, or pixel peeped when it comes to resolution. The Leica R 70-210/4 (which is the same lens as the MD version and Alpha Beercan) Scores a 3.3 .
remylebeau
Forum Enthusiast
EinsteinsGhost
Forum Pro
And I would also LOVE to see an 85mm version of the STF.
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
For me I don't know. I know every ones uses are different... But for me I find that if I have a subject where I am shooting longer than about 70mm, I often also shoot much longer as well (200mm). Because of that I don't find much use in lenses like these, unless they have considerably more range. Personally I would be more apt to shoot a 24-70 and a 70-200. If I needed just one lens, I think I'd find a 28-200 much more useful. On my Canon 24-105 or 28-135, I often found myself running out of range on the tele end forcing me to switch lenses just as often as I would with a 24-70. With all the advancement in making somewhat descent 28-300's they should be able to make a pretty good 24-200 or 28-200. I owned a 24-200 Tokina ATX for a while, and that was a great range for single lens walk around and event use.. But the ancient design left a lot to be desired optically until you hit F8. Sony could probably build a modern 24-200 that works well. I think most people who want more range than what a 24-70 offers, also wants more than 105/135 on the long end.
For me these days the 24-70 range is my least used. I almost always use a 16-35 or 70-200, and keep a little 50mm in the bag if I need something in the middle.
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
Yeah the 28-135's MFD is definitely not it's forte. It was expensive because this lens was hand built on the same line that produced the G lenses. I don't see why with modern manufacturing techniques it couldn't be produced as well and for less. This lens has a focusing mechanism that is very fragile though, and it's usually what causes the lens to fail. if you ever buy a used one, make sure it's been well taken care of and not abused. I'm far from a lens engineer, but I am assuming that to fix the MFD issue, it would require a lot of reworking of the optical formula which may or may not result in something better.
The 24-105 isn't too bad of a lens but it's not great either. From 24-85 it's ok, and a little soft at 105 wide open. Really it's biggest issue is lack of contrast and color saturation. Those of us that shot chrome noticed it right away back in the film days. On digital this isn't so much of an issue since you can turn it up in post. It's definitely not nearly as good as the 24-85 it replaced, but it is quite a feat when you consider how small the 24-105 is. It's half a stop faster on the wide end and only half a stop slower on the long end compared to the 24-105L, but it is so small it looks like an m43 zoom when placed next to the L. It's a good lens for travel shooters who need compactness and shoot stopped down. At F8 it does a pretty good job.
But the 24-85 is a great design, and would be an ideal kit lens if reworked with SSM or even just SAM and modern coatings. Question is if they can make it for much less than the 28-75 SAM sells for..... Although I prefer the 24-85, the 28-75 SAM isn't too bad. 28-75 is a little soft on the edges wide open but stopping it down to the same aperture as the 24-85, they are pretty equal. But you still have that wider F2.8 aperture available if you need it, at the expensive of bigger size and weight.
A long macro would be nice, you have to go Sigma now. I have the Canon 180 macro at work and would love a similar Sony lens.
Bruce Oudekerk
Veteran Member
Not only is everyone different but everyone tends to change. For decades my outdoor walk-around ‘go-to’ lens was a 70-210 f4.0 Canon lens on my film Canon A1. I also used a 28mm occasionally but my fast 50mm, 100mm and 200mm primes were virtually unused. Now I use my old Minolta 28-135 outside all the time and it gets the overwhelming lion’s share of the work. My ultra wides and longer lenses get used very infrequently. I have a KM 28-75 f2.8 but that only gets used indoors and I find it ridiculously restrictive outside in daylight.
While I love the combination, quite frankly I’m getting tired of the a850/28-135 weight. I posted a while back on the NEX forum about the lack of an high quality APS-C walk around e-mount lens similar to the a-mount Zeiss 16-80 (which has a FOV of 24-120) . I was shocked that the typical response was apathy or that a 16-50 was a suitable substitute. I guess the moral to the story is that my comfort zone is just that… MY comfort zone. And that shouldn’t be a surprise to me or anyone else here.
I have an APS-C Sony 18-250 super zoom and it’s a nice lens given its range. But its just nice…maybe very nice… but that’s all. The 28-135 is stellar and there is a world of difference in image quality overall. Until proven otherwise, I don’t expect to find ANY APS-C or FF super zoom with the image quality of this old FF Minolta zoom and to be honest I’m still amazed every time I use the 28-135 that its image quality is as good as it is for a 4.8X zoom.
Bruce
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum