Minolta SR 20mm vs AF 20mm w LA EA4

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
E Dinkla Senior Member • Posts: 2,221
Re: Minolta SR 20mm vs AF 20mm w LA EA4

neilt3 wrote:

Tim Crammond wrote:.

Which brings me back to why are the old SR MF models bringing substantially higher prices?

With the rise in popularity of mirror less , everyone's gone crazy for manual focus lenses .

The price goes up due to supply and demand .

If your in the market for wider angle lenses , such as 20mm , the technology improved later on , so the AF lenses should give better results .

I've got the Minolta AF 20mm that I had for years used on both film and digital and I'm happy with it .

Well, there was never before a combined range/viewfinder that was as good as the EVF is for manual focus lenses, including features like magnification and peaking.  Improving on what was possible with medium format SLR viewfinders that still lacked in luminosity compared to EVFs. Add sensor IS to the EVF and it becomes even better. Autofocus lenses were partly introduced because the SLR viewfinders were not ideal, that next to speeding up focusing for sports etc. Rangefinder cameras had other flaws in their viewfinders but coped better with available light. The ergonomy of image stabilised  EVFs for the eye plus lens control by hand is hard to replace with AF lenses if focus point and depth within a composition is your first goal.

That said, I personally dislike the aesthetics of early AF lens exteriors most of all.  Luigi Colani who designed the Canon T90, the last of the non AF Canon SLRs, probably set that 80's trend.  I have some AF primes when the MF versions of that focal length already had a secondhand price/performance ratio that overcame my objections written above. I focus them manually.

Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
No photographer's gear list is complete without the printer mentioned !

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow