Samouraï
Well-known
What do people here think of the old Minolta AF lenses? I'm considering buying some for my A7S as some of these are considerably cheaper and more available than in modern mounts. I could put together a full set for a price that isn't too crazy (though the exotic ones are pretty pricey).
I'm talking about the 135STF, the 100Soft, the 100Macro. Those are the "exotic" lenses I've been considering. And the 100Macro is considerably cheaper than a lot of other macro options on the market (especially the new FE 90mm macro), and I've read the performance is pretty great. The STF I have used before; it's a classic. The Soft is a curiosity.
---
But that's not what I'm here to ask you guys about. I'm more interested in the usefulness of the normal lengths (i.e. the 35/50/85).
What do you guys think about the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4? I know the Minolta glass from the early 90's is really well-regarded in many circles. But does it hold up? Does it have the color matching that I've read about? Are they really as creamy, colorful, and warm as I've been lead to believe? 50mm is my favorite focal length, and it seems to me that it's the weak link in the whole Minolta AF lineup, unfortunately--the RS-version being plastic.
Magic or hype? We all know the 135STF is magical, but what about the rest? Or am I better off spending the money on something else (fewer, but more modern glass, even some MF Leica glass)? Thanks for the input, this has been a great curiosity of mine for a long time.
I'm talking about the 135STF, the 100Soft, the 100Macro. Those are the "exotic" lenses I've been considering. And the 100Macro is considerably cheaper than a lot of other macro options on the market (especially the new FE 90mm macro), and I've read the performance is pretty great. The STF I have used before; it's a classic. The Soft is a curiosity.
---
But that's not what I'm here to ask you guys about. I'm more interested in the usefulness of the normal lengths (i.e. the 35/50/85).
What do you guys think about the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4? I know the Minolta glass from the early 90's is really well-regarded in many circles. But does it hold up? Does it have the color matching that I've read about? Are they really as creamy, colorful, and warm as I've been lead to believe? 50mm is my favorite focal length, and it seems to me that it's the weak link in the whole Minolta AF lineup, unfortunately--the RS-version being plastic.
Magic or hype? We all know the 135STF is magical, but what about the rest? Or am I better off spending the money on something else (fewer, but more modern glass, even some MF Leica glass)? Thanks for the input, this has been a great curiosity of mine for a long time.
Mudman
Well-known
The 50 1.7 is great. Gave it to my mom with a sony a700, and she loves it. Kind of plastic build, but solid optics.
p.giannakis
Pan Giannakis
I have used the 50 f/1.7 and the 28 f/2.8 and they are both excellent.
daveleo
what?
I will comment on the manual focus Minoltas, keeping in mind that likes and dislikes are highly subjective.
I use a 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 on my Fuji (APS) digitals.
The color and "creamy" but sharp look is wonderful. The 50/1.4 is a dream (I think I paid $80 for it?).
Try one. Worse case scenario, you throw away $80-$100 and write it off to experience.
I use a 50/1.4, 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 on my Fuji (APS) digitals.
The color and "creamy" but sharp look is wonderful. The 50/1.4 is a dream (I think I paid $80 for it?).
Try one. Worse case scenario, you throw away $80-$100 and write it off to experience.
PaulDalex
Dilettante artist
I used to use my 100 macro on my Maxxum 9 as a portrait lens
Strongly recommended
Strongly recommended
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
Not Minolta exclusive, I've had the same issue with Nikon: All makers' original AF lenses had frequent issues with grit and dust getting into the gears or between the sleeve and barrel. Early versions are best bought personally, so that you can do a hands-on test whether they feel rough.
Addy101
Well-known
The Sony/Minolta A-mount is newer then Nikon's F or Pentax K-mount, what do you consider more modern mounts?
Anyway, you used the STF, you know what it is. The 100 soft was introduced in 1994 and is considered a good lens but the soft effect is a bit outdated and at f/2.8 it isn't that fast. The 100/2.8 Macro can be had in several versions, all with the same optical design. I would take a look at the 100/2 if you're in the market for a lens in that range, it is a little bit smaller and sharp from wide-open.
Regarding Minolta 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, it goes like this:
35/1.4 - those who like it, love it, but it isn't the sharpest. If you want sharpness get the Sigma.
50/1.4 - I own both the Sony and Minolta 50/1.4 and I love the way it renders. It gives the A-mount Zeiss 50/1.4 a run for its money. No-brainer imho.
85/1.4 - a classic lens in the Minolta line-up. Considered to be one of the best portrait lenses ever made.
The 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 are rumoured to be colour tuned to match each other.
Go to Dyxum.com and they can tell you everything on Minolta AF lenses.
Some pictures:
50/1.4 @ f/2
85/1.4 @ f/2
Anyway, you used the STF, you know what it is. The 100 soft was introduced in 1994 and is considered a good lens but the soft effect is a bit outdated and at f/2.8 it isn't that fast. The 100/2.8 Macro can be had in several versions, all with the same optical design. I would take a look at the 100/2 if you're in the market for a lens in that range, it is a little bit smaller and sharp from wide-open.
Regarding Minolta 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, it goes like this:
35/1.4 - those who like it, love it, but it isn't the sharpest. If you want sharpness get the Sigma.
50/1.4 - I own both the Sony and Minolta 50/1.4 and I love the way it renders. It gives the A-mount Zeiss 50/1.4 a run for its money. No-brainer imho.
85/1.4 - a classic lens in the Minolta line-up. Considered to be one of the best portrait lenses ever made.
The 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 are rumoured to be colour tuned to match each other.
Go to Dyxum.com and they can tell you everything on Minolta AF lenses.
Some pictures:
50/1.4 @ f/2
85/1.4 @ f/2
Samouraï
Well-known
The Sony/Minolta A-mount is newer then Nikon's F or Pentax K-mount, what do you consider more modern mounts?
Anyway, you used the STF, you know what it is. The 100 soft was introduced in 1994 and is considered a good lens but the soft effect is a bit outdated and at f/2.8 it isn't that fast. The 100/2.8 Macro can be had in several versions, all with the same optical design. I would take a look at the 100/2 if you're in the market for a lens in that range, it is a little bit smaller and sharp from wide-open.
Regarding Minolta 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4, it goes like this:
35/1.4 - those who like it, love it, but it isn't the sharpest. If you want sharpness get the Sigma.
50/1.4 - I own both the Sony and Minolta 50/1.4 and I love the way it renders. It gives the A-mount Zeiss 50/1.4 a run for its money. No-brainer imho.
85/1.4 - a classic lens in the Minolta line-up. Considered to be one of the best portrait lenses ever made.
The 35/1.4, 50/1.4, and 85/1.4 are rumoured to be colour tuned to match each other.
Go to Dyxum.com and they can tell you everything on Minolta AF lenses.
Some pictures:
50/1.4 @ f/2
85/1.4 @ f/2
Thanks for the information. I've been all over Dyxum for awhile, and the hype has seriously interested me. I just wanted a less biased opinion from some folk on RFF.
The 100/2 does seem kind of amazing from what I've read. The 100Soft is outdated, I know, and that's why it kind of interests me (I'm a 20-something filmmaker/freelancer, and would only use it with a keen sense of self-awareness to wring the coolness from an unused technique). I'd imagine I should go for the 100/2, however.
See, I've always wanted my own 135STF--it's one of a kind. And since the 100macro can be had for a really good price, and I occasionally need a sharp macro for product photography. So those were locked in, and then I thought why not look at the rest. We'll see what I end up with, sounds like I want the 35/50/85 combo, too. Anyway, again thank you for the rundown.
More opinions welcome!
Addy101
Well-known
I don't think I'm unbiased :angel:
toyfel
Established
85/1.4
85/1.4
The AF 85/1.4 is my absolute favorite Minolta lens (but haven't used it since digital came along). The 135 STF is one I'd love to try in the future, but I am still waiting for a digital camera from Sony that fits my needs.
85/1.4
The AF 85/1.4 is my absolute favorite Minolta lens (but haven't used it since digital came along). The 135 STF is one I'd love to try in the future, but I am still waiting for a digital camera from Sony that fits my needs.
Addy101
Well-known
What are your needs? The A900 was the most mechanical DSLR ever made, the A99 is ideal to use with manual focus lenses like the 135STF. The A77 and A77ii are great APS-C cameras. The NEX-cameras are small and wonderful, the A7 series are great full-frame cameras in a smaller body.
The only thing missing is a Canon 1D or Nikon D3/D4 kind of camera. If you need one of those, I don't think you would be using a 85mm prime a lot
But I agree that the Minolta 85/1.4 is a wonderful lens:
Sony A900 | Minolta 85/1.4G | f/2 | 1/250s | 100iso
YYV_146
Well-known
The Minolta 85mm F1.4 is a lens I consider equal or superior to the Canon 85mm F1.2. The limited edition 85mm F1.4 is perhaps the best 85mm fast lens ever made (the Otus is there, of course, but it doesn't come in A mount). Very sharp, beautiful Bokeh, good handling and weight distribution.
The 50mm F1.4 is not as good a performer, but solid enough given the price. It's sharp on center, even wide open.
On the other hand, there are some very good M lenses for the A7 bodies with the new thin filter stack mod. The 25 and 21mm Biogons become completely usable. For a loose equivalent of the 85mm F1.4 AF, there is the voigtlander 75mm F1.8. It is light, well-built and has pretty good bokeh.
The 50mm F1.4 is not as good a performer, but solid enough given the price. It's sharp on center, even wide open.
On the other hand, there are some very good M lenses for the A7 bodies with the new thin filter stack mod. The 25 and 21mm Biogons become completely usable. For a loose equivalent of the 85mm F1.4 AF, there is the voigtlander 75mm F1.8. It is light, well-built and has pretty good bokeh.
Samouraï
Well-known
Thank you for the information.
It seems to me that the Minolta AF line has an exceptional lineup of long lenses. The 85/1.4, 100/2, 100soft, 100macro, 135stf, and then a whole bunch of great lenses at lengths longer than I need. Even an AF 500 Reflex lens that looks like it could be some fun.
The 50/1.4 seems decent, but maybe only worth it if you're looking for the "Minolta colors".
What about the famous 35/1.4 that is so often cited as a mate to the 85/1.4? The same design is still going for $1400 under the Sony name on BHPhoto. Not sharp, but very special?
I've read the 35/2 and 28/2 are strong performers, sharp across the frame. How does the 35/2 compare with the Sony 35/2.8 FE Sonnar?
Iestrada
Well-known
At Dyxum they have an incredible wealth of information.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp
The green typing are hyperlinks. If you click on reviews you will be able to read user reviews. Click on the lens name and aperture and you can acces a link that can show many sample images (under additional info). I have never bought a lens in an A mount without researching it at Dyxum.
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/results.asp
The green typing are hyperlinks. If you click on reviews you will be able to read user reviews. Click on the lens name and aperture and you can acces a link that can show many sample images (under additional info). I have never bought a lens in an A mount without researching it at Dyxum.
ferider
Veteran
There is no bad MAF prime.
My collection now includes 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100 Macro, 200/2.8, and 500/8.
The 200 and/or 500 are reason enough to buy a minolta body, IMO.
The 50/1.4 is actually very good, certainly technically better than anything similar Leica or Nikon built before the 50/1,4 lux asph.
Roland.
My collection now includes 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.4, 100 Macro, 200/2.8, and 500/8.
The 200 and/or 500 are reason enough to buy a minolta body, IMO.
The 50/1.4 is actually very good, certainly technically better than anything similar Leica or Nikon built before the 50/1,4 lux asph.
Roland.
Samouraï
Well-known
Don't forget the 135STF.
Is the 500/8 you're referring to the reflex lens? What makes it so special besides being the only AF reflex ever made? I've been considering this one too because of the fun factor, but I don't expect it to be a real performer.
I'll be using a Sony AF adapter for my A7S, but I'm considering the Novoflex instead (smooth aperture for video work). I may grab an old film body in the future if I am a Minolta convert.
I'll update with my thoughts when I get ahold of some kit. The 35/1.4 is the lens that interests me the most.
ferider
Veteran
Yes. What makes it special to me is that it's AF, Samourai (= f8 is no problem). And even though it has donut bokeh, it's comparatively smooth, very well corrected.
Roland.
Samouraï
Well-known
Ah, very good. I suppose you won't get a better lens of that length for the price. Donut bokeh is something one can learn to work around I'd imagine.
Gosh, so many interesting and exciting lenses from one company and one lineup.
David Hughes
David Hughes
Hi,
There's a lot out there and they are giving them away at present. If you are serious then you ought to be looking at the early 5 electrical contact ones and the later 8 contact lenses; because of them there's two styles of body. So you have to chose between them although I think they both work in all versions but can't be sure.
I went for the 7000 and 7000i but mostly because I had no other choice when I bought the 7000 years ago and the 7000i because I like weird cameras.
Regards, David
Addy101
Well-known
5 or 8 contacts isn't important.
Cameras like the Dynax/Maxxum 700si or 800si or newer are quite good, the older cameras are a bit iffy. Most single digit cameras (4, 5, 7) can AF lenses with in-lens motors. If you want more information on Minolta bodies, take a look at www.mhohner.de.
The Minolta 200/2.8 is an exceptional lens, I used to own it and it is a better lens then my Canon 200/2.8L.
Cameras like the Dynax/Maxxum 700si or 800si or newer are quite good, the older cameras are a bit iffy. Most single digit cameras (4, 5, 7) can AF lenses with in-lens motors. If you want more information on Minolta bodies, take a look at www.mhohner.de.
The Minolta 200/2.8 is an exceptional lens, I used to own it and it is a better lens then my Canon 200/2.8L.