Recommend a lens for Dynax 9

[muf]

I have just acquired a lovely Dynax 9 in mint condition. Could you suggest a lens or two that are good performers. I have a 50mm f1.7 on it's way, but that will be useful for general purpose. I am mostly into landscape/views and historical buildings(lots here in England) for my photography, so I suppose a wide angle from 35mm or wider. I'd also consider a zoom. I would however prefer something not too big and heavy as the Dynax 9 is already quite heavy as it is. I would look to spend no more than £200 as it is a hobby camera as my Canon EOS1v is my main.

Thanks,
Paul

 

[Addy101]

Congratulations, the Dynax 9 is a lovely camera and I like it more then the EOS 1v 😱

I like mine best with primes. A 50/1.7 is a nice start, good choice!
The most likely candidates for your use are the 24/2.8 and 28/2.8 lenses and like most makes, the 24mm is a very good lens and the 28mm is a good lens.

If your looking for zooms, the Konica-Minolta 17-35/2.8-4D is a good zoom. It is a great bang for your buck if you want an ultra wide.
If you want a normal lens starting at 24mm, both the 24-85 and 24-105 are decent lenses.
The first generation lenses are great. Within your price range, look at the 28-85 or 35-105, but they're not light. And pick up a 35-70/4 for next to nothing, a great little lens!

Finally, visit Dyxum.com for much more information!

 

[sailor]

Welcome to the world of Dynax 9 owners. I picked up mine in absolutely mint condition for £265. I remember drooling over one when they first came out and were priced at £1200. Needless to say I couldn't afford it then.

I have the 50mm f1.7 and as has been said it's a very good lens. The 35-105mm original version is a great lens but as a previous poster has said, it is quite heavy. I love mine and it's the lens I have on the camera most of the time. Here are a couple of photos which I think show how sharp it is.


Glenelg to Skye Ferry by Elmer Duck, on Flickr


Glenelg to Skye Ferry by Elmer Duck, on Flickr

The beauty of a lot of the old Minolta lenses is that they can be had for not very much money if you keep your eyes open. For £200 you should be able to select a pretty good kit.

 

[muf]

Thanks for the replies! I think i'm taken by the 35-105, even though it us heavy. So how do i identify the original version?

Paul

 

[sailor]

If you go to the Dyxum website mentioned above there photographs which show the difference. They look quite different. In my experience the first version sells for more than the newer version as it would appear to be a much better lens.

 

[Never Satisfied]

Hi Paul, if you are going to stick with primes, the 28/2.0 is brilliant, much better than the f2.8 version as is the 35/1.4, which is half the size of the EF35/1.4L you already have.

Cheers Andrew.

 

[muf]

Is it true that manual focus lenses can not be used on the dynax 9?

Also, meant to say just how nice those shots were of the ferry. Very sharp and love the colours.

The 28mm f2 looks like a very good candidate, but looking at prices it will need careful consideration as i don't want to spend over £300 on something used only occasionally.

Paul

 

[shadowfox]

I also recently got a Maxxum 9.
So far I was able to get 35mm f/2 which is really sweet.
For the long range I like the 75-300mm (big beercan), and for the daily walkabout zoom, the 24-85mm.

 

[btgc]

Don't have any need or plans for it, but must admit, looked at it and it's impressive piece of technology and raw power. Shame that such companies went out of camera business.

 

[Addy101]

The 35/2 and 28/2 are great lenses (I have the 28) but they're hard to find below 200 GBP. The 28/2.8 is a cheap lens and good enough for something you think your gonna use occasional :angel:

The 35/1.4 is expensive and not for everybody. It isn't as sharp as the competition, but it has great OOF-rendering - it gets murdered in reviews, but owners love this lens. However, it can't be had below 300 GBP, so it isn't a contender to begin with.

 

[Michalm]

The only option below 200 Pounds would be 24mm which is better lens then cheap 28mm f2.8.

 

[David Hughes]

Is it true that manual focus lenses can not be used on the dynax 9?

Also, meant to say just how nice those shots were of the ferry. Very sharp and love the colours... Paul

Hi,

When the first AF Minoltas appeared (meaning the 7000) it was clear that they had a new mount. Then the Vectis S-1 came and there were three; that's two AF and one manual.

BTW, I think all Minolta lenses are brilliant, ditto the focusing screens. And the cheapest way to experience a manual focus one is to buy a Minolta X-300, which seem to be unloved, but come with one or two of those lovely lenses. Having said that I'll add that the wide aperture ones are affordable, put one on the XD-7 and you'll be in heaven.

Regards, David

PS I'm assuming the Dynax 9 uses the 7000's AF mount. I've only experience of the ones I mention, plus the 7000i.

 

[Never Satisfied]

35mm f1.4 is brilliant!
There are several version of it and Sony still make one.
I have an original version, they were rumered to have a hand made element and nearly every copy was slightly different. No, not as sharp as an EF 35/1.4, but has very nice qualities and certainly very sharp in the center on plane. I also have the 35/2.0, it is awsome and a completely different lens to the 1.4, also much smaller.
I have a 28/2.8 and it is impressively unimpressive, hence the reason why it is so cheap.
Make sure when you buy old Minolta lenses that the diaphram is snappy, as they suffer badly with sticky / oily units.
The cheapest wide zoom combo is the Tokina AT-X 235 pro, constant 2.8, 20/35mm range, all metal, sharp and cheap. I have noticed that there are about 10 Sony / Minolta units on E*ay at the moment.
Andrew.

 

[Ranchu]

I've only tried one, the camera and lens were 19.95 at a thrift store. the lens was pretty good, a fair amount of vignetting wide open, but good color and tonality. So cheap, why not have one, imo. http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=43

 

[muf]

Thanks for all the replies and advice. I have plumped for a Tamron zoom lens. Focal length is 35-135 f3.5-f4.5. Gets some good comments on the Dyxum website.
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=658

Hoping to receive it tomorrow. Not quite as wide as i'd like, but it's got a very handy focal range. I'll let you know what I think of it once received.

Paul

 

[muf]

Ok, got the Tamron. First impressions. Solid, heavy and well constructed. All metal and glass, just like all lenses used to be. The AF is not so quick, so I won't be shooting sports with it any time soon. That's fine as I'm predominantly a landscape/structures photographer and last time I went out, they didn't move about much! I don't have a Sony DSLR to test it quickly, so will have to load the Dynax up with film. Now if only the weather would buck up...

Paul

 

[kitedan]

Hello,

Just to add to what has been said above, I too have very recently bought a Mint- Dynax 9, having wanted one since 1999 when I couldn't afford the £1200 - 1300 price tag. What a quality camera it seems to be, based on the comments from sailor above and those sharp ferry photos, I bought an original Minolta 35-105 to go with it. Looking forward to some great photography when the UK weather picks up! Curiously this combines one of the first Minolta AF lenses with one of the last AF bodies.

There seem to be many similarities with the Tamron lens selected by muf.

Dan

 

[muf]

Hi Dan, I passed on a 35-105 minolta lens on ebay to go for the Tamron. I was in two minds which to go for but eventually figured the extra 30mm may be useful. I have to say that those pics of the ferry nearly swayed me, but I chose the Tamron in the end. From what i've read about both, it seems we are in for a good ride! I can't wait to try my dynax/tamron combo out, but agree that the weather is proving 'troublesome' here in Manchester. Nothing new about that, but still a PITA.

Paul

 

[kitedan]

Hi Paul, and others here

Having had my Dynax 9 and Minolta 35-105 out for a trial over the last couple of days, I have a question for the other users here.

The viewfinder information display (focus, shutter speed and aperture etc) at the bottom of the viewfinder seems quite dim to me, especially when out in bright conditions.

Can anyone comment on this? It seems difficult to make out the green numbers. I cant find any reference to this in the user manual (I don't know whether they are of variable brightness depending on the ambient light for example). Has anyone else experienced this?

Dan

 

[kitedan]

I should clarify, it only appears dim when shooting in bright outdoor light, it's fine indoors etc

Happy Easter to you all

Dan