lens for Minolta Maxxum 5

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by xiongnu, Aug 14, 2005.

  1. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest


    can anyone recommend a good lens for Minolta Maxxum 5 SLR?

    the one comes with my Minolta is a 28-80mm lens

    xiongnu, Aug 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. xiongnu

    ian lincoln Guest

    with any luck alan browne will be along shortly
    ian lincoln, Aug 14, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. xiongnu

    Mark² Guest

    A good lens for what purpose?
    Low light?
    Depth of field?
    A combination of the above?
    Will it be your main, all around lens?
    Will it be for a specific purpose?

    Once again, you need to think a bit.
    You've not indicated your intended use/subject, etc. so nobody can make a
    thoughtful suggestion.
    Only you can indicate your intentions for your photos, and it is only that
    indiaction which will allow useful suggestions.

    Before you again become offended...

    It's about like me...asking you..."What vehicle I should buy?"
    You have no possible way of making a thoughtful suggestion because I haven't
    indicated anything about my needs.
    Mark², Aug 14, 2005
  4. xiongnu

    Alan Browne Guest

    What do you need in a lens? or rather
    What kind of shooting will you be doing? (Subject, conditions, travel?)

    My SO has the Maxxum 5, (which is a lot of camera for the dollar. It's
    only drawback to me is it is too small for my hands). She bought the
    Sigma 28-200 lens which is okay (to judge by her 4x6 and 5x7 prints),
    but would not make the grade on 8x12 prints except in the most
    favourable conditions. That lens is a good compromise for her as she is
    not a photographer by choice, but a painter, and she uses the camera to
    collect "elements" for her paintings.

    She also has the humble 50mm f/1.7 with which she has made some
    stunningly sharp, contrasty and colorful nature images. It is
    inconvenient to her in many cases, hence the 7:1 zoom.

    If you happen to come across a used 70-210 f/4 macro, don't hesitate,
    buy! (about US$150 or less). I passed one up for CAD$175 a few months
    ago and I've been kicking myslef ever since. It would have been a great
    present for my SO.

    If you're into portraits, a Tamron 90mm f/2.8 or Maxxum 100 f/2.8 macro
    is a fine choice (though both are somewhat expensive).

    For landscapes I love the 20mm f/2.8. Somewhat pricey, but a fine lens
    other than a tendancy to vignette with the bulky Minolta polarizer
    attached. There are better designed polarizers out there.

    A very decent zoom is the 24-105 f/3.5-4.5 (D) and that will cover a
    wide range of general use. A good travel option with the Max 5.

    And many more ... also consider if you intend to downgrade yourself to
    digital, that so far in the Minolta DSLR line, the sensors are cropped,
    making the FL's "appear" 1.5X longer in the resulting image.

    So, again, what do you expect to do photographically?

    Alan Browne, Aug 14, 2005
  5. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest

    thank you

    i am expecting to shoot mainly outdoor scenery pictures, as well as
    portraits. if it could occational shoot birds and astronomy
    pictures, it's even better.

    how's Minolta AF 75-300/f4.5-5.6 lens comparing with 70-210 f/4 macro
    lens? besides the zoom lengh difference
    xiongnu, Aug 14, 2005
  6. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest

    thanks for the reply

    at this time, i'm more interested in learning than anything else...

    during my yellowstone trip, i couldn't get a clear shot of a black bear
    on the mountain ridge across a valley, or american bald eagles flying
    on the top of treeline, or the wolf at the bank of the river half a
    mile away. my minolta 28-80mm lens handles most portaits shootings
    well, but i would like to get another lens for these occations
    mentioned above
    xiongnu, Aug 14, 2005
  7. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest

    he definitely did...:)
    xiongnu, Aug 14, 2005
  8. xiongnu

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    The 70-210/4 is an excellent portrait lens. You should be able to
    pick up a used one in good condition for about $100. However this
    lens is not terribly great at the long end. I tried it at 210mm
    with teleconverters and was not satisfied with results.

    For astronomy you probably need a telescope converter, unless you
    just want to take pictures of star trails.

    The 75-300/f4.5-5.6 is too short and slow (only f/5.6 at 300mm)
    for bird photography. For low cost the Sigma 400/5.6 APO macro
    would work. At higher cost the Minolta 400/4.5 is excellent.
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 15, 2005
  9. xiongnu

    Mark² Guest

    For "clear shots" of subjects THAT distant, even 600mm won't get you there.
    You simpy have to be closer.
    When you ARE closer, you're still going to need at least 400mm or more.
    Mark², Aug 15, 2005
  10. xiongnu

    Alan Browne Guest

    For scenery a wider zoom such as the 28-80 or the fixed focal 20mm would
    be great. The 28-80 (or older 28-70 f/2.8) if you have the dollars and
    willingness to carry around something heavier.
    The 75-300 (I had one) is very good up to the 200mm range after which it
    becomes soft. this is not very surprising.

    The 70-210 is not only sharp and wee bit faster; but constant aperture
    and macro as well. Very good for outdoor shooting, possibly good for
    some portrait work.

    Astonomy has a lot of range and really depends on "what" you're shooting
    and why. Really not my thing. A 50mm f/1.7 is great for eclipses,
    recording the whole event (multiple exposures).

    Alan Browne, Aug 16, 2005
  11. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest

    thank you

    i think i will get a 70-210 lens for my camera

    from what i understand so far, 75 - 300 lens is probably over
    stretched for a lens in terms of range, so maybe more specific lens
    like 300 - 400 will handle long range better

    i'm also currently reading 'The Basic Book of Photography' by Tom Grimm
    & Michele Grimm to get a better understanding of photography
    xiongnu, Aug 16, 2005
  12. xiongnu

    Mark² Guest

    Good for you!
    Mark², Aug 16, 2005
  13. xiongnu

    Alan Browne Guest

    There are a lot of good books on photography. The "mechanics" of it are
    pretty much covered the same way in all of them. The esthetics,
    composition and attention to ways of treating various subjects is where
    it gets most interesting...
    Alan Browne, Aug 17, 2005
  14. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest


    i found minolta 70-210/f4.5-5.6 lens abundant in volumes, but i could
    hardly find any 70-210/4 lens

    is there a significant difference between those two lens?
    xiongnu, Aug 18, 2005
  15. xiongnu

    ian lincoln Guest

    I expect the 5.6 version was a damn site cheaper too. Having a f number
    that is continous through the focal lengths is a usual sign of quality. A
    higher price too. The wider the maximum aperture the higher the price. Not
    only build quality but usually optically superior too.
    ian lincoln, Aug 18, 2005
  16. xiongnu

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Yes, the 70-210/f4.5-5.6 is much lighter and the 70-210/4 is much better.
    If you want a light lens, the 70-210/f3.5-4.5 is your best bet.

    Don't give up, KEH.com has many 70-210/4 zooms for sale, ranging in price
    from $62 to $123.
    Bill Tuthill, Aug 18, 2005
  17. xiongnu

    Alan Browne Guest

    Very. The f/4 is a great lens.

    The /var is surprisingly good (price/build considering), but slow.
    Alan Browne, Aug 19, 2005
  18. xiongnu

    xiongnu Guest

    xiongnu, Aug 19, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.