Minolta 35-105mm vs 35-70mm

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Siddhartha Jain, Apr 4, 2005.

  1. Hi,

    Am looking for a light travel lens (also cheap) for Maxxum 5. How do
    the two compare in the field? The 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5 is rated at 3.5 and
    the 35-105mm is rated at 2.8 by photodo. But Photozone.de seems to like
    the latter for casual use. Both can be had for less than $50 and are
    very light. While the 35-70mm definitely must be sharper, the 35-105mm
    offer more at the tele end.

    Thanks,

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 4, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    For a light travel lens I'd consider one of the Tamron or Sigma
    super-zooms like a 28-200. The images might not be the very best, but
    they'll be very usable for small prints, even a not too critical slide show.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 4, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Everybody says the older 35-70/4 is better than either, though
    I've never optical tests proving this.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 4, 2005
    #3
  4. slide show.

    I already have the Tamron 28-200mm LD IF lens :) Its too heavy and big
    for hiking/trekking (atleast for me). Also, I don't fancy its aperture
    range so I was looking for a smaller and lighter lens.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 5, 2005
    #4
  5. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    Then you'll end up with either two lenses or one lens that doesn't have
    the range that you want. Go for a 50mm f/1.7 and you'll be as happy as
    a clam.

    --
    -- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
    -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
    -- slr-systems FAQ project: http://tinyurl.com/6m9aw
    -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
    -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
     
    Alan Browne, Apr 5, 2005
    #5
  6. Siddhartha Jain

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Bad advice, IMO. There are a lot of situations where a 50mm view
    is just wrong. "Normal" perspective seems least useful to me.

    My 24-50/4 is almost as good as my 50/1.4, and is a lot better
    than the 50/1.7 sample I used to have, especially in terms of
    near-field bokeh. It's like the 24-50/4 has a thicker DOF.

    The 35-70/4 is supposed to be just as good, and although it takes
    size 49 filters, not matching any Minolta primes except the 28/2.8
    and 50/1.7, plus the 100-200/4.5 zoom.
     
    Bill Tuthill, Apr 5, 2005
    #6
  7. Siddhartha Jain

    Alan Browne Guest

    Alan Browne, Apr 5, 2005
    #7
  8. Thanks for the feedback guys. I think I'll get both of them, the
    35-70mm and the 24-50m.

    - Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Apr 6, 2005
    #8
    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.