Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

I was looking at specs on the B&H website for the Minolta 70-200/2.8
to determine filter size and whether it has nonrotating front element
(ø77 and apparently so) when I came across this sentence:

"With a full range of functions geared to the professional photographer,
this lens provides sharp, color-free images across the entire film area
at all apertures."

Wow, this is the first lens I know that transforms full-color scenes into
black-and-white images! Konica Minolta Maxxum Dynax scores again!!

 

Well Bill, I know you and I have philisophical differences about
Minolta, but I'm sure you'd agree a B&W lens would be more appropriate
in a prime, rather than zoom, and at that for focal lengths less than
135 or so... A pro lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 is really suited for many
things, but most particularly sports and nature shots, so limiting the
result to B&W seems a bit stingy.

;-)

Cheers,
ALan.

 

You've got it wrong -- Colour Free, means you can use B/W film and the
pictures come out in colour --- Free!


I was looking at specs on the B&H website for the Minolta 70-200/2.8
to determine filter size and whether it has nonrotating front element
(ø77 and apparently so) when I came across this sentence:

"With a full range of functions geared to the professional photographer,
this lens provides sharp, color-free images across the entire film area
at all apertures."

Wow, this is the first lens I know that transforms full-color scenes into
black-and-white images! Konica Minolta Maxxum Dynax scores again!!

 

Subject: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

Maybe "lateral color free" would be a better term. Color free, since white
light is made up out of all colors, would not be black and white, it would just
be pure black (abscence of light) ;-)

By the way, forget which site, but the Minolta 80-200/2.8 is supposed to be the
best in its lens class (though I'm sure that the Leica and Zeiss offerings are
at least as good if not better - the web page, forget where, which listed
various lenses didn't mention the Leica/Zeiss equivalents).

 

: By the way, forget which site, but the Minolta 80-200/2.8 is supposed to be the
: best in its lens class (though I'm sure that the Leica and Zeiss offerings are
: at least as good if not better - the web page, forget where, which listed
: various lenses didn't mention the Leica/Zeiss equivalents).

You may be thinking of this page on photozone:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

(I hope this doesn't revive the photozone flame wars.)

Warren B. Hapke

 

Best in class, if you don't mind a rotating front element.

BTW, has anyone seen optical tests of the new 70-200 SSM?
There are a few posters asking in photo.net's Minolta forum,
but no answers. Nobody has mentioned it in the Yahoo group.

 

I have the 80-200 f/2.8 and it is indeed a very fine, sharp, very well
made lens. But there is at least one of the Nikons in the same range
that is better in terms of wide-open vignetting (very slightly better).
Per photodo sharpness, the lenses go: Canon, Nikon, Minolta but they are
very close, at weighted 4.1, 4.0 and 3.9 on the photodo rating.

I also had problem with the lens hood jarring off and jamming the focus
as I jumped out of a helicopter a couple years ago. I hope Minolta
redesigned the hood/lens bayonnet in the 70-200.

Cheers,
Alan

 

Good point, it rotates about 60 deg through the focus range. OTOH I
don't think I've had a pol on there more than a couple times in the last
two years...

The lens is in the Chasseur D'Images index of lens tests. (As is the 300
f/2.8 SSM, but not the 28-70 f/2.8 SSM). I missed those editions of the
magazine.

[If you want to go half with me, I'll order the entire Minolta Lens File
from them (about 60 test reports). You get half the originals, I get
the other half and we'll scan them all so each has the balance.
(14 Euros + 11 S&H).]

I doubt these lenses have been flying off the shelf. When the SSM
lenses were announced, Minolta had not committed to a DSLR. With that
in doubt, people will not be buying many $1300 lenses. And until the
new body has shipped and is user tested and somewhat blessed by the
community, not many will be taking the risk... I will likely never buy
this lens nor the new 28-70 and 300 f/2.8 SSM versions.

Cheers,
Alan.



2002-03-19 09:47:21 PST Bill Tuthill wrote:
http://tinyurl.com/yry3p

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

I guess it depends who does the testing, at this site the Minolta came out
ahead of the other brands:

http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm

Sorry to hear that. Also, sorry if I offended you with the Sonny Bono/Leaf
blower jokes.

 

Not yet, but comparing official MTF charts, one can draw some conclusions
anyway.

 

Yeah, but they're all bunched up together (as they were on the photodo
site). The sources that C d'I gets these data from is more varied and
takes into account (we assume) more than sharpness as a quality (look at
vignetting, coloration, distortion, perhaps build quality too). So it
isn't quite apples to apples... I'm very happy that these sources
consider the Minolta 80-200 and the 70-200 to be the superior lenses
sice I own one of them... OTOH I'm not that concerned that photodo don't
find it quite as sharp as the others...consensus seems to be they are
all great lenses...

Minolta AF 2.8 70-200m APO SSM G 4.20 (2) = very-good
Minolta AF 2.8 80-200m APO G 4.19 (4) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 80-200mm L 4.07 (5) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 70-200mm USM L 4.07 (3) = very-good
Canon EF 2.8 70-200mm USM L IS 4.02 (3) = very-good
Sigma AF 2.8 70-200mm EX (HSM) 4.02 (5) = very-good
Nikkor AF-S 2.8 80-200mm IF ED D 3.98 (4) = very-good
Nikkor AF 2.8 80-200mm IF ED D 3.90 (3) = very-good

I posted the damned thing (which I received by e-mail last year) as a
joke on Doug Payne (as he is a Leafs Fan) and I live near Montreal and
hence a Habs fan (albeit I'm not really much of a sports fan period).

So to offend me with that would take a lot of effort...

Cheers,
Alan

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

Glad to hear you weren't offended. Also, looks like the Minolta is pretty much
tops (though I've yet to see it compared with the nearest Leica/Zeiss focal
lengths/aperture equivalent. Other than silence, why have SSM in the Minolta
lens if the Maxxum 7 already does FTM without SSM needed to tweak focus
manually within AF mode?

 

Two, maybe three reasons:
1- quiet
2- faster (I presume)
3- marketing (us too!)

And I suspect that #3 held more sway than the other two reasons... as to
the FTM, other bodies don't do it, so having it in lens is a point.

Cheers,
Alan

 

How can you have a zoom lens on a rangefinder? Are you talking about
Leica R (which means reflex not rangefinder IIRC) rather than Leica M?
All I see is 80-200/4. I bought a Minolta lens like that for $60.

Speed. With shorter lenses Minolta was near the top in AF performance
but with longer lenses they took > 2x longer to AF thatn Canon USM.

Alan, thanks for the offer of splitting Chasseur d'Images reports,
but I'm not long-term committed to Minolta at this point.

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

Yup. That makes sense.

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

Yep, Leica R.

There is?/was an 70-180 (right fl?) f/2.8

That makes sense.

Why? How have your needs changed/not been met by Minolta Bill. I'm just
curious.

 

(Lewis Lang) wrote in

It doesn't -- it's manual focus after focus has been locked with most
lenses (among them the 80-200). You can't adjust focus manually while the
camera focuses (so it's not "FT"). The 7 with an older lens basically
releases a clutch when focus has been locked and enters manual focus mode
until you release the shutter button.

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

You are absolutely right on this Magnus. Shame on me for not
remembering/thinking about it because I used FTM often when I had my 7. My bad.
They should have really called it ATM (After (Focus) Time Manual) but then
there would be all these people expecting either rebates or $20 bills to come
out of the Maxxum 7 ;-)

 

No!. In addition to DMF, which is the "camera locks focus and
releases a clutch" method, the 7 also has a push button on the back
that when you are in AF mode will release the clutch allowing MF at
any time. I often use it with a Sigma 135-400 lens and bird
photography to pre-focus manually, and then release the button when
the composition is just right. The lens then only has a small amount
of AF fine tuning and snaps right into focus. It is also useful if
the camera is having trouble locking on a low contrast subject.

You can also use the button in manual focus mode. Then when you press
the button the camera will switch to AF while you hold it in. Using
this button, the camera does not do the lens-reset-dance that it does
if you switch from MF to AF on other Maxxum/Dynax cameras. It works
with all lenses.

I have mine set up for press and hold operation, but using a custom
function the button can be changed to press-on/press-off operation.

I find this modified FTM focusing to be more useful than DMF.

Tom

 

Subject: Re: Minolta 70-200 SSM, B&W only [humour?]

The way I remeber it, there is a custom function that allows the AF button on
back (any one of the thumbpad focus buttons)to not only activate AF but to
release the AF clutch when held for MF touch up. There is also another button
higher up on the back of the camera that allows for AF/MF switching, but this
is not full time manual focusing as in both cases of either of these buttons,
the button must be pressed to allow for manual focusing while in AF mode. The
real full time manual focusing belongs to Canon USM lenses (and possibly Nikon
and their AF-S lenses?) that allows the user to twst the focus ring for manual
touch up at any time in AF mode without ever having to touch any kind of button
to accomplish this. I don't have my manual anymore as I've sold my Maxxum 7. So
this is as best as I remeber these details.