Minolta vs. Nkon and Canon

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Wayne Dyer, Dec 14, 2003.

  1. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    US$500 would be a around Eu.410 !!! temptation!!! My personal
    "Minolta" policy is NO MORE 'til I see the goods (DSLR).

    Alan Browne, Dec 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Wayne Dyer

    Jim Waggener Guest


    What? you would not buy a lens you don't have if it was a good deal or a
    Maxx9 body for say...$500? ;-)

    Jim Waggener, Dec 18, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Nope. No. Nada. Nyet. Non, (well maybe) but I have the Max 9 already,
    no need for a Max 7. I'd like the 17-35 (but with the crop factor of
    the new DSLR I'm having lens doubts). I tried to buy a used Max 9 off
    of the guy who sold me his 300 f/2.8 and TC's and stuff, but he refuses
    to part with it although he doesn't do any film photography anymore.

    If the deal was insanely low, then I would prob'y risk it. Say the
    600mm f/4 for under $2k. !!! Or the 135 STF for $500 or... but the
    deals would have to be of the '...cannot refuse.' variety.

    Alan Browne, Dec 18, 2003
  4. Wayne Dyer

    Jim Waggener Guest

    If the deal was insanely low, then I would prob'y risk it. Say the
    Given the history of Minolta surprising the competition and their incredible
    innovations, I would not be surprised if they offer a full-frame DSLR,
    compatible with Maxxum lenses at a price around USD $1200. Minolta is the
    master of surprises.

    Jim Waggener, Dec 19, 2003
  5. Wayne Dyer

    Smitty Guest

    I have to add that the 7 metering is the best I have ever used. Of course I
    haven't used every brand. Just canon and minolta.
    Smitty, Dec 19, 2003
  6. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    ....the 'leak' says a 1.3 crop ... I'd prefer full frame. OTOH, 1.3 crop
    makes for a slightly sharper lens in the corners...
    Alan Browne, Dec 19, 2003
  7. Hey, Smitty! What's up?

    I don't know about the metering (they all seem to do OK), but the flash
    metering on the 7 and 9 is sure a lot better than it was.

    Mike Lipphardt, Dec 19, 2003
  8. Not a problem with that :) There is no point in buying a slightly
    better variant if you can have (if the Minolta DSLR makes it and has an
    AF(D) compatible bajonet) a new world instead.

    BTW, could you post below the quote? Easier to read without much
    scrolling up'n' down. Thanks.
    Matthias Andree, Dec 22, 2003
  9. Hehe. There is yet another temptation, called Minolta AF 20/1:2.8 (or
    some wide angle zoom). Next year perhaps.
    Matthias Andree, Dec 22, 2003
  10. Because they can? ;-) (Or because the others don't want to annoy the
    donut unsharpness... why didn't Minolta photograph a funfair in the dark
    with their reflex for their brochures? :p)
    Matthias Andree, Dec 22, 2003
  11. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    I'm pleased to inform you that I have that lens! Another that I have
    and would wish all Minolta users had was the 100 f/2.8 Macro. The very
    sharpest lens that Minolta make in the Maxxum/Dynax line.

    I have been holding off on buying the 17-35 'til the DSLR position of
    Minolta is better established.

    Alan Browne, Dec 22, 2003
  12. Oh, sponsoring shall be appreciated :)
    Might be a good buy now, but then again the DSLR might come with a
    matched lens that is 28-something or 24-something in 35mm film. The
    17-35 is a G, no? And as such, it's not exactly cheap.
    Matthias Andree, Dec 29, 2003
  13. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    Matthias Andree wrote:

    The "crop" factor that the DSLR ends up with is a concern. It will
    possibly skew my lens collection giving me a huge benefit at the long
    end, but my 100 f/2.8 becomes a bit unwieldy for indoor portraiture...

    We'll see how it bounces when the PMA announcement occurs in Febuary...

    Alan Browne, Dec 29, 2003
  14. Except, that's no different for any other mirror lens, though - a light
    source out of focus will appear as a donut.

    On the other hand, for someone doing astrophotography, donuting could be a
    good thing. Since a lot of lenses will go a bit past infinity (in case of
    flex, etc, in the cold, I guess), just turning it to infinity won't always
    get you perfectly in focus. Trying to look at the Pleiades, and seeing more
    donuts than a Winchell's? Well, then, you know you're not in focus. ^_^

    Having AF on one a lens like this, meanwhile, is pretty handy when shooting
    during the day. So, I wouldn't totally discount Minolta's accomplishment on
    this puppy.

    Jason Donahue, Dec 29, 2003
  15. Alan,

    I was debating between the 100mm f/2.8 macro, the 100mm f/2.8 soft focus,
    and the 85mm f/1.4 for a portrait lens (right now, I have a 135mm f/2.8 MC
    Rokkor from my older ). Would you consider the macro a good choice for this
    role? It'd save me some $$ in the long run, if I could double up my macro
    and my portrait lens (I'm also interested in shooting macro).


    Jason Donahue, Dec 29, 2003
  16. Wayne Dyer

    Magnus W Guest

    Not being Alan but I own the 100/soft and the 85. The 85 is a terrific
    portrait lens but not much fun for other things -- slow AF, and the focal
    length doesn't really fit my style. YMMV. The soft focus is of course even
    more specialized, and I don't recommend it as a general portrait lens; the
    85 is better and soft focus effects can be added in Photoshop or when
    copying traditionally. The macro will function perfectly as a portrait
    lens, but lacks the speed of the 85 for low light -- and more important,
    shallow DOF effects if you are into that. If you are going to own only one
    lens of the above, I'd recommend the macro -- which incidentally is the one
    of them I don't own ;-)
    Magnus W, Dec 29, 2003
  17. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    The 100 f/2.8 macro is an exceedingly sharp lens. Some might say that a
    portrait lens should not, per se, brag about sharpness. The other side
    of the coin is you can always soften a sharp lens; you can't sharpen a
    soft lens. The bokeh of the 100 f/2.8 is nice and creamy ... perhaps
    not as creamy as other lenses, but creamy enough. Macro shots with this
    lens are breathtaking in sharpness and contrast.

    I've never tried the 100 f/2.8 soft-focus; I've seen sample photos and
    it does what Minolta designed it to do. Sharp or soft ... but as you
    say no macro. If I shot mainly portraits of ladies of all ages, I would
    likely buy this lens.

    The 85 has long lingered on my 2nd tier list. It is expensive, but
    fast. For my small home studio it would be a better lens for portrait
    than my 100. OTOH, with Minolta's rumored DSLR coming with a rumored
    crop factor of 1.3x, the 85 would "turn" into a 110mm... no conclusion
    from that yet.

    _my_ choice would be the 100 f/2.8 macro and the purchase of one or two
    softars.... which I haven't done yet...Softars are quite expensive and
    not at the top of my need list.

    Hope that helps.
    Alan Browne, Dec 29, 2003
  18. Wayne Dyer

    Alan Browne Guest

    That's okay Magnus, you're a fine person in any case!
    Put it at the top of your list ...!!!

    Alan Browne, Dec 29, 2003
  19. Indeed, that's a valid point.

    Yeah, and it's probably better optical and particularly mechanical
    quality than my Danubia 1:8 500mm refractor lens that nearly killed my
    700si when it went into halves, with the tripod mount ring sticking to
    the object side, not the camera side, for those morons who designed this
    /()"§()!" Danubia lens screwed a metal tube onto a plastic thread
    (invisibly, of course). Argh. If I'd expected that, I might have
    attached the camera's carrying belt to the tripod, but...

    I was lucky and the 700si didn't suffer permanent damage as far as I can
    tell from one CN film I took three weeks ago (that I had printed in 13
    by 18 cm²).
    I don't mean to badmouth or discount the Minolta AF Reflex
    achievements. It's only that it takes a little more thought than a
    regular refracting 500 mm lens, so it's not the best choice for the
    point-and-shoot adepts. :)
    Matthias Andree, Dec 30, 2003
    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.