What lenses for Minolta Maxxum 5

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by John Doe, Sep 15, 2004.

  1. John Doe

    John Doe Guest

    I have decided to go for a 50mm f/1.7 lens with Maxxum 5. What other
    lenses should I buy? I am just a beginner with hobbyist intentions
    only. I prefer shooting landscapes/panorama, the occasional portrait
    that I find interesting, and indoors (parties/marriages). I rarely zoom
    but don't mind having a zoom also for some trip to forest reserves
    where a zoom may prove useful.

    A few candidates:
    - Minolta 70-210mm f/4
    - Minolta 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6
    - Minolta 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6
    - Minolta 24-85mm F3.5-4.5
    - Minolta 28-105mm F3.5-4.5
    - Tamron 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 ASPHERICAL LD INTERNAL FOCUS SUPER
    - Tamron 28-200mm F3.8-5.6 ASPHERICAL XR INTERNAL FOCUS MACRO
    - Tamron 28-300mm F3.5-6.3 ASPHERICAL LD INTERNAL FOCUS MACRO

    These are just a few I found at keh.com that might be good. If you see
    any other below $125 that are good, please do suggest.

    Ideally, I just want one lens apart from the 50mm. But if need be, I
    might pick-up more than one apart from the 50mm.

    Thanks,

    Siddhartha
     
    John Doe, Sep 15, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. John Doe

    Mike Guest

    Awesome lens. Very sharp, very well made. A little slow to focuus on
    older cameras, but should be OK on your 5. Quite heavy - you will want
    to support it with one hand while shooting.
    OK - some very good results have come from it, but not as good as the
    above.
    Surprisingly good for the price, but you cna do a lot better. However,
    it is very light.
    Extremely sharp, quite contrasty. The weird distortion puts me off the
    lens though. This distortion is evident at all focal lengths.
    Very good lens. I have 11x17s from it which are very sharp indeed.
    Under rated, and a good example of why not to believe everything lens
    tests tell you.
    I've never been able to keep these straight. I have the second
    generation Tamrom superzoom, and it's OK for what it is, If you stop it
    down to f8 and hold it steady, it does a passable job.

    Of the lenses you mention, if you had to choose only one I would go for
    the 28-105. Also look for a 24-50, which is simply a superb lens and
    gives you a very handy 24mm wide end. It's my favorite lens for general
    carry on my 7. Of the telezooms, the best one by a wide margin is the
    70-210 f4. Get one with a lens hood to prevent flare. KEH should have
    the factory lens hood for that lens around somewhere.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Sep 15, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. John Doe

    Alan Browne Guest

    Reccomend: 24-105 (D)
    I have no opinions on the Tamrons, but suggest that extreme zooms
    such as above are generally not very good. At least they are
    very convenient ...
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
    #3
  4. John Doe

    Magnus W Guest

    Nothing wrong with that one AFAIK. You may be thinking of the 28-100 which
    seems like a pretty bad lens. However, the two have nothing in common.
     
    Magnus W, Sep 15, 2004
    #4
  5. John Doe

    Mike Guest

    Nope - not a thing wrong with it. As several 11x17s on my wall can attest.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Sep 15, 2004
    #5
  6. John Doe

    Alan Browne Guest

    I'm just more in favour of the 24-105...
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
    #6
  7. John Doe

    Alan Browne Guest

    I'm biased to the 24-105.
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
    #7
  8. John Doe

    Mike Guest

    Don't blame you for that. While I don't have one (I'd like to, but can't
    jsutify it, since my 28-105 is more than adequate for my needs), it has the
    rep of being as sharp as the 24-85, without the 24-85's distortion
    problems. But it's probably out of the range of the posters' price, which
    if I'm recalling the thread correctly was a big consideration.

    Mike
     
    Mike, Sep 15, 2004
    #8
  9. John Doe

    Alan Browne Guest

    Yes, I was ignoring the price restriction ... otoh I didn't
    invoke the f/2.8 constants either (;-))
     
    Alan Browne, Sep 15, 2004
    #9
  10. John Doe

    Peter Guest

    [snip the laudable candidates]

    If you can find one, I'd suggest a 28-135. Its been out of production
    since forever now, and a quick trip through KEH suggests it might be
    rare on the used market. But they must pop up now and then. Everything
    else does. When it does, get it.
    Very sharp lens with great contrast. This is a not just a excellent zoom
    but also a great lens. It will never disappoint. Only negative is that
    it is VERY prone to flare. Minolta in it's wisdom decided not to provide
    a lens shield for the 28-135 but it really doesn't matter. Just don't
    think about shooting in the direction of the sun and you've got a great,
    great all around lens, albeit a heavy one.
    I use it as my carry round lens on my 700si.

    Depending on the forest reserve, 135 isn't going to get you very close
    to anything big and moving, but the lens has a pretty good macro
    function so it can make stationary things bigger..flowers, rock
    structure, bark, whatever.

    The 28-135 has been called the Minolta owners secret hand shake, or some
    such. For good reason. Sharp, contrasty, wide to medium telephoto, macro
    function, pretty fast at 4 to 4. 5. Google it and see.

    Oh yeah, I paid the equivalent of US 350 for mine, used. It's not a
    seldom once in while that I feel that I got ripped off but I get over
    it. I wouldn't sell it for less. Might not sell it for the US
    equivalent of $100 more.

    --PS
     
    Peter, Sep 18, 2004
    #10
    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.