Old Lenses worth seeking out

[2tallpaul]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to my last post, I have purchased the minolta 1.7

It has occurred to me that it appears that these old lenses are still held in high regard compared to some modern lenses.

What old lenses are worth seeking out for my A700 with a view to go full frame in the future

regards

paul

[David Kilpatrick]

Two of the best I've found are the late RS versions 28-105mm and 24-85mm. Both are superior to the newer 24-105mm even if they don't do the same job. In the end I use the 24-85mm all the time, not the 28-105mm, because the 24mm end is so useful.

David

[InTheSky]

In the not too expensive world :

The 70-210 F4.0 is not bad too. Is performing very good on the A900. (all the copy I have got in my hand has always be ok, more than

The old Sigma 24mm F2.8 II (old black metal lens) is very good too.

Tamron 90mm F2.5 Macro old model can be found not expensive too, and perform very good on both APS and Full frame.

If you want doing manual focusing without too much modification, there is also the option of a M42 - to Tamron Adaptall adaptor combined with a M42 confirm focus. (around 100$ US for the total). After that you have other very good not expensive lens offer to you:
- 24mm 2.5, SP 90mm 2.5, 35-105mm 2.8, SP 300mm 2.8 60B (some time around 500$ US).

Regards,

Frank

[pakodominguez]

It has occurred to me that it appears that these old lenses are still held in high regard compared to some modern lenses.

Be aware about many urban myths polluting the internet about old-good-lenses. And be aware about many urban myths about bad new lenses too...
The popular beercan (70-210 f4) is a good lens, but specially well regarded because is cheap - even if the trend push it's price up to 60 or 70% in the last 5 years. The 70-210 3.5-4.5 was reported equal or better than the beercan , but the 4.5-56 or the 75-300 (even the Sony version) are close to a lemon...

The 50 1.7 that you got is a good lens, but it's better because is cheap. There was a discussion about 50mm lenses in other forum (the ManualMinoltaFree yahoo group) about what equipment take for a trip, somebody recommend a 50mm f1.2 and I recommend the 50mm 3.5 macro as a more versatile lens. i got burned because that. So I did my own test (on digital) between the (now already sold) 50 f1.7 and the 50 f2.8 macro: Wide open, the 1.7 is too soft for my taste. And at 2.8 the macro is sharper. i sold the 1.7 and only kept the macro...

Similar situation with the 28-135 (first generation of Minolta AF) that many people want to give it a "G" label. well, I got and tried a couple of this lenses and I sold them without regret. Big and heavy and delicate (the front element is dangerously exposed and even a thin UV filter risk to cause vignetting...) For me the worst issue with this lens is that the minimum focus distance is about 1.2 meters (I don't recall by heart the exact numbers) and that make it almost unusable for me. Is it a good lens? probably. But I prefer to pay more and have a more modern and versatile lens.

What old lenses are worth seeking out for my A700 with a view to go full frame in the future

There is a Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4 UC, plastic everywhere but reported as been as good as the Minolta 28-70 f2.8 G (you can get it for about 50 us$ on eBay)
The Sigma 24mm f2.8 that Frank recommend is good too (i have it with me now actually...)
The Minolta 28-105 and 24-85 DK recommend are good too.
Just let me tell you one thing: we are talking about second (third or fourth or more) hand lenses and you'll never know how those lenses had been treated. Just look at the cosmetics won't help. I tried a 24-85 no long time ago and I took it back to the store because it was not sharp enough. I just got another copy that I'm using now and it seams much better than first one I tried. it can be harder with older lenses, like the 35-70 f4 that is reported wonderful, but already have 25 years?

Talking about how good or bad a lens will age, there is just speculation what people say about "plastic mount" on the new 50mm and 30mm SAM lenses, because not enough time had passed in order to verify if it's cr*p or "good" plastic. The only reference we have are the Minolta "Celtic" lenses that were made using more plastic than other lenses from the same period of time. Then, some plastic kit lenses from the 90's; some were lemons, some were not that bad.

Regards

[catalytic]

I find the Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 to be excellent on FF for its price. A total bargain, IMHO. The 35-70/3.5-4.5 is also surprisingly excellent on FF, and an even better bargain at its rock-bottom price. It's a total steal if you don't mind the limited 2x zoom range.

If you're willing to pay more for a faster zoom, the Tamron/KM 28-75/2.8 is excellent on FF as well.

The two macros 50/2.8 and 100/2.8 are great as well.

[bossel]

Try to find an old CZ16-80 and 70-400G Excellent lenses!

[WaltKnapp]

Try to find an old CZ16-80 and 70-400G Excellent lenses!

I'm expecting that old and still good with the CZ16-80 is likely going to be quite a rarity. It wears it's plastic wearing surfaces way too fast. If only the build quality was up to to optics......

70-400G I think is going to be fairly durable if taken care of. Weakest point on it is the lock surface on the hood. I've considered getting a spare hood for sometime in the future when it may be needed.

Walt

[Wes Gibbon]

Try to find an old CZ16-80 and 70-400G Excellent lenses!

I'm mainly FF so I haven't tried the CZ16-80, but I'm really pleased with the 70-400. However, wasn't the original question about old lenses?

I am very pleased with my Minolta prime 28mm & 35mm f2.0 lenses. They are both sharp edge-to-edge. Unfortunately, the 35mm is now rare and both are not cheap!. Prices were sinking when it looked as though KM was doomed, but when Sony took over and then brought out the A900, prices have 'firmed up'. At about £500 on Ebay, they could still be cheaper than what Sony would charge if they brought out new versions - it will be interesting to see what the new 24mm will cost.

For a 'walkabout' lens, I am still trying to decide whether to use 28-135mm or 35-200mm xi. I am very pleased with the 28-135mm, but it is heavy and I would need a tele zoom to go with it - maybe the beercan 70-210 f4.0. The 'mini beercan' 100-200mm would be a perfect match, but it hasn't delivered on quality. (I think DK once said that it had problems with autofocus on digital cameras). I haven't yet had a chance to see if the 35-200 is quite good enough. I think I can live with the wretched power zooming!

[pakodominguez]

I'm mainly FF ...
... I haven't yet had a chance to see if the 35-200 is quite good enough. I think I can live with the wretched power zooming!

Hi,
The 35-200 Xi is a wonderful lens but... stepped down. And it doesn't handle underexposure well. Zooming is tricky but AF is really fast. Bokeh is wonderful and it has a special glow... I did a gig outdoors the other day and I used mainly this lens: results were ok. I'm not using it indoors anymore unless I'm taking the Metz 60 with me (I'm taking the Tamron 70-200 f2.8 because at f:4.0 it is sharper than the 35-200 Xi at f:5.6)
Regards

[parv bitter almonds]

How does Minolta 28-85 mm f/3.5-4.5 compare with Minolta 24-85 mm?

[David Kilpatrick]

I have only used the original series - I don't know if there were any RS type 28-85mms. All three that I have owned were terrible, even on film. I would not risk one on digital especially full frame. But other seem to think it's OK - having said that, people rate the original 35-105mm, and I never had a good one.

I actually think the late period 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 you can pick up on eBay brand new boxed for £40 is a better lens.

David

[InTheSky]

... The 'mini beercan' 100-200mm would be a perfect match, but it hasn't delivered on quality. (I think DK once said that it had problems with autofocus on digital cameras). ...

I have played with two 100-200 F4.5 on digital camera : 7D, A700 and A900 and never had problem with focus.

This is more that this lens in kind of weird ... you are expecting a lens to focus a little bit closer in this kind of zoom. But, the quality of image was there. The lens is very small and light weight. Because of its not usual range of view and some inequality review, it is i think a good lens for 100$ US (that is the average on ebay for it).

Frank

[Dusty]

I picked up one of the 28-105's at my local photo shop last week for $89 and shot a wedding with it on Saturday. So far I'm liking the results. I wish it was a bit wider, since it was a really small church. I had to pop on the 18-70 a few times for group shots. On FF it would have been fine!

I guess I'm going to have to get either the a850 or the 16-80 CZ!

Dusty

[Wes Gibbon]

... The 'mini beercan' 100-200mm would be a perfect match, but it hasn't delivered on quality. (I think DK once said that it had problems with autofocus on digital cameras). ...

I have played with two 100-200 F4.5 on digital camera : 7D, A700 and A900 and never had problem with focus.

This is more that this lens in kind of weird ... you are expecting a lens to focus a little bit closer in this kind of zoom. But, the quality of image was there. The lens is very small and light weight. Because of its not usual range of view and some inequality review, it is i think a good lens for 100$ US (that is the average on ebay for it).

Frank

Come to think of it, I think it may have been the image stabilisation that some people may have found doesn't work too well with this lens. Or maybe I just have a bad one.

[youpii]

I agree for the Minolta 24-85, quite good when stepped down.
Another option is the Tamron 24-135, difficult to find but very versatile and provide pleasing pictures.