Photoclubalpha

I've been a reformed addict for over 12 months. Helped I'm sure by the eye-watering tech prices in the UK following the crash of GBP. What more could I possibly need? I already have two very nice camera bodies, far more capable than me. A great bunch of lenses going from 12 to 400mm. Oh, and a smart phone with a two lens camera. I'm over "that phase" I thought.

Now Sony release a 100mm in the FE mount with the fabled Minolta Smooth Transition Focus (STF). It has auto focus! It has a macro mode! It is 'G Master'! <sigh>

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2017/02/0 ... r-e-mount/

http://www.sony.com/electronics/camera- ... el100f28gm

The likely £1,500 price tag helps take the shine off a bit I suppose . I am still looking forward to seeing some real world reviews when it is out in March.

(At least this explains the sudden leap in interest on my Sony 135 STF pictures on Flickr .)

You're certainly not alone on this one Andy. Though I recently added the Batis 1.8/85 to my arsenal and yet that particular lens is really playing with some nerve endings...
One thing that I still find odd on that lens is the T-stop @5.6 which compared to its A-mount sibling is quite weak... is it related to its AF ability, or for the form factor, I really can't say... Nevertheless ... GAS... GAS....

Very interesting point Doc. I can't imagine why that would be.

I'm looking forward to more in-depth reviews

The bigger f-stop to T-stop difference of the new E-mount STF compared to the old A-mount STF must be due at least mostly to a stronger apodisation element. Will that improve the bokeh quality? Will it increase the range of f-stops over which the apodisation element has an appreciable effect? What's the bokeh quality like at narrower apertures than f8? I often find myself using f11, f16, and more when doing flower portraits with the 135mm STF.

Still waiting for those interestingly knowledgeable comparative reviews to arrive...

I remember looking at the 135mm STF and thinking wow nice smooth rendering. But then I looked at my 90mm Tamron and thought hmm that's pretty damn good for smooth backgrounds too and it's rep for a portrait lens is justified real world use, failing that the 70-210mm F4 also thrills me in this regard. Both lenses have flaws, both are incredible tools for portrait work. I'm sure it's a fantastic lens, but you have to ask yourself do you want to play with it or do you really need it? Fairly expensive purchase on a single lens even for a die hard portrait shooter.

Or how about this old, unique, very interesting 1975 Minolta lens?

Minolta MC Rokkor-X 40-80mm f/2.8

https://outfor30.com/2017/08/13/a-forgotten-solution/

I remember this lens from articles and advertisements back in the 1970s. I saw one at a used camera shop in Tokyo back in the 1990s.

By the way, I looked at and held the lens you are thinking about while at a store today. As usual in Japan it was just sitting out for anyone to play with.

bakubo wrote:Or how about this old, unique, very interesting 1975 Minolta lens?

Minolta MC Rokkor-X 40-80mm f/2.8

https://outfor30.com/2017/08/13/a-forgotten-solution/

I remember this lens from articles and advertisements back in the 1970s. I saw one at a used camera shop in Tokyo back in the 1990s.

By the way, I looked at and held the lens you are thinking about while at a store today. As usual in Japan it was just sitting out for anyone to play with.

The Minolta 40-80mm f/2.8 Gearbox Zoom; The Clockwork Lens

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/0 ... work-lens/

Even if I were an E mount user I still balk at the prices on some of the lenses:
https://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/Son ... G-OSS-Lens
I think I paid £100 for an as new Minolta 24-105mm OK it's not F4 across the range but considerably smaller and surprisingly good even on FF 35mm. I'm not seeing a £1100 improvement if anything the E mount seems to lack the sharpenss of the MInolta which has one flaw vignetting. Fixable. Even looking at the E mount 18-135mm it seems like a poor cousin to the A mount version (which isn't perfect but has bite even if there are a few weaker points in the range it's tack sharp at 18mm corners and the E mount isn't) a nice £250 premium for the E mount one.

Looking back being a skin flint has served me very well indeed I've probably saves thousands! If I ever got an E mount body you can be certain I'd be using an adapter

I bought a Sigma A mount 24-105 some 12 months ago at half the price ( actually a little less ) for the new FE lens. With its bulk and weight it is better balanced on A mount cameras than on the A7R II, but when I need a one lens solution it works fine.

Having had the old Minolta 85 / 1.4 and the 100 / 2.8 SF for many years I have never seriously looked at the 135 STF or the 100 FE as good as they are reputed to be.

Slightly OT but I had a quick browse on ebay and some of the s/h prices on lenses (and cameras) are pretty damn nice. Beercan £50, older bodies can be bought for very little. Seems Sony's lack of interest in A mount is to bargain buyers a gold mine, really low prices and I didn't pay a lot back then for those lenses. On the downside it's almost pointless selling off any items as you'll raise very little unless it's something rare or exciting