Minolta 100mm f/2

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
Mr_Canuck
Acolyte
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Minolta 100mm f/2

Unread postby Mr_Canuck » Fri Oct 02, 2009 4:27 am

harvey wrote:
Mr_Canuck wrote:I have a 100/f2. All of my other lenses I either got at a super good price or a good price. The 100/f2 I paid a premium for, and it has been amazing on my a700. Sorry, I cannot compare it to an 85mm as I don't have one. And I wish I could show it on an a900 but nobody has given me one yet.

Do you not find it a bit long on the A700 for portraits?

Harvey


That's why I'm hoping someone gives me an a900. Yes it would be better on full-frame, but I just work around it. The other side of it is, the 50mm is too short on the a900 but probably just right on apsc.
a850 | 28-135 | 70-300G | 20/2.8 | 35/2 | 50/2.8M | 100/02 | 200f2.8 | HVL-20FA | 3600HS | Border Collie X

harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Minolta 100mm f/2

Unread postby harvey » Fri Oct 02, 2009 10:12 am

Mr_Canuck wrote:That's why I'm hoping someone gives me an a900. Yes it would be better on full-frame, but I just work around it. The other side of it is, the 50mm is too short on the a900 but probably just right on apsc.

I waited for FF because APS-C was going to give me awkward magnified lens lengths.
If an A900 comes your way then you also have the 135mm/f2.8 which I like and have used for walkaround candids at weddings.

I like the bride portrait.

Harvey

Mr_Canuck
Acolyte
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jun 27, 2008 5:36 pm
Location: Canada

Re: Minolta 100mm f/2

Unread postby Mr_Canuck » Sun Oct 04, 2009 10:09 pm

harvey wrote:I waited for FF because APS-C was going to give me awkward magnified lens lengths.
If an A900 comes your way then you also have the 135mm/f2.8 which I like and have used for walkaround candids at weddings.
I like the bride portrait.
Harvey


Thanks. I have actually had my 135/2.8 up for sale because I just don't use it since the 100 came along, but something in me wonders if I shouldn't just let it sit on the shelf till when I (for sure) go to full-frame. I might just find it a dandy length. I understand the sharpness is decent on a900. Certainly its size is very appealing.

On a vacation to Canada's Maritimes last summer I took only my 35/2 and the 135/2.8 and it was a great shooting experience. Carrying only primes eliminated many variables and I found I was "seeing" from an expected framing vantage point and probably got more intentional and therefore better images. But I digress... the 100/2 rocks.
a850 | 28-135 | 70-300G | 20/2.8 | 35/2 | 50/2.8M | 100/02 | 200f2.8 | HVL-20FA | 3600HS | Border Collie X

01af
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 501
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 2:44 pm
Location: Germany

Re: Minolta 100mm f/2

Unread postby 01af » Mon Oct 05, 2009 9:53 am

harvey wrote:I waited for FF because APS-C was going to give me awkward magnified lens lengths.

Umm ... I keep failing to understand why someone would call the shift of the angles of view "awkward." What's so "awkward" about it? It's just a bit of a shift, that's all. It's neither better nor worse generally; it's just slightly different.

The only real loss happens at the short end of your lens line-up ... but that's compensated for by the gain at the long end. In-between there's no losses or gains, just shifts. I was using 35-mm cameras for over 25 years, and when switching to APS-C format in 2005 there was no awkwardness at all, just some need of getting-used-to. And when after four years of using APS-C you're switching back to 35-mm format again, the switch is just as "awkward" as it was the other way around ... actually there's nothing being awkward but just some lack of familiarity which you will get over in just a few days (or weeks if you're shooting infrequently).

-- Olaf

harvey
Oligarch
Posts: 202
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 2:25 pm
Location: Scotland

Re: Minolta 100mm f/2

Unread postby harvey » Mon Oct 05, 2009 1:04 pm

01af wrote:
harvey wrote:I waited for FF because APS-C was going to give me awkward magnified lens lengths.

Umm ... I keep failing to understand why someone would call the shift of the angles of view "awkward." What's so "awkward" about it?
-- Olaf


The set 17-35mm,28mm,50mm,90mm,135mm going to APS-C looses my wide-angle, gives me the worst quality lens I have as the standard fast lens, and moves the longest lens too long for what I normally want to carry around. Having said that since I got the 90mm macro that evens it up a bit.

Harvey


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests

cron