24-85mm Minolta
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.
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.
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
A couple of years ago, I was interested in a kit lens replacement for my A100. They were clearing out some old Minolta lenses, so I checked out the 24-105 and 24-85. Both lenses seemed to be pretty good, but didn't quite "grab" me enough to part with the cash. I liked the 24mm angle -- just wide enough on APS-C for most use, IMHO. It's been a while, but these are my vague recollections from trying the lenses out in the store and "chimping". The 24-105 was good, but the 24-85 was sharper and faster. It seemed to focus and snap the photo faster, although I wasn't sure what aspect of the lens made it seem that way. The larger range of the 24-105 was tempting, though. The one thing that was odd about the 24-85, I had read about online -- sure enough, the bokeh was a bit strange. The 24-105 had smoother bokeh, but the 24-85 would get some patterns in it that could be distracting to some. Overall, the 24-85 seemed to me the better lens. I wouldn't call the 24-105 "soft", but it didn't seem as sharp as I would have liked.
When I discovered that the store also had a Tamron 17-50/2.8, I tried that, and was blown away -- faster, sharper, etc., so I never looked back at those Minolta models.
Going forward, I have occasionally bought cheap old lenses, so I decided to try the 28-105xi. (With a very slight mark on the edge of the front element, it was priced at only $19!) What I see from the performance of this lens sounded similar to other comments I've seen about the 28-105 lenses. In good light, this is a pretty good lens. It has surprised me. In poor light, it's pretty awful. It's particularly bad at the wide end. But recently I discovered that at f8, even my 28mm shots looked really nice -- all the resolution I could want, and great color. The 105mm end doesn't need to be stopped down as much, I don't think, before it looks good. Wide open, somewhere in the range, it has the "dreamy" look someone mentioned. I guess it could make for interesting portraits, but I was kind of surprised to see it show up! Overall, the color looks great, and the bokeh is decent. (You aren't going to get nice round highlights, particularly as you don't want to use the lens wide-open anyway, but with the angular geometric shapes, I kind of like the effect, and it doesn't seem to have otherwise distracting backgrounds like you sometimes see with "bad bokeh". But I can see where many others might not grade the bokeh as high as I do with this lens.)
I really like the 28-105 range for some situations, and if it were a 24-105, I'd probably be a bit happier. 16-105 sounds much better, but that lens has gotten some lackluster reviews, but maybe I should revisit that one someday. But for $19, I think I'd prefer the 28-105 over the others.
When I discovered that the store also had a Tamron 17-50/2.8, I tried that, and was blown away -- faster, sharper, etc., so I never looked back at those Minolta models.
Going forward, I have occasionally bought cheap old lenses, so I decided to try the 28-105xi. (With a very slight mark on the edge of the front element, it was priced at only $19!) What I see from the performance of this lens sounded similar to other comments I've seen about the 28-105 lenses. In good light, this is a pretty good lens. It has surprised me. In poor light, it's pretty awful. It's particularly bad at the wide end. But recently I discovered that at f8, even my 28mm shots looked really nice -- all the resolution I could want, and great color. The 105mm end doesn't need to be stopped down as much, I don't think, before it looks good. Wide open, somewhere in the range, it has the "dreamy" look someone mentioned. I guess it could make for interesting portraits, but I was kind of surprised to see it show up! Overall, the color looks great, and the bokeh is decent. (You aren't going to get nice round highlights, particularly as you don't want to use the lens wide-open anyway, but with the angular geometric shapes, I kind of like the effect, and it doesn't seem to have otherwise distracting backgrounds like you sometimes see with "bad bokeh". But I can see where many others might not grade the bokeh as high as I do with this lens.)
I really like the 28-105 range for some situations, and if it were a 24-105, I'd probably be a bit happier. 16-105 sounds much better, but that lens has gotten some lackluster reviews, but maybe I should revisit that one someday. But for $19, I think I'd prefer the 28-105 over the others.
I like it too (nudity attachment)
I got a new copy of the 24-85RS from a shop who had found 8 unsold copies. I paid about $200 and I'm very happy with that lens. It's my only zoom, all my other lenses are primes: ZA, Minolta & Sigma.
The finish is entry-level but still decent. I like the RS look over the ZA look, especially the rubber zoom & focus rings.
Focussing is quite fast on the A900.
"Sharp enough" at 5.6 and very sharp at 8.0.
So it's a good lens for traveling light and for studio work.
For example, the eyes on this picture at F/8 have plenty of details even if they are near the edge:
The finish is entry-level but still decent. I like the RS look over the ZA look, especially the rubber zoom & focus rings.
Focussing is quite fast on the A900.
"Sharp enough" at 5.6 and very sharp at 8.0.
So it's a good lens for traveling light and for studio work.
For example, the eyes on this picture at F/8 have plenty of details even if they are near the edge:
- Dr. Harout
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Yerevan, Armenia
- Contact:
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Is that beautiful girl a gift from Santa? wow
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
youpii, I suddenly realize what is missing from these forums -- more of your photos. She is gorgeous! Your photo is great too! Feel free to post anytime. That is one hell of a lens you got there.
Bakubo http://www.bakubo.com
- KevinBarrett
- Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
- Posts: 2449
- Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2008 5:32 pm
- Location: Seattle, Washington, USA
- Contact:
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: I like it too (nudity attachment)
Who care about her eyes?youpii wrote: For example, the eyes on this picture at F/8 have plenty of details even if they are near the edge:
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Thanks for the comments on the model, she's indeed very hot
But I'm still saying that the 24-85RS is a real bargain. $200 lens on a $2500 camera
But I'm still saying that the 24-85RS is a real bargain. $200 lens on a $2500 camera
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
24-85 was the very first serious alpha lens I bought. Later I had loads of others but still remember the joy I found when I saw the result from my Dynax 7000i using this lens. After all, it generates mechanical noise which Sony asked me not to spend money on. I really miss it. I am luck to have alternatives like 24-105 and 24-50David Kilpatrick wrote:Jacobs had a new, boxed 'old stock' off the shelf complete 24-85mm for £139.99 inc VAT and shipping on eBay, so after much thought, I went for it. I remember my main issue with the 24-85mm was a poor close-up range compared to the 28-105mm, or the later 24-105mm which I welcomed mainly for superior close-up ability.
But I've been missing the 24mm equivalent (or lens) with my two alternative lenses being the 28-75mm f/2.8 (exceptional for close-ups) and the 28-105mm, on the A900. The 17-35mm is OK at 24mm but can not really be kept on the camera as a walkaround lens. The Sigma 12-24mm is wonderful at 12mm to 16mm, but deteriorates so much that by 24mm it's almost useless (they have always had this problem).
I'll be checking this lens carefully against the 28-105mm, which I know is substantially better than the later 24-105mm.
David
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Jacob's seem to have dug out another one, this time an original version..listed as new.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-28-85m ... 5ad680e96f
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-28-85m ... 5ad680e96f
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
That is a 28-85 -the topic is on the 24-85 like this one (in this case way overpriced) http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-Maxxum-SONY ... 53dc9fadafbfitzgerald wrote:Jacob's seem to have dug out another one, this time an original version..listed as new.
http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-AF-28-85m ... 5ad680e96f
Regards
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Ooops my mistake too long at the monitor and too much coffee!
$249.99!
Yeah they are trying it on alright, still with ebay fees I can't blame em
$249.99!
Yeah they are trying it on alright, still with ebay fees I can't blame em
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
I've been thinking about having a wider option for the 28-75 2.8, that I use as a main lens. I was hunting for a Minolta 24mm f2.8 (mostly because any version of the 24mm on MC or MD was as good or better than the competition counterpart) The 24-85 seamed a nice alternative too. It happened that the Adorama Used Department had at the same time both lenses plus a Sigma 24mm f2.8 "Macro" *52mm. I tried the 3 lenses at the counter and this was the result:
Sigma lens:
Sigma lens:
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Minolta 24mm
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- pakodominguez
- Minister with Portfolio
- Posts: 2306
- Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Minolta 24-85
I bought the Sigma and I'm really happy about it
Regards
I bought the Sigma and I'm really happy about it
Regards
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- bfitzgerald
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 3996
- Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm
Re: 24-85mm Minolta
Well the sigma looks best on those shots. Have to say, on FF at wide angle, I can't say I shoot at f3.5 that often, in fact I can only think of one time I did
WA most times means stop it down, how far depends on the lens, some get good early, some a bit later, and some never really get there at all!
WA most times means stop it down, how far depends on the lens, some get good early, some a bit later, and some never really get there at all!
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests