Minolta 135mm f/2.8 on the way...

[[SiC]]

Just wanted to get this off my chest, first glass investment in several years and I decided I wanted this classic Minolta lens
Seen some resolution tests that said it was an average performer but reading owners reviews made me think that I have to try it at least.

A collegue of mine closed the deal on location about 430km's from here today and hopefully he'll bring it home to me this weekend

The lens turned out to be the "crossed X" version, wasn't really necessary for me but I've heard that they are a bit more desired for collectors.

Anyway, I'll post images as soon as I can.

BR,
/Zeb! (eagerly waiting...)

[aster]

Eagerly anticipating your photos and views on the lens Zeb!

Congratulations on your new investment. All the more so because it's a collector's item and hopefully it will work nicely for you.

Yildiz

[Dr. Harout]

Congrats Zeb.
Santa is quite early this year.

[[SiC]]

Thank you Yildiz and Doc!
It will also be the oldest lens I own(+20 years old!).

I think I got a quite affordable price, especially since I feel like they are a bit rare in Sweden - but it might just be that the owners tend to cling on to them harder than other lenses
Been a lot of beercans for sale lately, think I will save up for one of those too... In time at least, took me long enough to make this purchase

/Zeb!

[bossel]

Have fun! You will be surprised how small a 135mm lens can be

[[SiC]]

Have fun! You will be surprised how small a 135mm lens can be

That's what I've heard! Looking forward to having it in my hands... (sunday evening if lucky)
Thanks bossel!

[InTheSky]

i have just sold my mint 135mm 2.8 with XX on it yesterday for 325$ US. I have two copy like you. But after my posting about the coating, and the recommendation of David to keep the newer for better coating, i have decided to sell the XX.

Hard economic moment obliged, i cannot support to have copy of all my old and beautiful Minolta lenses. (i have almost all my lens in double ... , because of there rarity : 200mm 2.8, 100-35-28mm 2.0, 28-75D... ). But my Credit has keep the decision for me .

By the way, you will love this lens ! you just have to be careful, on body other than A900, you can have some focus problem with some model. This focus front/back can make you believe that your lens is not sharp at F/2.8. But i can say that in good condition, the lens is very sharp at F/2.8.

On A900 handled the first night i got the camera :

100p crop (for pixel peeper ):


Regards,

Frank

[[SiC]]

If you don't like the pocket rocket then something is wrong with you!

Well as I said, I haven't got it yet... But I expect to like it

[[SiC]]

Btw, do you have any suggestions for an affordable 1.4 and/or 1.7/2.0 TC for this lens? Not to be bougth immediately though but maybe later.
Just for reference.

BR,
/Zeb!

[David Kilpatrick]

I have always used the Kenko 2X Teleplus MC7 type - it works superbly with the 70-210mm f4, and did with the 135mm as well. I have the latest digital type now. I actually think it's slightly better as a converter than the Minolta APO designs. You can even use it on the 100mm f2.8 macro to get a 200mm f5.6 macro with 2:1 magnification...

David

[InTheSky]

I am waiting to received a 1.4x APO II of minolta, because i have seen very good review on it, and it is for my 200mm Minolta (it is not fitting a lot of back lens..).

On the other hand i have the old 1.4x Sigma EX and the Tamron SP 2x. Both are ok. Yes on the Beercan the 1.4 looks ok ... but i have done some resolution test and find that there not real pixel magnification in the result (compare to crop and upscale at the same size. The Tamron SP 2x is not that good. Probably DK choice is better because the converter i think should have coating or special design to help Digital sensor.

David, have you really see increase of detail in macro with the 2x ? or it is just help to focus with the good depth of field ? My dream is to find a 2x adapter that will really give 2x of magnification and do not lost or ... really lost a small amount of detail (because loosing 2x of light is a too big cost i think when you lost detail ... , thinking of having to increase the ISO where this already left detail)

Regards,

Frank

[David Kilpatrick]

I'll try it and tell you. It can not enlarge detail which is not already there though

David

[aster]

Hi,

Would Tamron 90mm F/2.8 benefit from the Kenko 2X Teleplus MC7 also, David, or is it prone to happen with the Sony 100mm only?

Thanks,
Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

Not sure. The Teleplus is very affordable - mine was under £100 new from a reputable supplier - and will last years, it has no moving parts except the mount catch and aperture lever, it can be used with many different lenses. I have got mine to work - with AF functional despite the f8 resulting aperture - on the 70-210mm f4. I do not know if it will work on SSM lenses faster than f4, I certainly know it can not be used on the 70-300mm SSM, obviously the aperture is too limited anyway.
David

[01af]

I am waiting to receive a Minolta 1.4x APO II, because i have seen very good review on it, and it is for my Minolta AF 200 mm (it doesn't fit a lot of lenses ...).

That's right. The Minolta AF Tele Converters Apo and Apo-II only fit the white AF Apo G telephoto lenses (but not the AF Apo 80-200 mm 1:2.8 G) and the STF 135 mm 1:2.8 (T/4.5) lens. With other Minolta AF lenses you'll need 3rd-party tele converters. I prefer those made by Kenko.

Most zoom lenses don't go well with tele converters (a few exceptions exist). Tele converters are at their best when combined with long prime telephoto lenses, to make them even longer.

On the other hand i have the old 1.4× Sigma EX and the Tamron SP 2×. Both are ok. Yes on the Beercan the 1.4× looks ok ... [...] The Tamron SP 2× is not that good.

Generally, 2× converters affect the image quality significantly more than 1.4× converters---and not for the better.

David, have you really see increase of detail in macro with the 2×? Or it is just help to focus with the good depth of field?

On a macro lens, a tele converter neither helps with focus nor with depth-of-field. At the same magnification (i. e. at a greater distance), depth-of-field will be the same. At the same distance, magnification will be greater according to the converter's factor (i. e. 1.4×, 1.7×, or 2×), and depth-of-field will be narrower accordingly. Technically, there is no difference between a 200 mm macro lens and a 100 mm macro lens on a 2× converter ... except the native 200 mm will be sharper and most likely faster too.

The lens' maximum magnification will always multiply with the converter's factor, no matter whether it's a regular lens or a macro lens. So with a macro lens that will go up to 1:1 on its own devices will go up to 2:1 when used with a 2× converter. Usually that's the best method to reach 2:1 with a normal macro lens (better than close-up lenses or extension tubes). However there are better methods still, e. g. macro lens heads, enlarger lenses, or reversed wide-angle lenses on bellows units. I got very good results with an old (purchased in 1987; five contacts) Kenko 1.4× converter and the Minolta AF Macro 100 mm 1:2.8 lens at magnifications between 1:1 and 1.4:1---and of course you will get more detail this way than without tele converter.

However I didn't try a 2× converter yet.

By the way, I compared the same Kenko 1.4× converter to the Minolta AF Tele Converter 1.4× Apo-II using the AF Apo HS 400 mm 1:4.5 G lens on the Dynax 7D (APS-C format). Result: the Minolta converter is better ... but by a surprisingly small margin. On the 400 mm lens at f/8 (i. e. 2/3 stops down from full aperture with TC), the Kenko is slightly better than the Minolta TC at full aperture. Compared a the same apertures (i. e. both at f/6.3 or both at f/8), the Minolta is slightly better.

Maybe on full-frame format the difference between the two converters will become more pronounced ... but I'm just speculating here.

Would Tamron 90 mm f/2.8 benefit from the Kenko 2X Teleplus MC7 also ...?

Yes, sure!

-- Olaf