Secondhand Lenses

[HFnotts]

Is there any merit in looking for secondhand Minolta lenses rather than buying current Sony, Tamron, Sigma glass?
It seems to me that some Minolta items are very cheap but, as I didn't use Minolta film I am not familiar with which Minolta glass is top rate and which to avoid. I would appreciate any comments from you experienced guys out there.
In saying the above I do not denigrate Minolta, all manufacturers have lenses which perform really well, even the non-pro lenses, and some which are just not really up to standard.
I should say that I shall be using the lenses on the a700 but might think of full frame in a year or so time.

[David Kilpatrick]

The best resource for finding out what Minolta lenses might be of use is www.dyxum.com, and their user review lens database. On the law of averages, it will give some idea of which old Minolta designs are worth buying for the A700, and also helps you identify the designs through clear photos of the model involved (some lens have two or three revisions over a period of 10-15 years).

Generally, any lens you can find which is branded Konica Minolta or was sold in a Konica Minolta box will be a safe buy. Any 'as new boxed stock' unsold Minolta lens is also pretty safe. Some date from around 1999 - I was able to get a new boxed 28-105mm from that date, unsold stock. For the A700, most lenses work well - the 24-105mm for example, a recent Konica Minolta design which Sony then adopted, is great on the A700 but rather disappointing on the A900.

There are specific issues you need to be aware of. The 50mm macro f2.8 and standard f/1.4 can produce patches of reflected flare in pictures against the light (caused by a reflection from the sensor cover glass). The early AF zooms 28-85mm, 35-105mm, 35-70mm though sometimes praised by owners are not actually all that wonderful. The early 70-210mm, 70-300mm, 24-50mm, 100-200mm are all pretty good. The 28-135mm is a classic (very good indeed) but rather clumsy and unable to focus closer than 5ft using AF.

David

[Dr. Harout]

...There are specific issues you need to be aware of. The 50mm macro f2.8 and standard f/1.4 can produce patches of reflected flare in pictures against the light (caused by a reflection from the sensor cover glass)...
David

As an example of what David said, this shot was taken with the SAL50M28 (50mm f/2.8 macro). Notice the flare of the bulb on the cap of the light box (or whatever it is called.) I must note that the picture is cropped. But even so, this lens is just great, superb, to be exact.

[bfitzgerald]

You have to bear in mind some folks are using FF digital, and they will be more critical of some lenses. Some are on APS, and some of the older lenses do pretty well there. And some folks like me are using 35mm, but with high res scanners, nothing escapes my eye on this!

I have seen reviews slam some lenses, and their samples are clearly dodgy, seen that more than a few times with some of the older zoom lenses. So I will have to disagree with DK on the older zoom lenses, as most are using APS-C, they will more than likely be pretty happy with these zooms (decent copies now) If you are using an A900 obviously that's going to be a much harder test of any lens. I will agree though that most film lenses, erm shock do work best on film! The reflection issue and blooming can be something that just shows up on digital. Still, with the cost of these older zoom lenses being so low, it's not a risky way to experiment, you can always re-sell them if you are not happy.

[KevinBarrett]

As someone who uses primarily Minolta lenses with my a700, I'll recommend the Minolta 50/1.7 as a safe buy and a sound investment. They can be had in the neighborhood of $100 US, and you won't regret paying a little more if you find a particularly clean copy. I also use a Minolta 24/2.8, which is a gem that Sony failed to carry over from the Minolta line. On the a700 it is equivalent to a 35mm normal lens. I paid $214 for one as "unsold stock" as DK said, and I think they run about $225-300 in good shape.

Like DK said, http://www.dyxum.com is an excellent resource, but so is http://www.keh.com for when you want to go shopping. Keh might cost a little more than ebay, but it removes a lot of the gamble and their ratings are generally very conservative.

[youpii]

I agree with DK, dyxum is a good source to sort out what is good on the 2nd hand market.
Konika Minolta lenses are more recent than Minolta lenses.
Many Minolta lenses are super sharp but as pointed out in the previous posts, the coatings are not designed for sensor reflection and also are not as good as today's coating against flare. I have a Minolta 28/2 (pre-RS) that is both small and incredibly sharp but gives blueish pictures when a very bright source is in the picture.

[HFnotts]

Thank you for all this, most helpful.
One other question. I see that some Minolta lenses require an adaptor for the modern cameras.
What is this adaptor and what Minol;ta lenses do require it? Are the adaptors readily available?
I am sorry for these simplistic questions but being a new convert to Sony I have to ask.

[peterottaway]

Short answer is

The old Minolta ( pre Alpha AF mount ) MC/MD manual focus lenses use a different mount which require an adapter. If you want the lens to to focus at infinity then this adapter requires a lens element in the adapter and this detracts from their optical performance and of course they must be manually focused.

My recommendation is that unless you have MF Minolta cameras to stay away from these lenses. I own a shelf full of them but only use them on the MF film cameras.

[HFnotts]

That is as complete an answer as one could wish for.

Many thanks.