Old Lenses worth seeking out

[bfitzgerald]

Agree 24-85mm RS is a good one and not a bad price
Happy with the 100-200mm f4.5 too very nice lens and compact too
35-70 f4 excellent lens the plastic kit one f4.5 is also said to be good
28-85mm got that as well though I use it mostly on film solid lens all round
28-80mm D is IMO better than the non D ones I have tried by some margin..though it's low contrast
28-100mm D is not too bad but has blooming on digital (surprisingly decent on 35mm though)
Also like the 19-35mm myself but it's range is short more useful to me on film that one
Happy with my copy of the 50mm f1.7 though I know samples vary IMO it's a great lens and delivers huge bang per buck

But out of all of this my decent copy 18-70mm has really stood up pretty well. If you have a bad one you know it (poor at corners even stopped down, soft tele end f5.6 on a poor copy) I can shoot that 18mm and only stop down a little and get very acceptable quality. It's turned out to be a better lens than it gets credit for.

[Old Hydro]

I have only used the original series - I don't know if there were any RS type 28-85mms. All three that I have owned were terrible, even on film. I would not risk one on digital especially full frame. But other seem to think it's OK - having said that, people rate the original 35-105mm, and I never had a good one.

I actually think the late period 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 you can pick up on eBay brand new boxed for £40 is a better lens.

David

I have a brand new, never used 28-85 RS. -- I thought I was getting a new old stock 24-85, so its in the box.

[bfitzgerald]

I can assure anyone that a good copy of the 28-85mm (I have an original crossed xx Maxxum version) does very well on film. Ektar 100 is not forgiving of poor optics and I scan at high resolutions too. It's an excellent lens overall and I've found it a great film body lens.

It does need f8 if not a tad more at 28mm (far from unusual on a FF body)..f4.5 is a touch soft tele end. Stopped down a little it's extremely sharp and this is also the lens I shot side by side with the Tokina 24-200mm..and it ripped it apart in it's focal range and then some more. I couldn't even bear to touch the Tokina afterwards the 28-85mm has wonderful contrast too.
Decent copies of the 28-80mm D and 28-100mm D are by no means poor lenses (in fact not bad at all for kit cheapies) but neither can match the oldie Minolta both are fairly low contrast too.

[01af]

All the old prime Minolta AF lenses are pretty good, some even excellent.

The AF 20 mm 1:2.8 and the AF 24 mm 1:2.8 are not so great but still worth having. They do need some stopping-down for the corners to sharpen up. Also the AF 50 mm 1:1.7 and AF 50 mm 1:1.4 I consider good but not excellent; still they are a must-have due to their favourable price-to-performance ratio.

The finest Minolta AF lenses, in my opinion, are the AF 28 mm 1:2, the AF 35 mm 1:2, the AF 100 mm 1:2, the AF Apo HS 200 mm 1:2.8 G, and the wonderful AF Apo HS 400 mm 1:4.5 G. Also the AF 28-135 mm 1:4-4.5 is a stellar performer if you're lucky enough to find a copy in good condition that's not damaged or worn-out. However I don't like the longish minimum focusing distance which is 1.5 m/5 ft. The bizarre AF-xi 35-200 mm 1:4.5-5.6 is surprisingly strong at short to medium settings but falls off towards the long end; it's nice but not a must in my opinion.

The AF Fish-eye 16 mm 1:2.8 is absolutely fantastic at the frame's center---much better than AF 20 or AF 24---but exhibits some lateral chromatic aberrations in the frame's field. However these respond well to C/A removal tools; when you carefully apply a proper correction then an excellent and detailed image will emerge.

-- Olaf