Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

In most of my posts, I have been preaching the "gospel" of the bridge camera. A week ago, one of my co-workers picked up a Nikon 5100 for a bargain price with a two lens kit to take pictures of her new baby. Though she admittedly knew as much about photography as Michael Jackson did about hot older women, and took most of her shots on full auto setting, the results were impressive, and I have decided to bite the DSLR bullet. I happen to have two lenses that are compatible with Sony's alpha mount; a Konica Minolta 28-100, and a Kodak Gear 80-210 zoom. (made by Tamron or Tiffen). Does anyone hanging out on the hog have opinions on either of these lenses and whether they are good enough to steer me towards a Sony body. Let me know ASAP

RaydancePhoto

The old Minolta lenses are very good, some better than others. One advantage of Sony A is that you can use the Minolta lenses and they are very cheap compared to Sony or any other lens maker. I love my Minolta lenses. The Sony has a lot of advantages over canon/nikon in my opinion.

HOT Texas Loc: From the Heart of Texas

I agree with Raydance 100%

I shoot Minolta lens on my Sony. Nothing like Minolta colors

I have no experience with the Konica Minolta 28-100, and Kodak Gear 80-210 so I couldn't help you there. but it's my understanding the Kodak is made by Tamron and is a very good lens and takes excellent pictures.

most of my Minolta lens are older than the ones you have.

1066 Loc: England

I have to agree with what's been said, especially about the Minolta lens prices, here in the UK I bought a Minolta 50mm f1.7-f22 lens on Ebay for 60.00 GBP, that's about 92.00 USD , and seen a new boxed one, never used for 240.00 GBP, that's about 370.00 USD.

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

Shoot what you want, with what you want, how you want and if you have decent glass then it would be folly not to take advantage of it.

I personally don't go in for naming one brand and putting it on a pedestal, good luck.

dpullum Loc: Tampa Florida

I have no knowledge of those lenses you mentioned, but Minolta Maxxum AF lenses from 85 on have a great reputation.. Google the Maxxum history and you will be impressed. Compared to modern lenses, they weigh a lot more, but are excellent glass at a low price..... er a, yes I have a Sony Alpha, how did you guess?

rhyde Loc: Little Rock, AR

You might want to research the micro 4/3 system... Olympus, Panasonic, etc. I think your lenses, certainly with the adapter, would fit.

barryn37 Loc: Norristown, PA

Wow, I didn't know that there where 7 or 8 Sony users here. lol. I still love my D5, and I really love my A77 because the fact that I can use my Minolta lenses.

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Thanks for the suggestion. I have a Panasonic DMC G1 micro 4/3 and an adapter for those lenses. Unfortunately it doesnt support autofocus and they have to be used on full manual or aperture priority. Also there is no image stabilization. I did get decent shots with the konica 28-100 lens, but the 80-210 Kodak was useless without a tripod

tainkc Loc: Kansas City

I could write a volume as to why you should buy a Sony. It is so good and so underrated. Since it is the new kid on the block sort to speak, it is going to take people a while to warm up to it. Not that the other brands are not as good. Quite the contrary. Those other companies have excellent product and they have been at it for a long time.

As for the lenses, I can only speak for the Minolta 28-100 zoom. I bought mine at a pawn shop for $30.00. It is an excellent lens as far as I am concerned. No aberration, it has true color, it is very sharp and excellent for portraiture. I also bought the Minolta 70-210 lens to compliment it.

When I gave my Sony a500 to my daughter, I gave her these lenses to go with it. She is having very good luck with them. The cool part is that the Sony offering is way expensive and not any better. I am now looking for another one because I miss my 28-100 lens.

One more thing. it is also a very good all around walk about lens. You can shoot good close ups of flowers and bugs and capture excellent street photos along with landscapes.

In all reality it sounds like Sony is the logical choice for you. I hope this helped.

ardcat

Shutterbugsailor, i have shot Nikon since the early 70's and i am on the process of purchasing a Sony. Only debate is the a65 or a77. I also owned a camera store/portrait studio in the 70's-90's and it was very easy selling Minolta & Fuji products in those years, not only because of price difference compared to Canon & Nikon but because they just produced a darn good product!

Plus in those years Canon was very poor in customer service and very bad when it came to repairs or warranty work. I didn't realize the Minolta lens (some) work with the Sony's. Don't worry about the quality of their glass, it is excellent and can be compared side-by-side with the likes of most others.

And you might ask me why the switch. Well i will always keep my Nikons and the 10-12 lens, but i'm at the end of my business career and i've always been a renegade. I've never acted my age and i never stay within the lines when i color!!!

glojo Loc: South Devon, England

I don't think you are being fair to your equipment as how do folks get on that do not have image stabilisation on either their camera or lens? Nip over to the macro section and view the AMAZING images that are mostly hand held and are beyond sharp! :)

Totally agree with your valid point about loosing autofocus although for some types of photography that is not a big issue (I could not do without it)

barryn37 Loc: Norristown, PA

Just to add, if any of you are on facebook, there is a Sony Photographers page. Please check it out and join. :)

Wezza1977uk Loc: London, England

Though she admittedly knew as much about photography as Michael Jackson did about hot older women

This made me choke on my Tea lol

As i have said in other posts, and in my signature I shoot sony because i Just happened to be given an A300 by my Grandad. I love the sony and as i have purchased extra lenses for the alpha system will be sticking with sony when i buy my new body ( am trying to decide between a65, a77 and a full frame a900 at the moment) Sony make a quality product, and its worth noting that their DSLR's are actually direct descendants of the old Konica Miniolta range as sony purchased KM when they folded/pulled out of the camera market ( cant remember which it was). Not taking anything away from nikon or canon but i have yet to see anything done with the nikanons that the sony's cant achieve and as stated in previous posts some of the nikons actually contain sony sensors

Shutterbugsailer Loc: Staten Island NY (AKA Cincinnati by the Sea)

Is it that I am being unfair, or perhaps you are unfamiliar with micro 4/3 cameras. With the crop factor of the micro 4/3 system, the two Konica/minolta 28-100 becomes the equivalent of 58-200. The kodak 80-210 becomes 160-420, and is not all that fast to boot. Most of us into digital photography have at least some form of image stabilization; in the camera body and/or lens, and have become quite spoiled by it. To be honest, how many photographers have a steady enough hand to get a clear shot at 420 zoom on a relatively slow lens, unless they are in extremely bright light conditions, allowing a fast shutter speed without either some image stabilization or a tripod?