planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
Where can I find a list of what the abbreviations on the lens mean?
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
St3v3M wrote:
http://photo.net/equipment/sony
Thanks. I looked it over. Very good, but it didn't have 'xi'. I found it in another site that is a good go-together with yours,
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/lens_glossary.asp I found out that it was a rather unsuccessful lens made for one of their xi cameras. I've never bought used lenses before, but it sounds like there are some nice KM models out there. One I looked at (too expensive at this point in my life) was one Ken Rockwell raved about, an 85mm f/1.4
There are several good Minolta lenses out there provided you can get them with light use as it is almost impossible to get them repaired due to lack of parts available.
Most generally any "G" lens and that does include the 85mm f1.4. Also notables are the 80-200 f2.8 G (white lens) the 28-70 2.8 G. The 50mm f1.4 is also a very good lens as is the 100mm 2.8 macro.
I think those are the "most sought" of the Minolta lenses.
if we are speaking of af lenses, then the first generation minolta af lenses have some wonderful items. in addition to the above, the 70-300 constant f4 lens is highly sought after. also the first generation af wide angles, as much the same as their legendary mf wides.
wj cody wrote:
if we are speaking of af lenses, then the first generation minolta af lenses have some wonderful items. in addition to the above, the 70-300 constant f4 lens is highly sought after. also the first generation af wide angles, as much the same as their legendary mf wides.
I believe you are thinking of the 70-210 f4. It is often referred to as the Beer Can due to it physical size being similar. For a budget lens it can produce some very nice images and I had one until I upgraded to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I have since upgraded again to the Minolta 80-200 G f2.8.
The Tamron was better than the beercan and the G series lens has a little bit better build quality and better colors than the Tamron. Only problem with the beercan was some CA and it was slow to focus, both workable but not optimal.
Now nearly ALL of the prime Minolta Legacy AF lenses are very good performers still today.
fotohouse wrote:
I believe you are thinking of the 70-210 f4. It is often referred to as the Beer Can due to it physical size being similar. For a budget lens it can produce some very nice images and I had one until I upgraded to the Tamron 70-200 f2.8. I have since upgraded again to the Minolta 80-200 G f2.8.
The Tamron was better than the beercan and the G series lens has a little bit better build quality and better colors than the Tamron. Only problem with the beercan was some CA and it was slow to focus, both workable but not optimal.
Now nearly ALL of the prime Minolta Legacy AF lenses are very good performers still today.
I believe you are thinking of the 70-210 f4. It i... (
show quote)
yes, sorry about the 210 thing. the mf rokkors are truly stunning, but then, minolta made their own glass, in those days. and when i say that i mean from the sand up. which is why, one can suppose, leitz used their lenses, rebadged. my issue with af, particularly zooms, these days (and i do own and use a minolta 9 with the 85 1.4 among others, is the expansion and contraction of the lens materials. the plastic composites do this, even though folks don't notice. plus, with digital, most non-pro bodies are using an aps sized sensor. so, great lenses are really wasted on these digital cameras.
okay, enough!!!! cody, just an old luddite's take on image making today.
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
Is there any way to convert a film camera to digital? I have an AE-1 Program and 3 manual lenses.
planepics wrote:
Is there any way to convert a film camera to digital? I have an AE-1 Program and 3 manual lenses.
No way to convert a film to digital. But, you can get a Canon to Sony e-mount adapter and use the lenses on the NEX series cameras in manual focus, good for stills, macro, and micro work. You also get the focus peeking feature to help with MF on the NEX cameras.
I am thinking of getting a Minolta MD to E-mount adapter and trying out some of the old Minolta glass that I used to use on my X700.
planepics
Loc: St. Louis burbs, but originally Chicago burbs
Actually, I got the adapter for FD lenses to my a77 and have occasionally played with it to see what kinds of pics the old lenses will take. If I hadn't tossed it, I'll try to find a pic I took with my Canon 50 f/1.8 on the Sony. It was a really bad picture of a beer can on my messy coffee table, but the resolution seemed to be good...actually it was with my old a330. I don't know if I've tried it on the 77 yet. Where in northern IL?
planepics wrote:
Actually, I got the adapter for FD lenses to my a77 and have occasionally played with it to see what kinds of pics the old lenses will take. If I hadn't tossed it, I'll try to find a pic I took with my Canon 50 f/1.8 on the Sony. It was a really bad picture of a beer can on my messy coffee table, but the resolution seemed to be good...actually it was with my old a330. I don't know if I've tried it on the 77 yet. Where in northern IL?
The DeKalb area, we use to go to St. Louis a lot when we lived in Rolla. The Butterfly House was my wife's favorite photo op.
planepics wrote:
Actually, I got the adapter for FD lenses to my a77 and have occasionally played with it to see what kinds of pics the old lenses will take. If I hadn't tossed it, I'll try to find a pic I took with my Canon 50 f/1.8 on the Sony. It was a really bad picture of a beer can on my messy coffee table, but the resolution seemed to be good...actually it was with my old a330. I don't know if I've tried it on the 77 yet. Where in northern IL?
\
The thing about using the NEX is the adapter does not have a lens element in it to make it a teleconverter since the lens needs to be moved out from the sensor plane any way for proper focusing. Using it on the A77 or any other DSLR will require the adapter to also be a teleconverter since moving the lens out without it would be like adding a macro tube.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.