DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Minolta Lenses to fit Sony Alpha
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 21 of 21, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/16/2006 09:36:40 AM · #1
I'm getting ready to pull the trigger on preordering a Sony Alpha. The only thing stopping me is that I'm debating between the Alpha/20D/30D. But if I decide to go the alpha, I would rather not pay top dollar for the new alpha lenses if most of them are just minolta lenses with a sony sticker on them. My question is for the minolta savvy people on here. What are some of the better minolta-mount lenses that I should keep an eye out for? I'd like to get a standard zoom, telephoto zoom (preferably a 70-200 f/2.8), and a wide zoom. The only thing I've heard so far is that the 50mm f/1.7 is a good one to pick up.
 06/16/2006 10:16:19 AM · #2
^
|
|

BuMp
 06/16/2006 11:26:07 AM · #3
Out of curiosity, I'd like to know this as well. Does Minolta have L equivalents?

-Chad
 06/16/2006 11:28:20 AM · #4
Hello ibkc. As you already mentioned, the Minolta 50mm 1.7 is a great lens that you can pick up on Ebay for around 50 bucks. For a wide angle zoom I went with the Tamron SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 Di LD Aspherical IF from B&H for around 450 after rebate. I'm really liking this lens and it pretty much stays on my camera after the 50mm. Here are a few of my sample shots with it.


06/16/2006 11:30:53 AM · #5
On the L equivalent question, I think the Zeiss lenses that were announced along with the A100 would more than suffice to fit tha bill. Zeiss has been in the business for almost 200 years, and has made some of the finest medium/large format lenses in the world for years.

Message edited by author 2006-06-16 11:31:53.
 06/16/2006 11:34:48 AM · #6
Minolta have white lenses... actually more expensive than Canon L Glass and superb quality. Way out of my budget. Simga lenses have been fine for my professional use.
Look in the DPReview Minolta SLR forum archives for endless chat over which are the best lenses.
 06/16/2006 11:35:17 AM · #7
Originally posted by wavelength:
On the L equivalent question, I think the Zeiss lenses that were announced along with the A100 would more than suffice to fit tha bill. Zeiss has been in the business for almost 200 years, and has made some of the finest medium/large format lenses in the world for years.


Thanks for the reply, but I was meaning Minolta branded lenses. They are bound to be cheaper.

I couldn't believe the price on the Sony 70-200!!

-Chad
 06/16/2006 11:36:57 AM · #8
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Minolta have white lenses... actually more expensive than Canon L Glass and superb quality. Way out of my budget. Simga lenses have been fine for my professional use.
Look in the DPReview Minolta SLR forum archives for endless chat over which are the best lenses.


Thanks... we were typing at the same time. lol...

-Chad
 06/16/2006 11:37:16 AM · #9
I like the look of the new zeiss lens coming out that's 17-80mm and has a MSRP of $699, but don't know if I want to wait til october for it to get here. What I'm thinking about right now is getting the following:
Sony Alpha
50mm f/1.7
KM 28-75 f/2.8
KM 80-200 f/2.8 (the 70-200 was a bit pricey for me at $1800, and the older 80-200 can be had for under $800)

Then later I'd like to fill in the wide angle gap with the lens mentioned above.
 06/16/2006 11:40:56 AM · #10
Wow, I'm drooling over those lenses. I have no idea where you're going to get them though, they're like gold dust and go for vastly inflated sums on EBay.
 06/16/2006 01:17:02 PM · #11
Bobster, I notice you have the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. How does it perform? Any comparison to the KM 80-200 f/2.8?
 06/22/2006 02:45:02 PM · #12
FYI,

In June issue of Pop Photo, there was an article entitled, "Lens Logic." The author lists his favorite film-era Maxxum lenses. They are:

14mm f/3.5 Sigma
16mm f/2.8 Minolta AF Fisheye
100mm f/2.8 Minolta AF Macro
24-105 f/3.5-4.5 Minolta AF

-Chad

06/22/2006 04:22:26 PM · #13
Buying the new Sony, and then trying to save money by looking for quality used lenses for it, seems to me that someone would be trying to go in two directions at the same time. The Sony bodies will never catch up to Canon and Nikon, especially when you consider it from a "bang for your buck" viewpoint. There may be some bargains out there in old Minolta glass, but if successful in finding them you will likely have better lenses than your cammera needs to perform at it's peak. And the bargains will disappear quickly if Sony DSLRs take off. Then you'll be stuck in a system with over-priced, lesser quality bodies and very expensive lenses.

Buy into the Sony system if -
1) you don't need to have the very best quality pro level equipment for what you shoot;
2) you have lots of money to spend on your photography;
3) you aren't concerned with getting the best "bang for your buck"; and
4) you are impressed by the prestige of have a Sony brand camera hanging around your neck.
06/23/2006 06:51:57 AM · #14
Interesting comments from coolhar, but not sure where they all come from. Minolta/K-M (and Pentax) have historically given more bang-for-buck than Canon/Nikon. Of course, that could change with Sony.

The top Minolta lenses were the "G" lenses - I believe these are the equivalent of Canon L glass. I've never been lucky enough to use one, so can't comment on their quality. Looks like some of the new Sony lenses also carry the G designation.
 06/23/2006 07:16:11 AM · #15
I really like the looks of that Zeiss 17-80 myself...

Another one worth checking is the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8

At this point, I'd count it preferable over the 28-75 for the crop factored lenses. Optical quality will probably be similar, but the 17-50 has such a usable range...

Another recent release that is interesting is the Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6

That will be pretty interesting on the AS body...

I was also going to make the recommendation to check the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8... I hear that it's excellent...

If you have more money, check the 120-300 f/2.8 also by Sigma... Yummy.
06/23/2006 07:42:21 AM · #16
Originally posted by coolhar:
Buying the new Sony, and then trying to save money by looking for quality used lenses for it, seems to me that someone would be trying to go in two directions at the same time. The Sony bodies will never catch up to Canon and Nikon, especially when you consider it from a "bang for your buck" viewpoint. There may be some bargains out there in old Minolta glass, but if successful in finding them you will likely have better lenses than your cammera needs to perform at it's peak. And the bargains will disappear quickly if Sony DSLRs take off. Then you'll be stuck in a system with over-priced, lesser quality bodies and very expensive lenses.

Buy into the Sony system if -
1) you don't need to have the very best quality pro level equipment for what you shoot;
2) you have lots of money to spend on your photography;
3) you aren't concerned with getting the best "bang for your buck"; and
4) you are impressed by the prestige of have a Sony brand camera hanging around your neck.


I don't follow all your logic...
point one is fair... if you know you can spend whatever it takes to get the very best equipment. I'm professional though, and my system is more than enough for the moment.
Point 2 conflicts with your first point, I'm not quite sure how you got that conclusion.
One of the major reasons to go with Sony/Minolta is if you shoot a lot in low-light conditions. Built in IS is a very attractive proposition... an A100 with Sigma 70-200mm costs less than one Canon 70-200mm IS without a camera body!
I don't know where you based your conclusion that Sony cameras don't offer 'bang for your buck'. Based on the reviews and specs I've seen so far, I would say very much the opposite. It's traditionally the top-of-the-range pro equipment that doesn't deliver bang for your buck... you pay for other qualities. It's in the prosumer range where you usually find value for money.
I doubt anybody would be impressed with the Sony badge, but they took over Minolta factories and staff... that's what the Sony badge on an SLR signifies now.
But don't go Sony if you want bargain Minolta glass... you'll find the same spec lenses much cheaper on Canon/Nikon mounts. Minolta glass is highly sought after and quite rare... EBay prices aren't low.
I agree it's a risk though... Sony may not take off. But the early signs are good.
 06/23/2006 07:43:45 AM · #17
Originally posted by ibkc:
Bobster, I notice you have the sigma 70-200 f/2.8. How does it perform? Any comparison to the KM 80-200 f/2.8?


I've not tried a KM 80-200 myself, but the 70-200mm 2.8 Sigma is fantastic. I have one of the old ones, and the sharpness is stunning even at 2.8
 06/23/2006 12:19:45 PM · #18
Around here, local vendors are not holding their breath on Nikon being able to keep up with Sony...

They mention that Pentax will also have IS and that will be good for them (I believe that Pentax also uses mostly Sony internals, sensor etc... they probably got the on-body anti-shake due to some corporate deal through Sony... keep your eye open for Sony acquiring Pentax, but I doubt they would see a real need to at this point...), but it probably won't be enough...

Already, a lot of local Taiwanese who were looking at the D70 and D200 are stopping dead in their tracks... The reason? Bang for the Buck...

Check this out:

A100 + 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma = approx $1750+
D200 + 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma = approx $2450+
D200 + 70-200 f/2.8 VR Nikkor = approx $3350+
30D + 70-200 f/2.8 Sigma = approx $2100+
30D + 70-200 f/2.8 IS Canon = approx $2900

Any idea if the Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 will be coming out any time soon for the Alpha mount? That would be rather bitchin' Up to an equivalent of 450mm zoom at f/2.8 with 3.5 stops of anti-shake... Damn.

How about with a 1.4x TC? Yikes!

And where were we with that Tokina 80-400 f/4.5-5.6 that is coming out for $650? 1300 bucks US with the Nikon VR... Of course, the word is still out on their comparative optical quality but....

Now, if you want to go with a pro body later on, that's when you will need to stick with the big names... We'll have to see where Sony goes with it.
 06/23/2006 01:22:21 PM · #19
Originally posted by BobsterLobster:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Buying the new Sony, and then trying to save money by looking for quality used lenses for it, seems to me that someone would be trying to go in two directions at the same time. The Sony bodies will never catch up to Canon and Nikon, especially when you consider it from a "bang for your buck" viewpoint. There may be some bargains out there in old Minolta glass, but if successful in finding them you will likely have better lenses than your cammera needs to perform at it's peak. And the bargains will disappear quickly if Sony DSLRs take off. Then you'll be stuck in a system with over-priced, lesser quality bodies and very expensive lenses.

Buy into the Sony system if -
1) you don't need to have the very best quality pro level equipment for what you shoot;
2) you have lots of money to spend on your photography;
3) you aren't concerned with getting the best "bang for your buck"; and
4) you are impressed by the prestige of have a Sony brand camera hanging around your neck.


I don't follow all your logic...
point one is fair... if you know you can spend whatever it takes to get the very best equipment. I'm professional though, and my system is more than enough for the moment.
Point 2 conflicts with your first point, I'm not quite sure how you got that conclusion.
One of the major reasons to go with Sony/Minolta is if you shoot a lot in low-light conditions. Built in IS is a very attractive proposition... an A100 with Sigma 70-200mm costs less than one Canon 70-200mm IS without a camera body!
I don't know where you based your conclusion that Sony cameras don't offer 'bang for your buck'. Based on the reviews and specs I've seen so far, I would say very much the opposite. It's traditionally the top-of-the-range pro equipment that doesn't deliver bang for your buck... you pay for other qualities. It's in the prosumer range where you usually find value for money.
I doubt anybody would be impressed with the Sony badge, but they took over Minolta factories and staff... that's what the Sony badge on an SLR signifies now.
But don't go Sony if you want bargain Minolta glass... you'll find the same spec lenses much cheaper on Canon/Nikon mounts. Minolta glass is highly sought after and quite rare... EBay prices aren't low.
I agree it's a risk though... Sony may not take off. But the early signs are good.

I was talking about a system of Sony body with new Sony and older Minolta glass, not third party lenses like the Sigma 70-200. (I have one too, and agree that it is a great lens and a great value.) The price I saw for a Sony brand 70-200 f2.8 was $2400; Canon sells their non-IS 70-200 f2.8 for about half that price, and it is regarded as a very, very high quality lens, some people even say it's Canon's best. How could the Sony model possibly be twice as good as Canon's top L glass?

Much of my thinking in that post is based on my knowledge of the way Sony, as a corporation, does business in all areas, not just in cameras. And it may be that Sony promotes a different image for itself here in the states than in the UK or Europe. Sony has always offered very good quality electronics. They never put their name on low ball junk as many other well known brands sometimes do. But they are not cheap. They do not compete on price, but rather tend to sell models that have a slightly different feature set than the opposition so that direct comparisons are almost impossible. And they are very "propriatary" (as in Memory Stick). Many people who are new to digital photography and don't know anything about the various camera brands will migrate to Sony because it is a brand they know and trust, and they don't want to have to do all the research to find out how the other brands stack up. Many people think it is prestigeous to own the Sony brand, some because they want people to know that they bought very high quality stuff, others because they want people to know that they have the money to spend. I own a couple of small Sony items and am happy with them. But bang for the consumer's dollar is just not a part of their business model.

As always, just my two cents.
 06/23/2006 03:12:49 PM · #20
Originally posted by coolhar:

Sony has always offered very good quality electronics. They never put their name on low ball junk as many other well known brands sometimes do. But they are not cheap. They do not compete on price, but rather tend to sell models that have a slightly different feature set than the opposition so that direct comparisons are almost impossible.


sounds like good business to me.

Originally posted by coolhar:

And they are very "propriatary" (as in Memory Stick).


I am pretty sure that i read the alpha will use compact flash and only memory stick with a cf adapter

Originally posted by coolhar:

Many people who are new to digital photography and don't know anything about the various camera brands will migrate to Sony because it is a brand they know and trust, and they don't want to have to do all the research to find out how the other brands stack up.


some truth to this, but I see nothing wrong with paying a little more for a brand you trust. afterall they have earned your trust for a reason. I would think that lots of people go with canon or nikon from thier experience with thier film cameras for a similar reason though.

Originally posted by coolhar:

Many people think it is prestigeous to own the Sony brand, some because they want people to know that they bought very high quality stuff, others because they want people to know that they have the money to spend. I own a couple of small Sony items and am happy with them.


the same people that buy hummers that don't need them or designer handbags that are no better than the knock offs. thats how the world works today.

to be honest the alpha seems like a pretty good bang for the buck compared to canon and nikon on that level. i agree that the lenses seem high but sigma and the like will be more than happy to sell you some nice ones cheaper.

as the advertising execs in the movie crazy people said so well sony=bony.
 07/04/2006 10:24:09 AM · #21
Would you say that the new Sony alpha is a professional level camera or is it for amateurs?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:19:21 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 12:19:21 PM EDT.