I've been offered the 35/1.4 Sony G at £630. It has the hood, caps, the body has some rub marks on it (not deep scratches but obvious use). Is that good or bad? I have a feeling it might be on the high side, but I'm not really that familiar these days... anyone?
dunno what they go for these days. i got mine in November 2007 and at that time Minolta O versions went for roughly $900usd, and RS versions went for rougly $1,100usd while Sony versions new were $1,300usd i think...
Well I managed to make a deal of 550 + a custom made mount, so I'm okay with that. Given it's speed and quality, even if a ZA version comes out I think I'll still get most of my money back (not that I can see myself parting with it).
Okay, another similar question :/
Priced on a 35/2 (original), caps hood & box? Kurt Munger lists the price at $650-$850, which seems really high. $650 = £420 :S
the 35/2 is more compact and contrasty compared to the 35G but with weak corners with subjective differences in bokeh and consistent Minolta colour. while the 35G won't win any 'sharpness' awards, it's leica like combination of wide open glow and stopped down across the frame resolution makes me a happy camper.
i'd say 35/2 RSs might be 700-800, while 35/2 Os would be 600-700. the 28/2 is perhaps $150 less
Thanks for the refence, that sounds more realistic for the 35/2 MinO. RE: the custom made mount is for a different manual lens, not related to the 35G, sorry for the confusion (just part of the exchange).
FlyPenFly wrote:
The 35G is something I've been throwing around in my head as well.
I'm just curious if they're releasing a new one this year in ZA form.
I wouldn't imagine this year, we've seen/heard nothing of one. A 50mm, and obviously the 500mm. A 35ZA would make sense at some point, but it would be not worth waiting for such a lens if you need it now. If you need a fast 35 then look for one second hand, the 35/1.4 in particular holds it value well I think.
Well, you don't have to work in photography to need a lens. It depends how creative one can be with justifying purchases, I've done it many times in the past
I think if you buy one second hand at a fair price (& from a reputable dealer), you really don't stand to lose anything. Try it, if you like it, great... if you don't, "no loss".
FlyPenFly wrote:
The 35G is something I've been throwing around in my head as well.
I'm just curious if they're releasing a new one this year in ZA form.
I wish, the 35G is one lens I've just never developed a liking for and it, along with the strongly rumoured ZA 50 would form a good basis for a ZA kit for me. The current ZA's are too different in rendering from my Minolta/Sony lineup to be comfortable, I like to build my lens kits based around 1-2 normal lenses.
I have an a900 and use a Leica 50/1.4 R with the Leitax adapter and Lao chip. The darned thing can never seem to focus accurately even when the focus is confirmed. Tempted to get rid of the lens.
However, I am in the market for the Minolta Maxxum 35/2.0 (preferred) or the 35/1.4 G. I like the extra stop of the 1.4 but heard it can't hold a candle to the 2.0 IQ wise.
I also have the SonyZeiss 135/1.8 which is incredibly sweet. I would like a lens that is a bit longer for the a900. Can anyone recommend a Minolta lens that will not break the bank?
MikalWGrass wrote:
Heard great things about the 200/2.8. Which version is the best for the a900?
And, is the 35/1.4 G really all that bad or is the 35/2.0 really that much better?
RE: 200/2.8, although there are versions with different gearings and buttons, they're all the same on the a900 when it comes down to it. I've used multiple versions and they all perform the same in terms of focus speed and accuracy - optics are identical.
RE: 35/1.4. Look at samples and make your own mind up, a good place is dyxum.com. Look under the Sony and Minolta 35/1.4, as they're essentially the same again. I think some are disappointed as they expect higher contrast for a "premium" lens, but if you like Minolta glass you generally appreciate the lower contrast look, the colours, the bokeh... The 35/2 is smaller/lighter, more contrast at f2, that's about it. The 35/1.4 fits really nicely with my 58/1.2 and 85/1.4 Minolta - all lenses that produce more than enough detail for me (with good technique).
MikalWGrass wrote:
I have an a900 and use a Leica 50/1.4 R with the Leitax adapter and Lao chip. The darned thing can never seem to focus accurately even when the focus is confirmed. Tempted to get rid of the lens.
However, I am in the market for the Minolta Maxxum 35/2.0 (preferred) or the 35/1.4 G. I like the extra stop of the 1.4 but heard it can't hold a candle to the 2.0 IQ wise.
I also have the SonyZeiss 135/1.8 which is incredibly sweet. I would like a lens that is a bit longer for the a900. Can anyone recommend a Minolta lens that will not break the bank?
i've got a900 & leica 50'lux as well. i've yet to get the chip, but i've never used the focus confirm on my 50'cron or my 58 rokkor. do you have the type-m screen?
the 35/2 has more centre contrast but much weaker corners than the 35/1.4 even stopped down.
i have minolta 35/1.4, 85/1.4 & 200/2.8 and like them. the only other minolta lenses that i like are 28/2, 35/2, 100/2 and 100/2.8.
