Ricardo and JimUe, I just saw your posts. I have the standard screen with the a900. Sometimes it is tough to get the focus just right with the chip because how accurate the focus confirmation is depends upon which way I am turning the barrel of the lens to focus it.
I found a minolta maxxum 35/2. You think I should go for the 35/1.4 (G or non-G) instead? The 35/2 is supposed to be "legendary." There is one for sale on KEH for $999.00 but I can't figure out if it is the G series.
Either of you can email me privately at [email protected] if you wish.
focusing with the type-m screen makes it much simplier. but yes, it takes practice and it does make a difference from the direction.
i'm not really up to date with regards to prices, but $1k seems a bit steep.
the minolta G series is limited to the 17-35/3.5, 28-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8, 35/1.4, 85/1.4, 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, 400/4.5 & 600/4 made after about 1993.
the 35/2 is not a G series, but has the same consistent minolta colour.
the 35/1.4 & 35/2 are distinct lenses and personal preference determines which one you should go for. the 35/1.4 has lower contrast but high resolution wide open and higher contrast & resolution in the corners stopped down where as the 35/2 corners never really exhibit strength. i think the 35/1.4s hidden strength is its bokeh, but others prefer the 35/2's bokeh.
A legend in its own lunchtime maybe! Only then if you listen to the dyxum crowd, for whom no other decent lenses ever existed, they maintain the faith with stories about 'legends' in that lineup. You can buy a ZF.2 35/2 for Leitaxing for near that money - new. Edward and Tariq have lots to say in threads here in their search for the best 35mm lens on Sony.
In other Sony lens news, David Kilpatrick has reviewed the new 16-50/2.8. He likes it - kind of. He is also keeping the CZ wobbly wonder, the 16-80mm. Not having seen any convincing images from the Sony to my tastes, I also see it as a modern 'by the numbers' video lens with a nice build but lacking the Zeiss magic.
I quite agree with Philip. There is nothing legendary about the Minolta 35/2 and 35/1.4 except the lack of other alternatives. They are excellent lenses in different ways, but both outdated.
By the way, I have extensively used the ZS 35/2 and 35/1.4G on my A900 and liked them both, but I do find the price of the 35G unjustified. If you have no problem with MF, I would recommend the Zeiss leitaxed, or ZS with adapter.
perhaps this concept of legendary came about in 2007 when 35/2s went for $450. but yes, dyxumers, like any brand specific forum, are pretty tunnel visioned regarding other brands.
philip_pj wrote:
A legend in its own lunchtime maybe!
Ha ha ha this is a good one, Philip.
By the way, before the A900/850, the a-mount digital bodies were all crops that wouldn't really show the corner weakness but center where the 35/2 and 28/2 are excellent at.
JimUe wrote:
perhaps this concept of legendary came about in 2007 when 35/2s went for $450. but yes, dyxumers, like any brand specific forum, are pretty tunnel visioned regarding other brands.
I agree with Jim here. I think it's unfair to pick on different communities when they're more specific. I enjoy reading both (to a certain extent), but it's only in the nature to focus on a brand if that site is focused on a brand/mount.
FWIW I don't read many people say the 35/2 is "legendary", and I certainly wouldn't agree with that statement for obvious reasons. As for the 35/1.4, average by todays standards, without a doubt, but most people who like Minolta glass naturally aren't looking for a "Zeiss pop"
Woo, thanks to the NEX guys and Mawz for pointing me in this direction
I've had my A77 with 16-50 for a couple of weeks - great camera, a few flaws but nothing too horrible.
Also picked up 2x 43AM flashes and the 35 1.8.
Adapter Question - What is the best adapter for fitting MD lenses on an A77 or other A-camera? It appears they have glass involved which is a bummer, but perhaps good enough to use with my Minolta 24 f/2.8 or 35-70 macro or the beast (600mm f/5.6)
cputeq wrote: Adapter Question - What is the best adapter for fitting MD lenses on an A77 or other A-camera? It appears they have glass involved which is a bummer, but perhaps good enough to use with my Minolta 24 f/2.8 or 35-70 macro or the beast (600mm f/5.6)
i'm afraid you have to do a mount conversion to get minolta SR mount lenses on a-mount. some are easier than others, the 58/1.2 and MC 58/1.4 (which i believe you have?) is very easy, while most of the rest are more difficult (24mm). long telephotos like the 600 could be easy, i have no icde
This next shot almost impossible to shoot the way I did with any other camera. I simply flipped LCD all the way around and held camera with one hand, pointing backwards to my sleeping son. 1/10 of a second exposure at 50mm, not bad.
