nampramos wrote:
The past few weeks I have been shooting mostly with a 1962 Jupiter8 50/2. I never enjoyed the 50mm focal length but this old Russian lens is probably a keeper for me!
alwang wrote:
A couple with the Leica R 60/2.8. I'm getting either a light leak or internal reflection from my adapter, as seen in the last photo. I've got a new adapter on order, but I don't mind it so much in this picture.
The 200/2.8 may be the 2nd best prime Minolta ever made (after the 85 D G Limited). There are two versions of the 80-200/2.8, the black 2.8 and the white HS G. They are optically identical, and aside from color, the G has much faster gearing for af. A word of warning: it is the most violently fast autofocusing lens I have ever used. Incredible torque. As in if I held it loosely, it would twist in my hand. For an a7, I would highly recommend the black of the two. However, the Minolta 200/2.8 (again, there are two versions) is tremendous. It is an amazing confluence of sharpness, color, bokeh, and contrast. I haven't used the HS G version, but again, it is optically identical.
Read about both in the Dyxum lens database, and check the image examples. If you can live with the limits of a 200mm prime (I myself am happier with a 135 prime), the Minolta is awesome. There can be just the slightest tough of LOCA, but you have to be really pixel peeping to see it.
40Driggs wrote:
I was thinking about picking up a Minolta 80-200 or 200 prime since I already have an LAEA4. How do you like the lens?
Some simple shots from this morning. First two with the FE 55/1.8. Last is more of a test shot than anything, as I was trying out my OM 200mm f/4, which I've had in a drawer for a while. (It was only OK on m4/3, and I'd rather carry the 55-200 for my Fuji kit, so it's sat more or less unused for a while). While it's not bitingly sharp, it has good and even resolution across the image frame, and even good resolution over almost the whole frame wide open. Nice bokeh too. Not a bad relatively small option for a bit of reach.
I recently came back from a trip to China. Although I had my Zeiss 55cm and 35cm with me for my A7, I mostly shot the two weeks on the FE 28-70 Kit lens. Although not fantastically sharp like the Zeiss, with some care and post processing, I find the results in most cases more than sufficient and in some cases outstanding. I thought I share some of these pictures for those thinking of purchasing this lens.
If you are interested in seeing more, there are many more examples at my flickr page.
40Driggs wrote:
I was thinking about picking up a Minolta 80-200 or 200 prime since I already have an LAEA4. How do you like the lens?
Hi, thx for likes,..talking about Minolta 80-200/2.8 I have HS G white version which has much faster AF than black version. AF with LA-EA4 is really quick and AF-C tracking works quite good. Dowsides of the lens can be a rotating front filter thread when using CPL, AF is a bit noisy and rough, you can feel it in your hands. For someone itīs serious issue, I donīt have a problem with it and AF works without problems and mostly focus is spot on. In some reviews is mentioned that white color paint on a barrel is easily to scratch and that f/2.8 at 200mm is a bit soft, maybe yes, but you can sharpen a bit..no problem. There is some CA due to APO design from that age, my APO-telyt 180/3.4 is better but with Minolta itīs fine too. I was thinking about 200/2.8 but I like the versatility of this zoom and already have that Apo-telyt 180 If Iīd buy this Minolta lens again? Yes I would. If you search google there is one comparison between about 4 lenses on some french speaking forum (Sony 70-200/4 or 2.8, this Minolta, Sigma 70-200/2.8 and one more lens I think) and this Minolta gives a perfect comparable results talking about sharpness compared to other newer lenses. Itīs cheaper than Sony newer version and f/2.8
EDIT: If interested I can make a video with GoPro4 with Minolta 80-200 mounted on tripod so you can see the noise and focusing speed.
If Iīd buy this Minolta lens again? Yes I would. If you search google there is one comparison between about 4 lenses on some french speaking forum (Sony 70-200/4 or 2.8, this Minolta, Sigma 70-200/2.8 and one more lens I think) and this Minolta gives a perfect comparable results talking about sharpness compared to other newer lenses. Itīs cheaper than Sony newer version and f/2.8