I have a Maxxum 7 film camera, and may want to have lenses that work on both that and an a7 variant. I know the 28 2.8 and 24 2.8 are weaker, but how's the 20, 28-70G, 28 f2?
The 35 1.4 is supposed to be a nice character lens too
I am recreational user of 17-35G. I would never ever use this lens professionally, but all it's imperfections bring a lot of life into your photos. I use it for my family shooting only and consider it as one of those mystical Mino heritage lences which I hope to use forever.
Please take my opinion as totally subjective.
The 28/2.8's a dog, the 24/2.8's actually decent though.
The 20 is good, but for the dollar, the 17-35D is a solid performer on film and can be had very cheap (as can it's stablemate, the 28-75D, both lenses are rebadged Tamron SP lenses). The 28/2 does have a good rep as well.
Remember the ZA 24/2 and ZA 16-35 work perfectly on your 7 and are probably the best available options for wides in A mount. The 16-35 is SSM and therefore is the easiest A wide for adapted use as it's the only lens wider than 24mm that will AF on an LA-EA3 adapter.
mawz wrote:
The 28/2.8's a dog, the 24/2.8's actually decent though.
The 20 is good, but for the dollar, the 17-35D is a solid performer on film and can be had very cheap (as can it's stablemate, the 28-75D, both lenses are rebadged Tamron SP lenses). The 28/2 does have a good rep as well.
Remember the ZA 24/2 and ZA 16-35 work perfectly on your 7 and are probably the best available options for wides in A mount. The 16-35 is SSM and therefore is the easiest A wide for adapted use as it's the only lens wider than 24mm that will AF on an LA-EA3 adapter. ...Show more →
You may want to clarify that 16/35 f2.8 is an ssm lens.
Minolta made the optics for the Leica R 24/2.8. So you'd think they'd have a good 24mm. Philip Reeve says nice things about one version of 24/2.8 MD if you scroll down. Not so fond if it elsewhereon the sire perhaps a different version? You'd think that the maxxum version is good?
In my experience with several copies of both, the AF 28/2.8 is a bit better optically than the AF 24/2.8 at least on Sony sensors. One advantage of the 24mm is that it is a rear focus lens, while the 28mm is a unit focus design. The 24mm has a little removable petal hood, while the 28/2.8 just got a tiny built-in circular one. The 20/2.8 is better than either of those--perhaps why Sony is still selling it new. Sony didn't take on the Minolta 24mm design. They did rebadge the 28mm and even gave it Lens Compensation, but they dropped it fairly soon.
(The manual focus Minolta 24mm primes are unit focus designs and sell for more money. I kinda wish I had bought the VFC version that I tried.)
The AF 28/2 is worse than the FE 2/28 that everyone pooh poohs. The AF 35/2 is not very good either, maybe better than the MF 35/1.8.
Even the 2/24 ZA SSM is pretty mediocre. It's weird focal plane curvature might be worse on film.
I don't recommend the older rebadged Tamron SP zooms like the 17-35D and 28-75D.
Tamron has a more recent 15-30mm F2.8 USD that will AF on the LA-EA3 and Sigma has three HSM zooms wider than that.
If I were you, I'd focus on what works best on your Maxxum 7. I had a Maxxum 7 and loved that camera...my workhorse on it was the 28/2. I think it's the best of the Minolta wides on film, excellent for the time. Modern lens design is so good that it doesn't necessarily hold up...and once you throw in an adapter, it's no longer a small, light lens.
But for $200-300, it's solid, and pairs very well with that beautiful Maxxum 7 of yours
Thanks guys
These will primarily be for my Maxxum 7 with the ability to slap on an A7 series for fun - I'm not looking for the sharpest, but if it's going to be soft, it better have other things going for it (bokeh, color rendition, skin tones, etc)
roofdweller49 wrote:
Thanks guys
These will primarily be for my Maxxum 7 with the ability to slap on an A7 series for fun - I'm not looking for the sharpest, but if it's going to be soft, it better have other things going for it (bokeh, color rendition, skin tones, etc)
While I don't have experience with these, the MD lenses I had seemed fine, actually really good. I didn't leave Minolta because of lenses. And they made some lenses for Leica.
So you might have to stop down to get excellent corners but I've used several similar vintage lenses, and I wouldn't call them soft. You might look at the link I posted above. Good luck with your purchase! Enjoyed reading about the 7 and ither older cameras last night.
roofdweller49 wrote:
Thanks guys
These will primarily be for my Maxxum 7 with the ability to slap on an A7 series for fun - I'm not looking for the sharpest, but if it's going to be soft, it better have other things going for it (bokeh, color rendition, skin tones, etc)
Bokeh is rather horrible for most of the Minolta wides with probable exception of the 35mm F1.4 (G) but at the price the Minolta version goes for it makes sense to get the current Sony branded version.
Which reminds me, I quite like the Tamron SP 35mm F1.8 Di USD, but I haven't tried it on film.
The MD 28/2 49mm filter thread version is great for moody, impressionistic shots from MFD (which is quite close) to about 20ft, making it great for street and portrait. At infinity, it’s corners are fairly soft, but better than the 28/2.8. It is one of my favorite lenses for any image you want to have a nostalgic or emotive feel. It produces that sort of vibe in its rendering from the 1970s era photos.
While it may not matter for what you shoot, it has no infrared hot spot, even with 720nm filters.
