Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Dec 14, 2006, 11:18 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

I'll probably just Ebay them. I didn't really want to pack and ship a dozen times, so instead I now get to do it 13 times- lol. I may even not sell a couple, it's always nice to have a spare 50mm and that 35-70 f4 isn't a bad lens...

I'm sure KEH would have given me more, their online estimator had me at $585 (also subjuec to verification)when I was checking but Adorama had the KM 28-75 and I thought I'd trade part of the value for my used lenses towards that. I assumed that Adorama would be somewhere in the ballpark with KEH, seems I was wrong. It could also have just been that I got a particularly greedy buyer (it was not the same nice guy that I'd talked to before) or perhaps Minolta glass has lost it's value by 80% in the last 2 weeks. :lol:I should have asked him why his KM 28-75 is selling for $100 more now than it was 6 months ago, but I wasn't going to get anywhere with him, it was time to cut my losses at one box and 5 telephone calls. No big deal, every Minolta AFmount lens is gaining valuedaily.

I'm pretty satisfied with the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X at this point, so I'm not even sure I'll try a KM 28-75 lens. Ok, I probably will- just not right away. Or I'll see about that Sony 16-80, which is a bit dimmer but has an almost perfect range in DSLR. $699 isn't that far from $585.......
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 11:40 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Oh, and I finally got something worth shooting.
Attached Images
 
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 11:43 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

Ok, they're not great examples for sharpness but the color is pretty good.
Attached Images
 
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 14, 2006, 3:42 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 197
Default

Mercury694 wrote:
Quote:
I'll probably just Ebay them. I didn't really want to pack and ship a dozen times, so instead I now get to do it 13 times- lol. I may even not sell a couple, it's always nice to have a spare 50mm and that 35-70 f4 isn't a bad lens...

I'm sure KEH would have given me more, their online estimator had me at $585 (also subjuec to verification)when I was checking but Adorama had the KM 28-75 and I thought I'd trade part of the value for my used lenses towards that. I assumed that Adorama would be somewhere in the ballpark with KEH, seems I was wrong. It could also have just been that I got a particularly greedy buyer (it was not the same nice guy that I'd talked to before) or perhaps Minolta glass has lost it's value by 80% in the last 2 weeks. :lol:I should have asked him why his KM 28-75 is selling for $100 more now than it was 6 months ago, but I wasn't going to get anywhere with him, it was time to cut my losses at one box and 5 telephone calls. No big deal, every Minolta AFmount lens is gaining valuedaily.

I'm pretty satisfied with the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X at this point, so I'm not even sure I'll try a KM 28-75 lens. Ok, I probably will- just not right away. Or I'll see about that Sony 16-80, which is a bit dimmer but has an almost perfect range in DSLR. $699 isn't that far from $585.......
Let us know when you go to ebay them I'll want to check out your auctions! LOL! I'm always looking for new lens!



And if any of you ever find that hard to find LOL! lens that is only $299 LOL! Still can't believe you can even dream this good! I want it too!

Sneezy1956 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 4:24 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 146
Default

I have a minolta 28-75mm f2.8 and a sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6, the minolta f2.8 is very good in low light, I just compare these two lens both set at f5.6, aperture priority on my KM5D, the picture of the minolta len is darker with shutter speed of 1/20" and the sigma is very good at 1/13", I don't know why the KM5D did not detect the light and set the exposure correctly on every len? But when I use the M mode to set both len at f5.6 and 1/13", the picture of both lens are the same. Looks like that the sigma has done a better job than the minolta. I then tried the minolta 50mm f1.7, it has the same result of the the minolta 28-75mm when I set to F5.6, the KM5D sets the speed at 1/20" instead of 1/13" and the picture is little too dark.
lsifs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 8:29 AM   #46
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Mercury694 wrote:
Quote:
I'm pretty satisfied with the Tokina 28-70 f2.8 AT-X at this point, so I'm not even sure I'll try a KM 28-75 lens. Ok, I probably will- just not right away. Or I'll see about that Sony 16-80, which is a bit dimmer but has an almost perfect range in DSLR. $699 isn't that far from $585.......
I only see one owner review of the Tokina on Dyxum , but I would imagine that if you are happy with the Tokina that there is no need to get the KM 28-75.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 5:52 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

lsifs wrote:
Quote:
I have a minolta 28-75mm f2.8 and a sigma 28-200mm f3.5-5.6, the minolta f2.8 is very good in low light, I just compare these two lens both set at f5.6, aperture priority on my KM5D, the picture of the minolta len is darker with shutter speed of 1/20" and the sigma is very good at 1/13", I don't know why the KM5D did not detect the light and set the exposure correctly on every len? But when I use the M mode to set both len at f5.6 and 1/13", the picture of both lens are the same. Looks like that the sigma has done a better job than the minolta. I then tried the minolta 50mm f1.7, it has the same result of the the minolta 28-75mm when I set to F5.6, the KM5D sets the speed at 1/20" instead of 1/13" and the picture is little too dark.
Metering is a complicated system that I think most of us take for granted most of the time ( I know I'm always irritated when the cameras metering isn't what I expect). I do often shoot with bracketing (from -1 through +1ev in 1/3 stop increments) when shooting in difficult ambient light circumstances. This way I can choose the closest to desired exposure before editing. This isn't too inconvenient since I don't need to process film before deciding which shots to keep and which ones to dump.

One other thought- In the film days, the film processor would correct many of our metering errors before we saw the finished photo. Today, we see the shot just as we captured it, making it pretty needs our input.

I try to frame and compose most shots so I don't have to do much processing, but find that I haven't captured exactly what I wanted most of the time.



Meanstreak,

You're probably right about that KM 28-75 but it's a lot like that Tamron 28-300, everyone that has one loves it. I think I'd be smarter to wait for the Sony 16-80 due to it's superior focal length for digital, but you know how lens envy is....:G
Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 9:02 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Mercury694 wrote:
Quote:
Meanstreak,

You're probably right about that KM 28-75 but it's a lot like that Tamron 28-300, everyone that has one loves it. I think I'd be smarter to wait for the Sony 16-80 due to it's superior focal length for digital, but you know how lens envy is....:G
I have seen some reports of unhappy KM 28-75 owners, but either their expectations are too high, or they probably have bad copies of the lens. I got mine for almost nothing since it was packaged with my 7D for 50 dollars more than the body only price. I could have turned it over for a profit, but I wouldn't part with it. One of my favorite lenses though I would have preferred it started at 24mm.

I like my collection although I have some overlap.

Lenses I currently use and recommend:
  • 11-18mm f/4.5-5.6 DT (wish it were brighter but love the width) [/*]
  • 20-40mm f/2.7-40mm Tamron (great lens) [/*]
  • 24-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 (great lens, if it was f/2.8, wouldn't need the 28-75) [/*]
  • 28-75 f/2.8 D (I'm a fan) [/*]
  • 50mm f/1.7 (Great,cheap, must have) [/*]
  • 35-70mm f/4 (good and cheap, but littleuse because all my overlap) [/*]
  • 90MM f/2.8Tamron(superb) [/*]
  • 35-105mm f/2.8 Tamron (superb) [/*]
  • 70-210 f/4 Beer Can (great) [/*]
  • 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3Tamron (great for the range) [/*]
  • 200-400mm Tamron f/5.6 - 6.3 (Occasional use monster lens)
Though I could trim the above collection, everything pretty much serves a differnt purpose or has an advantage be it range, sharpness, color, or weight. In some cases it is also a matter of how little I paid or how little I would get if sold.

Lenses I don't use much
[/*]
  • (3) 18-70mm kit lenses (got them with bodies) [/*]
  • 75-300mm KM
I'm still not a big fan of the kit lens, but I have seen some good shots by others. I've only tried one copy and I found at 18mm that distortion was noticeable especially were straight lines are present. I'm also not much of a fan of anything that is not at least 2.8 with the exception of what you see on my recommended list. By the way, that is one of my majorcomplaints about the 28-300mm Tamron. It has a tough time focusing in low light and it also puts a limit on the usefulness of IS at that long end. I also found that if I compare it to the 75-300mm KM, that at 300mm the objects look bigger on the KM. The focus at the teleseems to be very critical and affects magnification on nearby objects.

Recently Acquired
[/*]
  • 135mm 2.8 Minolta
I think I'm gonna like this lens though indoors it might be too tight except in larger rooms. I would like to add a couple more primes between 20 to 40mm, but becausethe 20-40mm tamron is f/2.7-35 and the 28-75 is f/2.8, I think primes in the 20-40 f/2.8 range might not be a significant improvement unless I can go brighter.

Next on my list
[/*]
  • 18-250mm Tamron [/*]
I will wait for the price to drop. This could replace my 28-300mm Tamron, but considering I paid about 140 dollars for it maybe not.



As a final thought I find it funny, odd and shocking that backin my film days I relied mostly on two prime lenses and a 2x converter. Back then, I wanted to get a zoom, but was convinced that tele prime was a much better option. I'm not sure why I didn't expand my collectiona bit more except that it might have been a money and priorities issue, but it obvious that my lens buying habits have gone to the other extreme.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 9:54 PM   #49
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

meanstreak wrote:
Quote:
  • 135mm 2.8 Minolta[/*]
I think I'm gonna like this lens though indoors it might be too tight except in larger rooms.
This was my first Minolta lens.

My film gear is Nikon (or used to be anyway, as I've sold or traded most of it).

I started buying Minolta lenses before I even got a KM DSLR to mount one on, and the 135mm f/2.8 was my first purchase in Maxxum mount.

This one caught my eye while browsing through lenses online, since my brother-in-law has a 135mm f/2.8 Rokkor, and he's got some pretty nice (an understatement) pics from it using an SRT-101.

I don't know if the optics are similar between his lens and the newer AF version or not. I guess I should compare them. But, I bought the 135mm f/2.8 AF lens when I spotted it online in the used dept. at B&H, since I figured that I was probably going with a KM DSLR (I had used the 7D and was waiting on the 5D to come out to see how they compared before deciding between them at the time).

It's a very good lens (and the built in lens hood is convenient, since you don't lose or misplace it). lol My 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper wide open (my impression versus actual controlled conditions tests). But, the 135mm is not bad at all, and gets pretty darn sharp down a stop or so.

If it weren't so darn long on a DSLR, I'd probably use it more. It would be better focal length for film (for me anyway). :-)

For outdoor portraits it's great if you've got the room, and it's a relatively compact and light lens design.

Have you guys seen some of the shots being posted from the new Sony/Zeiss 135mm f/1.8? Now, that lens appears to be sweet (and it should be for what they want for one). It's still too darn long on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor though. Maybe we'll get a nice surprise from Sony and get a model with a larger sensor at some point that can make better use of a 135mm in tighter quarters.

Quote:
I would like to add a couple more primes between 20 to 40mm, but becausethe 20-40mm tamron is f/2.7-35 and the 28-75 is f/2.8, I think primes in the 20-40 f/2.8 range might not be a significant improvement unless I can go brighter.


I dunno... I've got the Tamron 20-40mm f/2/8-3.5 and the Minolta 28mm f/2, and the Minolta is a better lens compared to the Tamron at f/2.8 (the Minolta is very sharp down a stop at f/2.8, and color/contrast seem to be a bit better from it, too).

According to MTF charts, the Tamron actually beats the wider Minolta 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 primes at f/2.8 though (so, I probably wouldn't go with anything wider than my 28mm, given that I've got the Tamron zoom without a compelling reason (i.e., someone comes out with an f/1.4 20mm that's not too big and heavy and doesn't break the bank). lol I have considered the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 from time to time, though.



JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Dec 15, 2006, 10:30 PM   #50
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

JimC wrote:
Quote:
This was my first Minolta lens.

My film gear is Nikon (or used to be anyway, as I've sold or traded most of it).

I started buying Minolta lenses before I even got a KM DSLR to mount one on, and the 135mm f/2.8 was my first purchase in Maxxum mount.

This one caught my eye while browsing through lenses online, since my brother-in-law has a 135mm f/2.8 Rokkor, and he's got some pretty nice (an understatement) pics from it using an SRT-101.

I don't know if the optics are similar between his lens and the newer AF version or not. I guess I should compare them. But, I bought the 135mm f/2.8 AF lens when I spotted it online in the used dept. at B&H, since I figured that I was probably going with a KM DSLR (I had used the 7D and was waiting on the 5D to come out to see how they compared before deciding between them at the time).

It's a very good lens (and the built in lens hood is convenient, since you don't lose or misplace it). lol My 100mm f/2 is a bit sharper wide open (my impression versus actual controlled conditions tests). But, the 135mm is not bad at all, and gets pretty darn sharp down a stop or so.

If it weren't so darn long on a DSLR, I'd probably use it more. It would be better focal length for film (for me anyway). :-)

For outdoor portraits it's great if you've got the room, and it's a relatively compact and light lens design.

Have you guys seen some of the shots being posted from the new Sony/Zeiss 135mm f/1.8? Now, that lens appears to be sweet (and it should be for what they want for one). It's still too darn long on a DSLR with an APS-C sensor though. Maybe we'll get a nice surprise from Sony and get a model with a larger sensor at some point that can make better use of a 135mm in tighter quarters.

Quote:
I would like to add a couple more primes between 20 to 40mm, but becausethe 20-40mm tamron is f/2.7-35 and the 28-75 is f/2.8, I think primes in the 20-40 f/2.8 range might not be a significant improvement unless I can go brighter.


I dunno... I've got the Tamron 20-40mm f/2/8-3.5 and the Minolta 28mm f/2, and the Minolta is a better lens compared to the Tamron at f/2.8 (the Minolta is very sharp down a stop at f/2.8, and color/contrast seem to be a bit better from it, too).

According to MTF charts, the Tamron actually beats the wider Minolta 20mm and 24mm f/2.8 primes at f/2.8 though (so, I probably wouldn't go with anything wider than my 28mm, given that I've got the Tamron zoom without a compelling reason (i.e., someone comes out with an f/1.4 20mm that's not too big and heavy and doesn't break the bank). lol I have considered the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 from time to time, though.


I love the small package of the 135mm. When I got it I was surprised. The built in hood is nice



The f/2 serieslenses are nice from what I here, though I'm not sure it is too much of a differnce, but in low light every bit helps.I was thinking along the lines of a fairer comparison like 2.8 vs 2.8 wide open. Like the KM 28-75mm 2.8vs the 28mm 2.8. In the past when I asked for opinions on whether it was worth getting a 28mm 2.8 prime since I already owned the 28-75mm all of thepeople who respondedtold me to save my money since differnces were negligible. One real big adavntage to the primes is size and weight, though I must admit that 50mm and wider primes lookfunny on a 5D and real silly7D. There will always be differnces in sharpness, color, and contrast, but in my case I've got enough redundancy in my collection that adding more primes just doesn't make sense in the ranges covered by my low power zooms. Of course, brighter makes sense... not sure if going down from f/2.8 to f/2 is significant, but at least it allows you to stop down a bit. Anything lower than f/2 is generally too rich for my blood.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:48 PM.