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 May 10, 2006, 1:23 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Cavemandude wrote:
Quote:
I found this to be a informative link for Minolta lenses:

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

Scroll down to User Performance Surveys and click on Minolta AF Lenses. Just select whattype of lenses youwant to look at from there. You can sort them by Brand or Performance.

The ratings for the zoom lenses that rduve listed all ranked very low in this survey, so it isno surprise they are so cheap in price.

I wonderhow much betterhis model photos would have lookedusing a Minolta 70-210 f/4 "beercan" zoom or Minolta 28-75 f/2.8 (D) zoom?

Randy Wheeler


Yeah, I wonder how much better they possibly would have looked too. Tell me the weaknesses you see in those pics. They came out pretty darn good as far as I am concerned, given how "poor" my lenses are. Based on that test there aren't a lot of good lenses available. They give low ratings to 90% of what's on the market. I rather trust my own eyes and my own comparisons. My lenses are holding up very well to anything else I tested.

Oh, one more thing. The lenses weren't cheap because they're inferior. Tamron is blowing out the 28-300 XR version to promote the "enhanced for digital" XR DI model. It was about $400 until recently. And I scouted ebay to get the low prices on the Vivitar Series 1 lenses which are legendary, by the way.

And what about the Minolta 50mm 1.7. Is that inferior, too, Randy?

rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 2:05 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

rduve wrote:
Quote:
Cavemandude wrote:



Yeah, I wonder how much better they possibly would have looked too. Tell me the weaknesses you see in those pics. They came out pretty darn good as far as I am concerned, given how "poor" my lenses are. Based on that test there aren't a lot of good lenses available. They give low ratings to 90% of what's on the market. I rather trust my own eyes and my own comparisons. My lenses are holding up very well to anything else I tested.

Oh, one more thing. The lenses weren't cheap because they're inferior. Tamron is blowing out the 28-300 XR version to promote the "enhanced for digital" XR DI model. It was about $400 until recently. And I scouted ebay to get the low prices on the Vivitar Series 1 lenses which are legendary, by the way.

And what about the Minolta 50mm 1.7. Is that inferior, too, Randy?
I think beauty is in the eye of the beholder. These pictures looked fine to me. Most people would love to have a set of f2.8 lenses but the fact is that most of us cannot afford such lenses, especially at today's inflated prices.


cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 2:18 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Most of these shots were taken with the Tamron 28-300XR on my KM5D: http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=23
I know, Randy,"very poor"quality, aren't they???

:blah:
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 2:35 PM   #34
Member
 
Cavemandude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 62
Default

"And what about the Minolta 50mm 1.7. Is that inferior, too, Randy?"

I stated only "zoom lenses" twiceinmy previous post, not prime lenses. I was just curious to see if there would be much of a difference between a cheap/poorly ratedzoom lens and highly-rated zoom lens which may or may not be expensive.

We'll only know for sure if someone has both lenses and takes a comparison pic. I guess the main issue/difference would be resolution, distortion and not color. It would be an interesting test to do with those model-type shots rduve took and see if there is that drastic of a difference in quality.

The two highly-rated zoom lenses I mentioned are notoutrageously expensive. The Minolta 70-210mm f/4 is going for around $150 on eBay. The Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 (D) is going for $320 new on eBayand used ones only $10 cheaper. Is the visual quality difference proportional to the price? That's what I would like to see and find out.

rduve, I'm not criticizing your zoom lens choices but I was just looking for some insight on the price/performance ratio on zoom lenses for the Minolta 5D. I'd rather spend $300 on a zoom lens rated at 4 out of 5 then a $149 zoom lens rated at1 out of 5 if the price/performance ratio is visually justified.

I'm very interested on this topic since I onlyhave the17-80mm kit lens with my 5D and was looking for another zoom lens.

Thanks,

Randy Wheeler


Cavemandude is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 2:44 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Ok, I will post a few comparisons, since I have been buying and reselling old Minolta cameras and lenses on ebay and had a chance to try many of them and I just could not see the dramatic differences. I saved a bunch of test shots and will post them when I get a chance, maybe take some more.....

PS: Maybe I overreacted a little bit...
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 7:53 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

So, I took a few test shots during my lunch break. Here is the Minolta 50mm 1.7 at f8. 100% crop:


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 7:54 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

...and the Tamron 28-300 XR set at 50mm f8


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 7:56 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

I have to admit the Minolta certainly wins, and the difference is even more dramatic at wider apertures. I will test them out some more. However, if you look at the comparison of these downsized images the quality difference disappears. Minolta:


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 7:56 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
rduve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,504
Default

Tamron:


Attached Images
 
rduve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 10, 2006, 8:06 PM   #40
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

Some of the photos you've posted from it do look pretty nice.

The one at 85mm and f/5 above looks very nice and sharp, with great color and contrast and I love the flowers in the background. Of course, being a married man, I didn't notice the model. ;-)

The main complaint I see with this lens from users of it on other camera models is that it's long end is soft. But, I'm wondering if some of that is just users not realizing they've got more blur from camera shake on the long end of a lens like this (and the KM Anti-shake system helps with that part).

Some of the reviews noted the same thing, though (and a tripod was most likely used for them). Keep us updated on how well it suits you. It seems like you really like the lens so far.




JimC 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 3:43 AM.