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 Apr 14, 2006, 11:04 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Default

I just bought the KM-5D.* I really like the camera alot. I was a little disappointed in the 18-70MM lens that came with it. I have some old Minolta lenses from my 700i. I have a Minolta 50mm 1.4 lens, a Minolta 70-210 f4 constant and a Sigma 28-70 3.5-4.5. These lenses take much better pics than the kit lens. My only complaint is the size and weight of the 70-210. Are there any lenses with that range and constat f4 aperture that are more compact? I really like the constant f4?Thanks,Dennis
maskman is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Apr 14, 2006, 11:27 PM   #2
Senior Member
 
cope's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 718
Default

Your 70-210 is a cult favorite. There are newer lenses that are shorter and lighter. Tamron make some nice ones.
cope is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2006, 7:55 AM   #3
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

maskman wrote:
Quote:
My only complaint is the size and weight of the 70-210. Are there any lenses with that range and constat f4 aperture that are more compact? I really like the constant f4
You may want to look around on the used market for a Minolta 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5

It's lighter compared to the older version with a constant f/4 and is close to the same brightness.

http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e#zooms

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2006, 3:02 PM   #4
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Thanks,That 70-210 3.5-4.5 lens looks nice. There is one on ebay now for $178 Buy it Now. Is the quality of the lens equal to the 70-210 f4 lens I have. It seems everyone loves my lens. But the size kills me. Am I loosing much light at the 210 focal length with f4.5 as opposed to f4?And do you think $178 is a fair price? It looks like I can sell mine for around that also.Thanks guys,Dennis
maskman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2006, 3:26 PM   #5
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

maskman wrote:
Quote:
TAnd do you think $178 is a fair price? It looks like I can sell mine for around that also.Thanks guys,Dennis
Your 70-210mm f/4 is a more sought after lens compared to the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5. A good copy of the "beercan" (the nickname given to the 70-210mm f/4) can be relatively sharp.

Both are selling for a lot more now than they did not too long ago.

But, usually the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 sells for less than that. I'd try to get one for around $100 now. I haven't compared prices recently, though. You could buy the 70-210mm f/4 for under $100 not too long ago, and the f/3.5-4.5 was usually around $50 if you were a good shopper. ;-)

I should have bought some of these lenses before the 5D was shipping, and before KM and Sony announced that Konica Minolta branded cameras would end ( that triggered some panic buying, too).

I've seen conflicting tests comparing these two lenses. In one test, the 70-210mm f/4 was better. In another test, the 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 looked better. The f/3.5-4.5 is a newer lens design compared to the 70-210mm f/4.

With lenses that have been banged around for 15 or 20 years, you see variations in quality between samples (of course, you sometimes see variations in quality with new lenses of the same model, too).

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2006, 9:13 PM   #6
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Default

OK...great. So that answers that. Now....which lens i faster? If the newer one is faster, I may go fir that one What do you think/ I really appreciate all the help. I like to get as much info on something before I buy.Thanks again, Dennis
maskman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 15, 2006, 9:19 PM   #7
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

nooner has both lenses. See his posts in this thread discussing the differences.

http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=84

JimC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 17, 2006, 8:20 AM   #8
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 4
Default

Have you any experience with the Maxxum 35-70 f3.5-4.5? I see one on ebay for around $60. I have a Sigma lens with the same focal range but it's a bit soft. I was hoping the Minolta would be sharper. My Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens is razor sharp. I am so impressed wih this lens. I want all my lenses to be this sharp. Am I asking too much from these zoom lenses?Thanks,Dennis
maskman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2006, 8:20 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 338
Default

I have the 70-210 f3.5-4.5, it is compact and quite sharp. Ino longerwish I had the "beercan", mostly due to weight and size. (the 1/3 stop loss @210 has not proven to be a factor.)

50mm prime lenses are the easiest to manufacture well, this is why they are the standard (normal) lens. Because of this, it is hard to find other primes as sharp, zooms are typically more compromised. This is changing rapidly though with the implement of computer designed zooms. Their main compromise is now aperture size, image quality is virtually on par with that of a prime lens throughout most of the zoom. (I am of course only discussing primes and zooms of similar quality- I am not saying a $50 zoom is as good as a $1,500 prime)


Mercury694 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Apr 26, 2006, 8:28 AM   #10
Administrator
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Savannah, GA (USA)
Posts: 22,378
Default

maskman wrote:
Quote:
Have you any experience with the Maxxum 35-70 f3.5-4.5? I see one on ebay for around $60. I have a Sigma lens with the same focal range but it's a bit soft. I was hoping the Minolta would be sharper. My Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens is razor sharp. I am so impressed wih this lens. I want all my lenses to be this sharp. Am I asking too much from these zoom lenses?Thanks,Dennis
Dennis:

I missed this post.

I don't have one. But, you can usually find them used for around $25

I almost bought one not long ago (KEH has some now for under $25). But, I went with the 35-70mm f/4 Macro instead. I got it for $52.00, including a Maxxum 7000 from Keh.com.

By most accounts, they are both good lenses (the f/4 and f/3.5-4.5 versions of the 35-70mm).


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 12:49 PM.