Minolta manual focus lens
I've never been a zoom person. Instead I prefer fixed focal length lens.
Recently though I bought a Minolta manual focus 70-210mm f/4 lens in part because of its reputation. It does live up to that reputation.. I also purchased a Minolta manual focus 35-70mm f/3.5 and it too is an excellent buy..
I have since been told the 28-85mm f/3.5-4.8 and 28-105mm f/3.5-4.8 are both as good as the above and even though there is an overlape of focal length I am thinking about giving one or the other a try..
Any experience with these lens?? Which do you think is the better and why??
We are talking about the manual focus versions not the autofocus ones...and they would be used on Minolta srT's, XE-7 and XD-11 cameras..
Both of these lenses are excellent, and can hold their own even today. Back in the 1970's Leitz had a liaison with Minolta and both of these lens designs were 'borrowed' by Leitz and re-modeled with the same optics, but using closer production tolerances, then given slightly different metal barrels. They are essentially the same as your lenses and very good.
The Minolta version could be used on the Minolta SRt models, but as these lenses were from the MD range, they came later than the SRt cameras, which were MC meter coupled.
If you can get hold of a 24/35 zoom lens you will have a superb outfit. That lens was not as common as the other two, but in the same range. All these three lenses were constant aperture throughout the range.
I was not aware that Minolta made a 28/105 in manual focus. The other one was probably a 35/105 The 28/85 and 35/105 were not constant aperture and are rarely seen today. (in UK) They can be found in the AF mode quite readily, they have same optical design, but with AF mounts. The 28/85 was a very good lens, better than the 35/105
These other two lenses were not adopted by Leitz, perhaps they thought the range they covered was a bit to advanced for them, or more likely the quality wasn't there. The Minolta XE1/XE7 camera design was also 'borrowed' by Leitz and turned into the R3 model with spot metering and a stronger die cast body. The XD7 you mention has more than a passing resemblance to the Leica R4, but I feel this is just by way of coincidence. than design.
Last edited by BMbikerider; 02-09-2013 at 06:00 PM. Click to view previous post history.
I did mean to say 35-135mm
I've decided to stick with the 2 zooms I have since the others would be overlapping.
The 35-105 is superb, their AF variant is one of the best non G maxxum lens.
Focus with the longest focal length, then shorten to the focal range that you will use. This should have you well within the focus range.
Warning!! Handling a Hasselblad can be harmful to your financial well being!
Nothing beats a great piece of glass!
I leave the digital work for the urologists and proctologists.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Actually it's Leitz which borrowed the zoom designs from Minolta. Leitz did not have any zoom in their catalogue and they made an agreement with Minolta to borrow technology. All first generation zooms from Leitz are derived from Minolta designs as far as I know (it goes without saying that Leitz produces according to stricter quality parameters).
I use the 28-85 extensively as a general walk-around zoom. It fares very well in distortion control and overall high contrast and, for a zoom, flare control also. Sharpness is very high although obviously a fixed focal length can perform better. It really is a jewel and if you find a second-hand one I suggest you use it as a general walk-around zoom. I use it a lot for architectural subjects as well.