1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

My (Minolta) stable - looking for suggestions

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by jarl, Aug 24, 2013.

  1. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Oct 30, 2012
    Hello people :smile:

    First post there, but I've been around for a couple of months looking for suggestions and learning from you. Thank you for sharing the know-how :)

    Now to business: I'm ready to prune some of my old glass collection (see signature), and buy a couple more lenses, and I would appreciate your feedback.

    After buying the Minolta MD 35-70mm, a couple of the lenses were made redundant (yep... the 35-70 is sharp enough to replace a couple of primes). I'm planning to keep the 35-70 and the 135, and that's pretty much all I know:
    - I'd like to have some zooms like the ones I have but better quality (the 60-300 has a good range and decent quality, but it's too bulky. The 80-200 has a good size and so-so range, but the quality is not that good)
    - I'd like to have a fast 28mm for low light portraits, but the Sears is not up to the task
    - and I'm needing a macro lens

    I like to take pictures of people (usually indoors), love macro photography (i.e. flowers) and like nature shots (i.e. birding). Budget is tight, and I would like to stay on the Minolta realm. So... any suggestions? :)

    BTW: I need to replace my E-PM1 as well. I like it -mostly-, but the lack of some means to focus manual lenses is too much. Is the focus peaking of some of the other Olys enough to work with?
     

    Attached Files:

  2. dougjgreen

    dougjgreen Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jun 5, 2013
    San Diego
    Doug Green
    The Minolta 45mm f2 is a nice lens, and very small and light, but you probably only need one of them. I'd keep either one of those, or the 50mm f1.7 before I kept the 35-70mm zoom
     
  3. dadadude

    dadadude Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Jun 12, 2013
    San Carlos, CA
    David
    Well I wouldn't get rid of either the 45mm 2.0 or the 50mm 1.7, those are really nice lenses IMO. As far as zooms go I really like the Vivitar Series 1 70-210 I have although it is a substantial piece of metal and glass. I also have a Vivitar 70-210 Macro zoom that is much lighter than the Series 1 and has very good IQ IMO. I'm surprised you want to sell the Tokina 28-70 you have. That's a very good short zoom, but I guess your Minolta has made it redundant. Given the fact you like to take portraits and doing macro I'm not sure why you would be looking onto long zooms. A Minolta 50mm f/3.5 MD Macro might be the ticket for macro. A fast fifty might be the way to go for portraits. The Rokkor X 50 1.4 is a nice way to go and fairly cheap.
     
  4. Cruzan80

    Cruzan80 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    Denver, Co
    Sean Rastsmith
    I would go with either the Minolta 28/2 or 28/2.8 or a Vivitar 28/2, the Minolta 100 macro (or any off-brand 90-105 macro) or one of the Vivitar macro teleconverters. Keep the 50 if you get the teleconverter, and I would keep one of the 45mm. Do you need 1:1 macro, or just closeup? If the latter, I would go with the Vivitar 28/2 Close Focus, and get a legacy 80-200 with close focus as well. I have a JCPenny 80-200/3.9 that I like and is fairly sharp, and both go down to 1:5. However, it is fairly bulky.

    Option 1: Minolta 35-70, 45, 28, 100, possibly 75-150 (Gives you fast low-light, and dedicated macro)
    Option 2: Minolta 35-70, 45, 50, Vivitar 28/2, Vivitar Macro Teleconverter, Legacy 80-200 w/ Close Focus (Cheaper, teleconverter works on all your lenses, not within "Minolta" branding only).

    Hope this could help.
     
  5. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Oct 30, 2012
    Je je... this was the only one I had before buying the E-PM1 (along with a Minolta SLR), and another (better) one came with a kit I bought from Craigslist (one SLR, 45f2, the Sears and the Albinar... for a whopping $40).

    Thank you for your answers... this is exactly the kind of suggestions I was looking for.

    I agree the 45 and the 50 are really good lenses (the last two pictures above come from the 45f2), and that probably is enough to keep them. The main problem is that with the 2X crop (90~100mm equiv.) it's hard to use them in close quarters. Which is why I'd like to have a decent ~25mm lens

    I'll look for reviews of the lenses mentioned to see what can be found.

    As for the other lenses in the group... I dunno. The Tokina has a nice range but it's a little soft (I'm probably to blame as well, though... and maybe the fact I paid $8 or so may have some influence as well), and the minimum focus distance is longer than what I'm used to. The 1st image below (100% crop, straight from the camera) shows and image I got with the Tokina. The 2nd one shows a similar picture taken with the 35-70, but I had to stand some 3 or 4 feet away from the (much bigger) flower. I'd like to be able to get a full frame with just a few of those yellow mini-flowers :)

    The other pictures are what I'm getting from the 35-70 (both ends, but I can't remember the f setting), and one of the reasons I want a good zoom: aluminum birding :) The pictures (w/ the Albinar) are not that good, but on the B-25 one you can see the chromatic aberration I was talking about.
     

    Attached Files:

  6. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    VF-2, what more do you need?
     
  7. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Oct 30, 2012
    A VF-4... attached to an E-P5 :D
    On a serious note: is a VF-2 (or VF-3/VF-4) good enough to focus manually? I have never used any of them
     
  8. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    ?? Oh come on,
    I'm trying to find one of those rolling on the floor laughing smileys ...

    Short answer : VF-2 : Yes.
     
  9. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Oct 30, 2012
    You mean this: :rofl: ? LOL... don't be too hard on me :D

    Honestly... I've never used a photographic camera with a digital viewfinder (or I did, but it was a crappy one). Now I know the VF-2 has 3 times as many pixels as the screen on the camera (and the VF-4 5 times as many!!!). I guess that may help with focusing :)

    I had not considered a VF-x before (a new VF-2 costs more than the E-PM1!). I was thinking more on an actual focus confirmation feature, even if just the keyline art filter.

    Oh well... more stuff to buy :thumbup:

    [EDIT]: Is the VF-3 good enough for MF with vintage lenses? I just found a *really* cheap one...

    BTW: the Vivitar 28mm f2.8 seems to be well appreciated. I'll have to look out for one...
     
  10. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    A fast and wide legacy lens is going to be costly, you might as well buy a native lens. 20mm f1.7 would be perfect for what you shoot. Save up for it.
     
  11. dadadude

    dadadude Mu-43 Regular

    156
    Jun 12, 2013
    San Carlos, CA
    David
    Do not judge a used lens by what you paid for it. I have been buying some of the best legacy glass out there for $5-$20. I have that Tokina zoom in a Canon mount and I think it's very decent IQ.
     
  12. jarl

    jarl Mu-43 Regular

    47
    Oct 30, 2012
    Good point... and that lens is very attractive. I'll have to include it in my list, but I think it will be after the 28mm f2.8 :)

    Oh, I won't. It's just that that lens was marked as "BGN", and priced accordingly :) I can't really complain. Vintage lenses are too fun :)
     
  13. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Maybe, I never used it.
    I still say get a second-hand VF-2 or new VF-4