Photo sharing: Sony Alpha

[fractal]

Just got back from sunny Jamaica. Wish I were still there instead of dealing with an inch of ice here.

 

[Animagic!]

Quick question...

Has anyone here ever used or know anything about an old Minolta 100mm f/2?

 

[havoc315]

Quick question...

Has anyone here ever used or know anything about an old Minolta 100mm f/2?

It's supposed to be an incredible lens. Look at Dyxum.

 

[fractal]

A hand-held HDR shot. I thought it came out half decent.

 

[havoc315]

A hand-held HDR shot. I thought it came out half decent.

Beautiful shot. Handheld in-camera HDR, or you bracketed and combined in post?

 

[fractal]

Beautiful shot. Handheld in-camera HDR, or you bracketed and combined in post?

Thanks.
I bracketed and combined in PP.

Used Photomatix and LR.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Quick question...

Has anyone here ever used or know anything about an old Minolta 100mm f/2?

Yes. (I have mentioned I'm a lens junkie haven't I? )

A few quick, mostly wide open shots with it in various situations that were taken on a WDW trip.

(cropped) SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/500, ISO 200

SONY DSLR-A850, f/2.4 @ 100 mm, 1/1000, ISO 200

(cropped) SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/2000

SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/350, ISO 200

(heavy cropped) SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/750, ISO 200

SONY DSLR-A850, f/2.4 @ 100 mm, 1/125, ISO 250

SONY DSLR-A850, f/2.4 @ 100 mm, 1/1000, ISO 200

(cropped) SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/45, ISO 800

SONY DSLR-A850, f/2.4 @ 100 mm, 1/8, ISO 400 (guess I should straighten this one!)

Sharp wide open and beautiful smooth bokeh. Deserving of all that's said about it. Anything in particular you're wondering?

 

[havoc315]

(heavy cropped) SONY DSLR-A850, f/2 @ 100 mm, 1/750, ISO 200

Perfect bokeh, amazingly sharp. Guess it deserves its reputation. Have you shot with the Minolta 100 2.8 macro?
It's performance is supposedly similar, at half the price, and with the usefulness of 1:1 macro.
I really don't need a 100mm prime..... I have 85 and 135.. I have 3 zoom lenses that cover 100mm.... so very hard for me to rationalize a 100mm prime... But the 100/2 and 100/2.8 are both on my wishlist. (Though I certainly wouldn't buy both... or...)

 

[fractal]

KAT4DISNEY,

Great shots! Thanks for sharing

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Perfect bokeh, amazingly sharp. Guess it deserves its reputation. Have you shot with the Minolta 100 2.8 macro?
It's performance is supposedly similar, at half the price, and with the usefulness of 1:1 macro.
I really don't need a 100mm prime..... I have 85 and 135.. I have 3 zoom lenses that cover 100mm.... so very hard for me to rationalize a 100mm prime... But the 100/2 and 100/2.8 are both on my wishlist. (Though I certainly wouldn't buy both... or...)

No - that's actually one I haven't used! I own the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro so just stuck with that since I'm fairly awful at true macro shooting but I want to keep trying and I have used it for general shots too. I'm there on the multiple lenses covering that 100mm and similar focal length though. The Minolta 100mm f/2 and my STF 135mm are the two I would hold on to because of their unique properties and renderings and both are as sharp as anything. My other 135mm is the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 which was the first one I bought at that focal length and I've just kept it too as it also is a nice lens that I still use. The 100mm f/2 is like my precious and sometimes it has to stay home and the 135mm f/2.8 steps in as its stunt double.

KAT4DISNEY,

Great shots! Thanks for sharing

Thank you!

 

[havoc315]

No - that's actually one I haven't used! I own the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro so just stuck with that since I'm fairly awful at true macro shooting but I want to keep trying and I have used it for general shots too. I'm there on the multiple lenses covering that 100mm and similar focal length though. The Minolta 100mm f/2 and my STF 135mm are the two I would hold on to because of their unique properties and renderings and both are as sharp as anything. My other 135mm is the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 which was the first one I bought at that focal length and I've just kept it too as it also is a nice lens that I still use. The 100mm f/2 is like my precious and sometimes it has to stay home and the 135mm f/2.8 steps in as its stunt double.
Thank you!

I have the Minolta 135/2.8. Very good lens, but I actually find that decent telephoto zooms, like the beercan, are nearly as good (just a bit slower). What I love about the 135/2.8 is the small size.

I'd love to play around with the STF 135, but there is no way I could ever rationalize spending over $1,000 on what is solely a niche lens. (Actually, I've never spent over $1,000 on any lens.... so that certainly wouldn't be my first).

The Tamron 90 and Minolta 100 are both supposed to be great macro lenses. On a much cheaper basis, I use the Minolta 50/2.8 macro. It's not a perfect lens, but it is very very good. I use it currently as my walk-around on the A99. And true macro photography is fun. It's hard without a tripod, but between focus peaking and IBIS, it's certainly doable.

This was handheld:


may2013-15.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

Could I ask you to share a list of lenses you own or have tried?

 

[Animagic!]

Sharp wide open and beautiful smooth bokeh. Deserving of all that's said about it. Anything in particular you're wondering?

Not particularly. I was curious if it was a solid performer. Also kind of wondering how much this lens is worth. Basically I found a copy online on an auction site. Someone is selling a camera bag and all it's goodies inside. The person who wrote the ad doesn't look like they know much about photography. Inside the bag is a Minolta DLSR, a Sigma kit lens, a Minolta 135mm f/2.8, a Minolta 100mm f/2, hoods, filters, flash, light meter, and miscellaneous accessories. The current bid has been sitting at $16 for a few days now, with little activity. I realize $16 is crazy cheap for the lot. I'm hoping to swoop in a buy the lot last minute. I'm just trying to figure out how much is a realistic amount of money to spend. Primarily I want the 100mm but I'd love to get the 135mm too, especially if the lot is that cheap.

 

[havoc315]

Not particularly. I was curious if it was a solid performer. Also kind of wondering how much this lens is worth. Basically I found a copy online on an auction site. Someone is selling a camera bag and all it's goodies inside. The person who wrote the ad doesn't look like they know much about photography. Inside the bag is a Minolta DLSR, a Sigma kit lens, a Minolta 135mm f/2.8, a Minolta 100mm f/2, hoods, filters, flash, light meter, and miscellaneous accessories. The current bid has been sitting at $16 for a few days now, with little activity. I realize $16 is crazy cheap for the lot. I'm hoping to swoop in a buy the lot last minute. I'm just trying to figure out how much is a realistic amount of money to spend. Primarily I want the 100mm but I'd love to get the 135mm too, especially if the lot is that cheap.

The 135 goes for $300... The 100/2 for $700-$800...

Want to split the haul?

 

[Animagic!]

The 135 goes for $300... The 100/2 for $700-$800...

Want to split the haul?

Woah, I think we must be talking about different lenses here...

I think I could see those prices for newer auto focus lenses. These are strictly manual focus. I can't really find any info on the 100mm f/2. They are...

Minolta MC TELE ROKKOR-PF 1:2 F=100mm
Minolta MC TELE ROKKOR-PF 1:2.8 F=135mm

Both state Made In Japan if that makes a difference. But aren't all Minolta lenses made in Japan?

Which 135 are you referencing? I seem to find lots of 135mm f/2.8s online that are inexpensive. I don't think I've seen one for $300. I just saw an auction listing with a Minolta SLR, a kit 50mm, and a 135mm 2.8 sell for $10.00. So I'm guessing there a lot of different models of 135mm 2.8 lenses out there. Forgive my ignorance, I don't know a lot about these lenses.

 

[havoc315]

Woah, I think we must be talking about different lenses here...

I think I could see those prices for newer auto focus lenses. These are strictly manual focus. I can't really find any info on the 100mm f/2. They are...

Minolta MC TELE ROKKOR-PF 1:2 F=100mm
Minolta MC TELE ROKKOR-PF 1:2.8 F=135mm

Both state Made In Japan if that makes a difference. But aren't all Minolta lenses made in Japan?

Which 135 are you referencing? I seem to find lots of 135mm f/2.8s online that are inexpensive. I don't think I've seen one for $300. I just saw an auction listing with a Minolta SLR, a kit 50mm, and a 135mm 2.8 sell for $10.00. So I'm guessing there a lot of different models of 135mm 2.8 lenses out there. Forgive my ignorance, I don't know a lot about these lenses.

Ahh..ok... you said it was a Minolta dSLR (not SLR) with lenses --- a Minolta DIGITAL SLR was a-mount. You're talking about MC lenses. I know nothing about MC lenses.
The Maxxum 100/2 AF and 135/2.8 AF are spectacular lenses, and the ones I was referencing. The MC lenses are a tiny fraction in value.

 

[Animagic!]

Ahh..ok... you said it was a Minolta dSLR (not SLR) with lenses --- a Minolta DIGITAL SLR was a-mount. You're talking about MC lenses. I know nothing about MC lenses.
The Maxxum 100/2 AF and 135/2.8 AF are spectacular lenses, and the ones I was referencing. The MC lenses are a tiny fraction in value.

I'm sorry, that was my bad. I'm so used to typing DSLR that it didn't even occur to me to drop the "d." My apologies. So if I understand this correctly the MC lenses are incompatible with the A-Mount?

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

I'm sorry, that was my bad. I'm so used to typing DSLR that it didn't even occur to me to drop the "d." My apologies. So if I understand this correctly the MC lenses are incompatible with the A-Mount?

You would need an adaptor, which can be found fairly inexpensively, and of course they would be manual focus and I think require manual adjustments for aperture and shutter but not positive.

I have a couple of the old Minolta mount lenses since I had a Minolta SLR (x-700) but I've never bothered with them on the a-mount since mine weren't incredibly special. Sorry but I can't help with any info on those two lenses. Personally I'd just put the funds towards an a-mount lens if that is what you want to use it on.

 

[fractal]

 

[havoc315]

I'm sorry, that was my bad. I'm so used to typing DSLR that it didn't even occur to me to drop the "d." My apologies. So if I understand this correctly the MC lenses are incompatible with the A-Mount?

Honestly, I know nothing about the optical quality of those lenses. They may be fun on the NEX. I wouldn't use them on an A-mount camera.

 

[zackiedawg]

I'm sorry, that was my bad. I'm so used to typing DSLR that it didn't even occur to me to drop the "d." My apologies. So if I understand this correctly the MC lenses are incompatible with the A-Mount?

That's right - not compatible with A mount...the MC mount is an older manual focus mount.

You would need an adaptor, which can be found fairly inexpensively, and of course they would be manual focus and I think require manual adjustments for aperture and shutter but not positive.

What's worse is that the adapter needed to use the MC lenses would have to be of a registration-reducer-type, meaning the adapter would involve glass elements in order to allow the lens to work on A-mount. Generally, those types of adapters are less than desirable for image quality.

The aforementioned NEX cameras would be better for this type of lens - because of their much shorter registration distance, the MC mount Minolta lenses only need a basic spacer ring adapter (no glass elements) and you'll get the full optical quality from the lens.

Otherwise I'd agree with the others - if you have an A mount, and don't intend to buy a new camera just to use these lenses, they're probably not worth buying - just stick to A-mount lenses.