Comments on Minolta lens

[yeocolin]

Hi,
I noticed that Minolta lens sometimes receive very good reviews at photographyreview.com

I've been seriously looking at Minolta lens for future lens upgrades, but of course, like all 1st party lens, they are not cheap, especially compared to 3rd party lens.

I like to ask for your personal opinion if Minolta lens are worth paying that top dollar for and whether they are durable. Please state how long you have been using the lens and whether you are careful with your equipment or not. Thank you.

Regards.

 

[yinkhoon]

I used the Minolta AF28-105 f3.5-4.5 from 1998 to 2002. It was not a highly rated lens, at least not as highly rated as the 24-85 lens. But it produced beautiful images for me. Never gave me any problem throughout the 5 years of usage. I don't abuse it, but neither do I give it special care or velvet protection. If I had to complain about anything, it would be slight lens creep and the weight (compared to the its replacement 24-105).

So coming to the 24-105, I think it's great, and will be one critical reason why i shall remain with Minolta system.

And of course, not forgetting the 100-300 APO. I don't think there's another comparable lens that gives that range and outstanding optical quality in such a lightweight package (less than 450g). I do not have the latest D version, but I think my existing one is already excellent.

For an amateur photographer (which is Minolta's chief market anyway), I think the 24-105 plus the 100-300 is a very ideal combination in terms of optical quality and portability. Apart from a 50f1.7, i don't intend to look for anymore lens. Do I think the Minolta lens are durable? Yes I think strongly they will last as long as I last haha, that's the kind of feeling they give me. But then most camera lens go on and on, unlike some cheap electronics stuff these days...

I did try out a 28-105 tokina for a while but somehow i just didn't like its contrast and colours, compared to my minolta lens. I have never used any third part lens after that for really long and I do not intend to. So I do not really have a valid basis for comparison. But I guess I do have the comfort of mind that my lens are designed to be totally compatible with Minolta bodies and computer instructions without a hitch. If I do upgrade to new bodies, I can always keep my lens without having to rechip or something.

Yin Khoon

 

[yinkhoon]

Thought I better add that it's quite straight forward choice for me because for consumer level lens, the price difference between Minolta and third party lens isn't significant.

No doubt if it comes to fast f2.8 lens, where price factor comes in more, I may think harder about third party lens options... just that for myself and limited requirements, I have yet to see the need for the speed and extra optical quality of the pro lens at the cost of weight, portability and higher financial commitment.

Yin Khoon

 

[Seeto]

I have no doubt that Minolta lenses are worth paying for. But for me, I can't cough out the dough for them.

I use Sigma EX lenses ranging from 17mm to 200mm and they can give very good results. I have many pictures enlarged to poster size(32" x 24") without any problems.

If you are looking for good optics, try and borrow a Sigma EX lens and try it. You'll be amazed at the sharpness and brightness of your viewfinder!!

Matt