Which telephoto for Dynax 7?

[TME]

I need some advice for a telephoto. I am not willing to pay above $1000 for a lens and so that effectively rules out all the constant aperture lens...........

I saw a few that look good in terms of the focal length: My maximum focal length in my collection of lens (if u can call 3 lens that), is 135mm. So it makes sense to start from 100mm or slightly above that......

Some Minoltas I consider are:

AF 100-400mm/4.5-6.7 Apo
Elements / Groups 11/14
Angle of View 24°-6°10'
Minimum Focus 2.0m
Minimum Aperture f/32-45
Filter 72mm
Dimension 79.5x149mm
Weight 840g

AF 100-300mm/4.5-5.6 Apo
Elements / Groups 10/11
Angle of View 24°-8°10'
Minimum Focus 1.5m
Minimum Aperture f/32-38
Filter 55mm
Dimension 73.5x101.5mm
Weight 435g

Evidently the longer focal length would be better but what is the difference in quality? And why the difference in weight?!

Some 3rd party lens:

Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical RF APO ($980 from Alan)

Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 (and perhaps a SP 1.4X teleconvertor if price permits)

Tokina ATX840 AF-II AF80-400 f/4.5-5.6 (what's the price like? but it looks good!) Maybe the previous model would be lower in price!

Please give me some advice as to the quality of the lens (the glass bascially) and the prices where possible. As u may have noticed, I am going more for the consumer lens rather than the pro or even high end amateur ones........

Thanks a lot! I do need a lot of help with the lens purchase........ thanks!

 

[sulhan]

Hieee...

Have you considered the Sigma 70-300APO Macro Super?....

Well...initially i had some thoughts of selling it away. But after i compared the photos/slides taken with this lens at zoom and Macro...and compared with some other 3rd Party lens....i decided to keep it.

Though it did not get thet "GOOD" review on its build.....i think its one thats worth considering.Hoe many times would you wanna drop an equipment.....do you need metal build??.....well....the price for it 1st hand is about $350 to $420....the new batch has on its box labelled...compatible with dynax 7.....

As for the 100-300mm Minolta...its really compact....sharp and good!!!!

For the 100-400mm APO...i think there is one 2nd at Alex and a 80-400 Tamron at TCW... ....why not check it out....

Get a roll of film....and go to the shops and test by taking shots with those lens that you try....

Regards,
me

 

[frisky]

I need some advice for a telephoto. I am not willing to pay above $1000 for a lens and so that effectively rules out all the constant aperture lens...........

Some Minoltas I consider are:

AF 100-400mm/4.5-6.7 Apo
AF 100-300mm/4.5-5.6 Apo

Evidently the longer focal length would be better but what is the difference in quality? And why the difference in weight?!

If you notice, the 100-400 is using 72mm filter, which means the lens is bigger in diameter, and hence heavier. The lens barrel will have to be strengthen correspondingly and it just add to the weight.

300/5.6 = 53.6mm
400/6.7 = 59.7mm
400/5.6 = 71.3mm

From the calculation, the 100-400 APO would need only about 60mm, why it uses 72mm is a bit strange indeed. Other 400mm f/5.6 lens would need at least 72mm filter thread though.

Both of these lens are pretty well performing lens and you should be ok with either. However, note that the 100-400 APO is a f/6.7 which is can be a concern.

Some 3rd party lens:

Sigma 135-400mm f/4.5-5.6 Aspherical RF APO ($980 from Alan)
Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6 (and perhaps a SP 1.4X teleconvertor if price permits)
Tokina ATX840 AF-II AF80-400 f/4.5-5.6 (what's the price like? but it looks good!) Maybe the previous model would be lower in price!

Please give me some advice as to the quality of the lens (the glass bascially) and the prices where possible. As u may have noticed, I am going more for the consumer lens rather than the pro or even high end amateur ones........

I have no experience with the Sigma & Tamron, but I have the Tokina ATX840 AF and the ATX340 AF.

The ATX340 AF is a superb piece of glass, and with a constant f/4 it compares favourably with prime 300 f/4 lens in terms of image quality and size, and yet adds zoom and price to its favour. Its down side, however, is its size and weight. At 1.54kg and 230mm long, it is not exact your carry around lens and would require a decent tripod to use.

The ATX840 AF is also a good lens, compares well with the Minolta version, is 1/2 stop faster (f/5.6), but weights 960g. The ATX840 AF-II is a newer version, the main difference is the additional tripod collar.

 

[yinkhoon]

Go for the Minolta 100-300 APO, either old or D version. Lightweight, portable, and most importantly, optically excellent. Check out www.photozone.de. You won't regret it.

 

[sulhan]

Frisky Wrote -

If you notice, the 100-400 is using 72mm filter, which means the lens is bigger in diameter, and hence heavier. The lens barrel will have to be strengthen correspondingly and it just add to the weight.

The 100-400mm uses the 72mm may be for the following reason.
As it is a ZOOM with a range of 100-400mm....its widest at 100mm may need a larger frontal glass as using a smaller glass may have distortions at its edges. Hence the Sweet area in "actually about that calculated 55mm size".

So by using a 72mm glass, it may have a larger central area where distortions may be minimised.

I don't know their actual reason but just logically applying the theory of using of closeup filters where using a "larger than the actual lens" close-ups will minimise edge edistortions as lens glass are typically thinner at its edges...

AND!!!!.... the Dynax 7 centre cross sensors are designed to a higher sensitivity than the rest of the eight locations in the viewfinder - hence can take f6.7 without much problem.

I personally tested it f6.7 (100-400mm at its longest)....and no prob with the Dynax 7. But with the 4040si.....it hunts...


regards,
me

 

[TME]

The 100-400mm uses the 72mm may be for the following reason.
As it is a ZOOM with a range of 100-400mm....its widest at 100mm may need a larger frontal glass as using a smaller glass may have distortions at its edges. Hence the Sweet area in "actually about that calculated 55mm size".

So by using a 72mm glass, it may have a larger central area where distortions may be minimised.

I don't know their actual reason but just logically applying the theory of using of closeup filters where using a "larger than the actual lens" close-ups will minimise edge edistortions as lens glass are typically thinner at its edges...

AND!!!!.... the Dynax 7 centre cross sensors are designed to a higher sensitivity than the rest of the eight locations in the viewfinder - hence can take f6.7 without much problem.

I personally tested it f6.7 (100-400mm at its longest)....and no prob with the Dynax 7. But with the 4040si.....it hunts...


regards,
me

Hey Sulhan and everyone who has contributed,

Thanks for the reviews....... I think it really helps me narrow down what I want..... I want as long as possible........ yeah lar... typical S'porean....... longer better mah.......as long as image quality is not compromised at either end.......

So looks like I'll settle for one of the following, price and weight permitting:

Minolta 100-400 APO (840g)
Sigma 70-300 Macro Super (is this APO glass? weight?)
Sigma 135-400 APO ($980)
Tokina ATX840 AF 80-400 (960g)

Prices for the 3 anyone? New or 2nd hand?

Piangz........ looks like the Minolta 100-300 is much lighter............ but that 100mm at the end is very tempting......... I'm planning to go to NZ end of year......... so with all that space, I'll need as long as possible I guess.............

 

[andre]

I prefer :
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 or
Minolta 70-210 F/4 or
Minolta 200 F/2.8 G

rgds,
Andre

 

[TME]

I prefer :
Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 or
Minolta 70-210 F/4 or
Minolta 200 F/2.8 G

rgds,
Andre

Too expensive, not long enough......... kekeke.........

 

[andylee]

Why don't you try the 100-300 APO at the MINOLTA SVC?

 

[Nightshade]

Also, note the elements/groups -- though I do believe you got them backwards. It could be difficult to have 11 elements in 14 groups, for instance.

But the combination of the 400 having not only more elements, it's also wider as someone above noted, both adding considerably to the weight. That's all.

I had the Sigma 70-300 macro APO. Not a bad lens, but I've since replaced it with a Sigma 50-500 which I like quite a bit more. I still want to replace that with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8, but that's a topic for another day. In USD, you can come by the 50-500 for $650-900, depending on the reputation of the dealer.

 

[TME]

Also, note the elements/groups -- though I do believe you got them backwards. It could be difficult to have 11 elements in 14 groups, for instance.

But the combination of the 400 having not only more elements, it's also wider as someone above noted, both adding considerably to the weight. That's all.

I had the Sigma 70-300 macro APO. Not a bad lens, but I've since replaced it with a Sigma 50-500 which I like quite a bit more. I still want to replace that with a 70-200 2.8 and a 300 2.8, but that's a topic for another day. In USD, you can come by the 50-500 for $650-900, depending on the reputation of the dealer.

Yo Nightshade! I also know the 50-500 is good! But hor....... it's like a lot more than my budget of below $1000.

Some quotes from CP:

Tokina ATX840 AF-II AF80-400 f/4.5-5.6 @ S$864.00

Minolta AF 100-400mm/4.5-6.7 Apo @ S$900.00 (Advance order required)

Since the Minolta is just a little more of course I go for Minolta. But really I would prefer 2nd hand if I can find one........ And that may just tip the balance in favour of the Tokina.

Any comments for the Tokina from anyone else other than Frisky? Thanks a lot! Your inputs have been very useful to me!

 

[Nightshade]

Heh, I haven't quite gotten these exchange rates down yet.

But, it does appear that Minolta's lens is better than Tokina's, based on what I've heard. So look harder for that one, it'd be worth your time. Good luck

 

[frisky]

Too expensive, not long enough......... kekeke.........

And heavy

kekeke......... Piangz........ looks like the Minolta 100-300 is much lighter............ but that 100mm at the end is very tempting......... I'm planning to go to NZ end of year......... so with all that space, I'll need as long as possible I guess.............

I was at NZ last year, and the main thing you'll need the long lens for is if you are going for wild life, ie, whales, dolphins, birds etc. And when you are shooting on the boats......., only high shutter speed (and high speed flim) and maybe AS will work, tripod is totally impossible.

A lot of scenary there, wide angle will be useful.

 

[TME]

And heavy



I was at NZ last year, and the main thing you'll need the long lens for is if you are going for wild life, ie, whales, dolphins, birds etc. And when you are shooting on the boats......., only high shutter speed (and high speed flim) and maybe AS will work, tripod is totally impossible.

A lot of scenary there, wide angle will be useful.

Hmm..... yeah I have a 17-35mm and 24-135 already...... so I need this telephoto to complete my lens range...... and yes I do intend to take close ups or at least long range shots especially of the distant scenery that catches my attention........ I dun really know what to expect but I can foresee a need for a long lens from my experience in Britain........ 135mm just doesn't cut it in some places........

 

[TME]

Why don't you try the 100-300 APO at the MINOLTA SVC?

I will......... intend to do some lens hunting this weekend....... and of course will be going to the usual haunts at TCW, Peninsular, Funan...... Minolta Service Centre is at Funan is it? Or is it near Clifford Pier, Neptune Theater there?

 

[alvin]

Hi TME, hope u don't mind I highjack your thread... I'm looking for a consumer grade wide angle lens. The minolta 20-35 comes to mind, but at S$700++++ it's out of my budget. Would appreciate recommendations. I'm looking for wider, like erm 20mm or less, dun need constant aperture as the stuff I'm shooting will probably have flash assistance.

Today had class outing to Goethe Institute, argh my 28mm not wide enough to capture some places. And no, I already zoomed with my paws, not much place to maneuver

 

[andylee]

How about the tokina 19-35??Tamrom 20-40 very ex leh but very good optics.

 

[andylee]

Hi TME,got your decisions yet?

 

[TME]

Hi TME, hope u don't mind I highjack your thread... I'm looking for a consumer grade wide angle lens. The minolta 20-35 comes to mind, but at S$700++++ it's out of my budget. Would appreciate recommendations. I'm looking for wider, like erm 20mm or less, dun need constant aperture as the stuff I'm shooting will probably have flash assistance.

Today had class outing to Goethe Institute, argh my 28mm not wide enough to capture some places. And no, I already zoomed with my paws, not much place to maneuver

I dun think u can get something wider than 24mm for less than $700... I bought my Sigma 17-35 for $750 2nd hand. The Minolta 17-35 is $3000+...... kekeke........ other 3rd party consumer ultra wide zoom lens are not so good as the Sigma....... Tokina and Tamron have some good ones but they are very expensive....... the consumer range for Tokina (19-35) has some chromatic abberations at the wide end...... the Sigma I use has some significant perspective distortion at 17mm..... only noticeable at the edges... but no vignetting so far...... very fast focussing cos it's f/2.4-4... optically quite good also...... and it's really wide........

The key is to look for 2nd hand lens......... they are more worth the money...........

 

[TME]

Hi TME,got your decisions yet?

Not sure......... still thinking of the Tokina ATX-II 80-400mm f4.5-6.7 but it's very heavy........ so leaning towards the Minolta 100-300mm... haiz.......