Amazon - amzn.to/4apoScs Slik Tripods - amzn.to/3xvHxVA You can support content creation on Patreon: www.patreon.com/mrbazreviews Or by using the Amazon affiliate links, at no cost to yourself (this helps a lot you can buy any items off any links I post) 50mm 1.7 - amzn.to/49qoNnC 28mm 2.8 - amzn.to/3JaYib4 100mm Macro 2.8 - amzn.to/3vOARkY 28-105mm - amzn.to/3xDeLlK 35-70mm - amzn.to/43QjT29 80-200mm - amzn.to/4cSqtcl 70-210mm - amzn.to/3JfC6fS 100-200mm - amzn.to/43W0WeA 17-35mm - amzn.to/3VSARL5 28-135m - amzn.to/3TQGLK9 24-105mm - amzn.to/3TUhjU1 100-300mm APO - amzn.to/3Q1i0d9 100-400mm APO - amzn.to/3JcYgzr 500mm Reflex F8 - amzn.to/3Uc6ePG
Many are, with the usual weaker points some have like purple fringing, and the older coatings are not great with flare on some. But, they have a look which is unique and that Minolta contrast is there on most. Flaws are part of a lens I think, some modern lenses are great, yet some feel they are also lacking character too. I would agree though look at each offering on it's own.
@@MrBazReviews yes I love the look of the Minolta AF lenses. You are right the lens should add character. Its one thing I do love about mirrorless is that I can access so many other camera systems particularly those that are obsolete such as Minolta manual and Contax. I wish Minolta had produced a faster prime around 135mm, I am debating whether the 135/2.8 would be worth having since I already have the 80-200/2.8.
@@gregkempchannel I tend to go with a 100mm or similar Macro, as it's 2.8 it's still fast but much lighter/smaller than a 80-200mm. I find that works well for many situations, if 135mm is worth it hard to say I tend to space out the primes hence 28/50/100 etc. The Minolta 135mm is pretty cheap, I had over 25 lenses at one time I think way too many.
@@MrBazReviews Yea I overlooked the 100/2 because I have the 85/1.4 (1987 version) so I figured that's not much of a step but it could still be useful for me. I do a lot of low light and I love wide open DoF and bokeh on these lenses. I'll have another look at the 100. I probably shouldn't admit how many lenses I have....the truth is I don't know, though lots of cheap old ones from various systems I mess with on my E-mounts.
My personal top lenses: 1. 80-200mm 2.8 HS. I like the speed, AF, & creamy bokeh. It's very loud though. Also useable AF with w/ 2x Tamron AF tele-converter, for kicks. 2. 28-70mm 2.8 G. I like it for it's 3D like photos & bokeh. 3. 500mm 8 Reflex lens. Compact & light. Donut is OK if you frame your photos. I used them with A7SII + LA-EA4. Now I will be using them with A7C.
I always wanted to try the 28-70mm G, but heard there were issues on some copies (front element or something like it) I had the LA-EA4 once it was OK, bit bulky but at least it works with many older bodies (doesn't work with new ones though for some reason)
@@MrBazReviews Yep, I had few 28-70mm Gs over the years. But I had no issues. I think they are cheap enough to take a jump? The last cam compatible with LA-EA4 is A7C, so stuck with that combo. Maybe newer bodies focus speed incompatibility? It's mystery for me as well.
Since you went strictly minolta, I thought I'd throw in some A mount alternatives :) 1. Tamron 90mm F2.8 This lens replaced my Sony 85 f2.8. Its slightly longer compared to the compact 85, but its about the same size as the Minolta 100mm. Usually cheaper compared to the Minolta and covers the same range. 2. Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-f4.5 Not as wide or as fast as the Tamron/Minolta 17-35. But covers the same range. Got mine for around £60. I feels it is sharp and a good value for wide angle photography. 3. Minolta 24-50 f4 Sold mine since I got the Tokina, but this lens is nice for indoor events and general compact walkabout when paired with the beercan. Usually people say the 35-70 performs better. But considering the wider fov, I think the performance is acceptable. 4. Tokina 11-16 f2.8 This APSC lens has full frame coverage at 16mm. It heavy but it doubles up nicely for situations where you really need that ultrawide end. I treated it as a 16mm f2.8 prime on my A99.
Thanks for that yes I wanted to just include Minolta (though a few are Tamron designs) The 11-16mm was a smart move for Tokina, Sony never bothered to update the APS-C Ultra Wide zoom and that lens is far superior to the old Tamron designed 11-18mm one. It's tricky v the 100mm Minolta to the Tamron 90mm, I like the Tamron a lot but felt the Minolta has a slight edge for rendering at longer distances. Both are excellent though. The Sigma 105mm is probably optically the best lens for Macro Users (the latest version), though it's a bit heavier/larger.
Luminar Links (this helps fund the channel too at no extra cost to yourself) Luminar Neo - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/1869007/3255 Luminar Mobile - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/1965581/3255 Aperty - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/2040463/3255 (10% Discount Code: MrBazReviews10)
A lot of good suggestions there! I still use the 28 2.8 fairly regularly, maybe on film soon too as I'm getting my Minolta 600si going again, in any case I think the 28 2.8 is a little underrated on apsc digital as is the little 35-70 zoom, I have one of those too, I'd almost forgotten about it until I saw your review on it a few days ago. Another nice Minolta zoom I no longer own is the 35-105 3.5 4.5, that seems to have a good reputation too, worked nicely for me for a while but replaced it with a Sony 55-200, also a good apsc lens.
I always felt the 28mm 2.8 was underrated a bit (found the copies I tried to be decent optics wise and it's cheap to buy) used it on crop and full frame. The f/2 is so expensive in comparison, it's a shame they never released a newer version. The Sony branded 28mm 2.8 I had and they discontinued it (as they did with the 24-105mm, and never replaced either) 35-105mm is a solid lens, I went 28-105mm as I felt 28mm to 35mm is a notable difference, it might matter to some, thanks for your suggestion though and input.
@@MrBazReviews True 28-105 focal range is generally better on apsc especially. But the 35-105 f4 is also underrated generally I think. Probably because of the focal range. Think it was, a constant f4 if I remember correctly. I'd forgotten that. No, 3.5-4.5. Pretty inexpensive on ebay and elsewhere, one of Minolta's better zooms. As you point out the 50 1.7 is still a good deal too and probably also underrated.
@@timatwater8247 Pretty sure it was 3.5-4.5, like most of the others. Today that seems strangely fast! Look at the Canon RF 24-105mm it's 7.1 at the tele end! (the one most people can afford kit one). Lenses got slower for some reason, not my idea of progress!
Thanks! I recently picked up a Sony a300 for next to nothing and was pleasantly surprised to find out these 80s Minolta lenses were dirt cheap. I mainly shoot fashion and portraits, so started with the 50 f/1.7 and 28 f/2.8 and just recently got the 70-210 f/4 and the 35-70 f/4 I picked up all 4 lenses for $120 total, cant beat that with any other system I can think of. I mean, even the Canon EF 70-210 f/4 MACRO runs around $100 for one in good shape. Also really like the contrast and color from these lenses. They have that character thats sadly lacking from most every over-sharpened mirrorless lens these days that produce sterile images. Looking to pick up a FF Sony A mount camera next. What would be your choice for one thats moderately priced?
I agree the new trend in lenses is super sharp, but lacking in other areas - some of them have a less than exciting look to images, but I take each lens on it's own merits/drawbacks. Sharpness is just one area of a lens, a point many makers seem to forget. Unfortunately full frame body prices are increasing, to a degree on the used market. So really you have the A850/900 bodies, or the A99 is the next option up in price. I wouldn't consider the A99II a wise investment. It's a shame Sony never bothered to make a budget (D610 type) body, because it probably would have pushed prices down long term. A850/900 have a really good viewfinder, though somewhat dated sensor. A99 has more dynamic range but also the SLT/EVF which might or might not work for you.
I have the 50mm f1.7 that i found for 30 bucks, the 20mm f2.8 for 50, and i have the 100-300 apo wich is AWESOME, i use them on myA65 and nex 6 (With LA EA4) and oh god their wonderful, very sharp, speed af,... (35-105 and 100-200 incoming for 15 bucks EACH) I also have the sigma 28-105 uc3 wich i got for 20 bucks and its so good, i can't understand why peoples (non pro) get high end and super expensive camera gear an lenses while you can have super good lenses with a very low budget If YOU want to start photography, go grab a SLT camera (can be found in the 100 bucks) and some old minolta lenses, for less than 200 bucks you can have a very good setup to start Also, very good video!
Thanks, yes there are some unbeatable bargains for A Mount and many of these lenses are still very decent performers. A mount always was a great deal, many overlooked it I think because Sony didn't put that much effort into it in later years. Some SLT's are OK value (A58/57 etc) some of the later ones are a bit expensive (A99, A77II).
@@MrBazReviews yep, and i'd say its really cheap to the perfomances they offer, i got my A65 for 120 bucks and i love it, i get the nex 6 for 100 bucks tho (for a better light body (and iso managment) but yes i love A mount
It's unlikely due to the cost and fact they are higher end lenses. Some people are still looking at Minolta lenses, but as Sony dropped A mount I only have a few items left as I sold off most of my equipment. Honestly the main issue is that higher end lenses get less interest then the more affordable ones do (the Beercan still gets quite a lot of views it's a popular one)
Also have a bunch of the old Minolta lenses. You can get a wide variety of lenses for the price of a new Sony lens. The 200 mm f2.8 HS - sharpness and bokeh... 100mm f2.8 Macro - sharpness comparable to the Sony FE zeis 55mm f1.8. (50mm Macro is also good, but not as sharp as the 100mm) My most used zoom lens 28-105mm RS. Not super, but good in daylight and cheap. 35-105 with macro switch - for the typical color this lens produces. And my most used long portrait lens: The pocket rocket 135mm f2.8. Is a good alrounder lens, lightweight and small. The 80-200 HS good, but heavy.
Some of these old lenses are still quite good optics wise (copies do vary of course the 28-105mm I had 2 one was notably better than the other). They have flaws, yet are still very usable in my view
hi sir, i already have sony 70-300 g ssm. from your opinion, which one is the best if i want to purchase another telephoto lens at f2.8. 80-200 mm f2.8 apo or 200mm f2.8 prime? i also has a 2x tc for the more reach if required
200mm prime can take more teleconverters, the 80-200mm can only be used with a few third party ones (Kenko). Depends if you need the zoom or lighter weight of the 200mm prime. If the TC is a must have and you have one then the prime is the obvious choice for you.
@@MrBazReviews hi sir, i have change the order last minute and had received minolta 200mm f2.8 this morning. thank you for the suggestion very happy with this lens and it works well with my 2x kenko tc!!! the IQ is superb
Thank you for the very useful assortment of lenses reviewed. I purchased some of the lenses mentioned after recently buying a used Maxxum 600si in a local camera store. Less expensive (so far) for me to buy a Maxxum A-Mount with some prime and zoom lenses rather than spend much more money on a few additional MD lenses for my old Minolta MD cameras. Once bulk film arrives, I can load cartridges and shoot with each lens like it is the 1990s again.😉
Yes many of the SR/MD mount lenses are priced fairly high, the reality is a lot of the A mount designs are based on the MD/Rokkor ones. I think there is a bit of folk lore with some MD lenses about how the later ones non Rokkor branded are somehow bad or sub par. Every lens is unique, there are good and bad ones on many mounts. The A Mount ones are easy enough to adapt, and there are some unique bargains there. Thanks for the comment I appreciate it
@@MrBazReviews it would be nice if it were possible to adapt A-Mount lenses to cameras other than E-Mount Sony. Earlier, lower resolution Sony digital cameras still appear to sell well. Regrettably, I did not have the cash reserves to buy the A-Mount Sony's at time of production.
@@robertcuny934 You can adapt them but you have to adjust the focus manually and aperture, I looked at some K&F adapters they are fairly good. The Sony adapter works well enough with AF, but no AF for video (deliberate move probably by Sony even the older LAEA4 could do that with some limitations). Body support for screw drive AF is limited really A7IV, A7RV, A1 etc, only a couple of APS-C bodies work A6600/6700. That's why I passed on it because I need video AF, too expensive to buy the bodies. Had the A7III worked with the LAEA5 might have considered it viable cost wise
I picked up a Sony a700 3 yrs ago so I could re-use my lenses from my Maxxum 7000, was my pandemic activity... building a kit with used body and digging around for classics like the beer can 70-210mm f4, 24mm 2.8, and even picked up a Sigma 90mm f2.8. A Tokina telephoto for my Maxxum however was not sensed by the a700, so that was not usable.
All lenses should be chipped, so maybe the Tokina had a problem with the EPROM (that's the chip they program). I have used Tokina lenses on A Mount without a problem. A700 is quite cheap these days, might do a video on it at some point as it seems popular for a used affordable body.
I could make my photos look great thanks to minolta glass. I got myself a 80-200 f2.8G, a 85mm 1.4G and the 50mm 1.7 you got too. Whenever I show people my photos they ask if I use a medium format camera, and I answer "no, I use a Sony A77II". My next pick is just a whimsical impulse, i'm doubting between the 400mm f4.5 or the SSM 300mm f2.8 / 300mm HS apo 2.8 just for the aesthetics. But i'm at conflict. IMO the best looking is the 400mm (it's big and has a massive lens hood, just as I like), the ssm is a good balance between the two but it's the most expensive, and the 300mm f2.8 APO is the best of the bunch as far as AF and wide open performance goes, but it's too small to impress myself whenever i would use it. I don't shoot photos around people, mostly go alone, but I love to pull out my camera and huge lenses and stare at them like a mother admires her newly adopted baby with pride.
The only drawback to SSM is can you get the lens serviced if there is a problem? For this reason I tended to go with screw drive mostly on A Mount. There might be used parts around, but even the later Sony G lenses, evidently can't be serviced due to no parts being available. Something to think about perhaps. Also might be worth looking at a full frame body at some point, just an idea for you.
@@MrBazReviews yes, i have in mind the a7m4, I'll buy an extra shutter mechanism along with la-ea5 with it for the future. I will still shoot in APS-C with it with the 90mm/80-200 and 150-600s nonetheless since I'm mostly focused on telephoto. A7IV seems to be more than enough for 10 more years for me. If the a6700 wasn't a glorified video camera i would buy it instead, despite being aps-c. I can't help but heave when I see that 25 milisecond electronic shutter readout and the mechanical shutter being limited to 1/4000 and less. Nonetheless I don't blame Sony, because every other camera brand is doing the same. Photographers are becoming youtubers lol.
@@MrBazReviews hello, I just got an A7IV and it focuses fantastically but that's on the 85mm 1.8 E mount lens you find in every random tech store. I am waiting for the LA-EA5 but it comes from DHL Netherlands ground freight. Package has been rolling for two days straight without stopping in any warehouse inbetween NL and my destination so I guess it's not detouring to Leipzig.
@@kingghidorah8106 The adapter is quite good, you lose video AF sadly (guess Sony didn't want to make it too good!). It works well mostly, though typical for mirrorless not so well if image is way out of focus, the macro lenses I tried on it really require manual intervention, not just a Sony thing seems common on all MILC bodies. Speed is decent, perhaps the A mount native cameras have a bit more torque/drive power. If you have a bunch of A Mount lenses to use it's worth getting. A7IV is a nice enough camera, lot of cropping power there if that's important for you.
@@MrBazReviews i do love heavy lenses with a lot of torque, and yes macro lenses require manual override constantly, I had to do it in A77II, and it's going to make me extremely sad if the difference is very noticeable in af speed/torque. I just love how the 80-200 feels. When I clicked the A7M4 for the first time I was delighted when the entire camera shook with the shutter mechanism (solenoid>servo), now unless the new la-ea5 is any sort of updated variant like these shady model revamps that are released without previous warning i would probably go for it forever. But something I realized is that Sony was marketing standard silent autofocus lenses as "premium G glass" despite other cameras of their age already had silent autofocus lenses as kit (and I don't mean SAM lenses, they're not silent) I have a 16-50 2.8 (dt) SSM and that thing beeps loud near the inaudible Hz range, my parents and friends can't hear it but my dog looks at me whenever she hears the lens turning and I can hear it too.
Only used it once, for a quick play around. Somewhat hazy at 1.4, gets fairly good at 1.7-2 aperture. It was a very expensive lens in it's day (G lens), Sony re-badged it too. I didn't feel the performance justified the retail price, but if you can pick one up for a good deal it might be worth a look. It has it's fans, some people swear by it and love the rendering. I wouldn't pay a high price for one.
It's quite good but of course the range is fairly limited for a zoom lens. Have to stop it down quite a bit at 24mm to get good corners (not quite sharp but not bad). It depends if you want the 24mm it's not bad for what it is (bit like the 35-70mm F4 has it's flaws but cheap and light/small)
100-200mm/f4.5 worked well as a sub-lens in the mountains. It seems to be rainproof. I remember it was originally made at the request of the Japanese police (for photographing speeding cars). 24-85mm zoom lens has less distortion and vignetting than 24-105mm and is easier to use digitally. 17-35mm/f3.5 is another noteworthy descriptive lens.
I did try the 24-85mm, but found my copy had some haze effect going up to 50mm and beyond, it cleared up stopping down slightly. I felt the 24-105mm was better overall (it didn't show the same haze effect tele end), but the 24-85mm has less distortion. I know copies vary though and it can be hard to get an accurate picture. 28-105mm seems to be optically the best from what I have used. 100-200mm I owned twice, sold it then re-bought it, and grew to like it even more than the 70-210mm. It's often overlooked, just that long min focus thing to hold it back a bit.
@@MrBazReviews I'm sure the 24-105mm has more contrast than the 24-85mm, but I think I got good enough colours. I think that these popular class lenses are not perfectly made for the body, and care must be taken when shooting them.
@@nex3movie Hard to say as samples vary, the one I had was almost new, but that doesn't mean much. The 24-105mm is a curious lens, it covers a nice range, but with pretty hefty distortion. Still it's a very compact lens. A better 24-85mm sample might impress more. You know if you are happy with a lens I think, and there are some nice deals out there on Minolta ones.
As the owner of both the 17-35 2.8-4 lens and the Minolta 17-35 G 3.5 lens I would say the G version is better in every way to the KM-version. It focuses as fast, is sharper and has overall better image quality. The KM version only has 2.8 in the widest range and there I personally don't find it sharper compared to just having 3.5 with the G-version. Great video as always though! I really like you videos and appreciated the shout out to the 200mm 2.8 lens which is simply fantastic. I preferer it even to my 80-200 APO just for the sharpness and size and often just bring the 85 1.4 D to supplement lacking 80mm
You could be right, it's just a question of availability/price, the 3.5 G is more expensive and seems harder to find. It's true the 2.8-4 isn't amazing, but I've used a few copies and it is overall quite good, just need to be stopped right down at 17mm, samples vary I found a few good ones, one poor one. The 200mm prime is good, again it's maybe the 80-200mm is more versatile, I've often found the wider part can be useful for action, events when you need to zoom back. Both are very good lenses. A mount never had a good selection of Ultra Wide Zooms, even the Sony 16-35mm I heard pretty mixed reports on it. It was expensive too, no affordable one was ever made bar maybe that KM/Tamron re-badge. On APS-C Sony just kept the old 11-18mm, I bought a Tokina 11-16mm because again they never did an updated crop UWA either, lot of gaps there. So many people bought a 70-210mm f4 at the time, and still do due to the low price!
@@MrBazReviews Thais very true and I had lot of fun with the 28-4 before I finally got the 3.5 G. I did get the 3.5 G together with the 28-70 2.8 G for a steal, but even then the 2.8-4 was much cheaper. It was the same with my portrait lenses, I also started with the 135mm for it's price and eventually got the 85mm D. It's a pity Minolta quit the business when they did. They always were forerunners with lenses having many firsts. Also design wise (completely subjective of course), but the 85mm 1.4 D, the 28-70mm g and the sort are such beautiful lenses compared to the competition in my completely biased opinion. Thank you for responding so fast and I do look forward to more great videos!
@@sofiadahlen1187 I would still be using them today if Minolta were around, out of all the makers they were the most innovative and were not scared to try new things. I don't see that with E Mount, tried a few bodies and just can't get along with them. I still have a few Minolta things left! So a talented Musician from Sweden! That is interesting. Many Musicians like photography too. Ha en bra dag!
Amazon - amzn.to/4apoScs
Slik Tripods - amzn.to/3xvHxVA
You can support content creation on Patreon:
www.patreon.com/mrbazreviews
Or by using the Amazon affiliate links, at no cost to yourself (this helps a lot you can buy any items off any links I post)
50mm 1.7 - amzn.to/49qoNnC
28mm 2.8 - amzn.to/3JaYib4
100mm Macro 2.8 - amzn.to/3vOARkY
28-105mm - amzn.to/3xDeLlK
35-70mm - amzn.to/43QjT29
80-200mm - amzn.to/4cSqtcl
70-210mm - amzn.to/3JfC6fS
100-200mm - amzn.to/43W0WeA
17-35mm - amzn.to/3VSARL5
28-135m - amzn.to/3TQGLK9
24-105mm - amzn.to/3TUhjU1
100-300mm APO - amzn.to/3Q1i0d9
100-400mm APO - amzn.to/3JcYgzr
500mm Reflex F8 - amzn.to/3Uc6ePG
Its amazing how viable these old lenses are especially at the prices many of them go for. I have had quite a few you covered.
Many are, with the usual weaker points some have like purple fringing, and the older coatings are not great with flare on some.
But, they have a look which is unique and that Minolta contrast is there on most.
Flaws are part of a lens I think, some modern lenses are great, yet some feel they are also lacking character too. I would agree though look at each offering on it's own.
@@MrBazReviews yes I love the look of the Minolta AF lenses. You are right the lens should add character. Its one thing I do love about mirrorless is that I can access so many other camera systems particularly those that are obsolete such as Minolta manual and Contax. I wish Minolta had produced a faster prime around 135mm, I am debating whether the 135/2.8 would be worth having since I already have the 80-200/2.8.
@@gregkempchannel I tend to go with a 100mm or similar Macro, as it's 2.8 it's still fast but much lighter/smaller than a 80-200mm. I find that works well for many situations, if 135mm is worth it hard to say
I tend to space out the primes hence 28/50/100 etc. The Minolta 135mm is pretty cheap, I had over 25 lenses at one time I think way too many.
@@MrBazReviews Yea I overlooked the 100/2 because I have the 85/1.4 (1987 version) so I figured that's not much of a step but it could still be useful for me. I do a lot of low light and I love wide open DoF and bokeh on these lenses. I'll have another look at the 100.
I probably shouldn't admit how many lenses I have....the truth is I don't know, though lots of cheap old ones from various systems I mess with on my E-mounts.
Just got the Minolta 50 mm 1.7 yesterday. An amazing lens on my a65 and works great manually on a a7r4. Super sharp great bokeh!
My personal top lenses:
1. 80-200mm 2.8 HS. I like the speed, AF, & creamy bokeh. It's very loud though. Also useable AF with w/ 2x Tamron AF tele-converter, for kicks.
2. 28-70mm 2.8 G. I like it for it's 3D like photos & bokeh.
3. 500mm 8 Reflex lens. Compact & light. Donut is OK if you frame your photos.
I used them with A7SII + LA-EA4. Now I will be using them with A7C.
I always wanted to try the 28-70mm G, but heard there were issues on some copies (front element or something like it)
I had the LA-EA4 once it was OK, bit bulky but at least it works with many older bodies (doesn't work with new ones though for some reason)
@@MrBazReviews Yep, I had few 28-70mm Gs over the years. But I had no issues. I think they are cheap enough to take a jump? The last cam compatible with LA-EA4 is A7C, so stuck with that combo. Maybe newer bodies focus speed incompatibility? It's mystery for me as well.
Since you went strictly minolta, I thought I'd throw in some A mount alternatives :)
1. Tamron 90mm F2.8
This lens replaced my Sony 85 f2.8. Its slightly longer compared to the compact 85, but its about the same size as the Minolta 100mm. Usually cheaper compared to the Minolta and covers the same range.
2. Tokina 20-35mm f3.5-f4.5
Not as wide or as fast as the Tamron/Minolta 17-35. But covers the same range. Got mine for around £60. I feels it is sharp and a good value for wide angle photography.
3. Minolta 24-50 f4
Sold mine since I got the Tokina, but this lens is nice for indoor events and general compact walkabout when paired with the beercan. Usually people say the 35-70 performs better. But considering the wider fov, I think the performance is acceptable.
4. Tokina 11-16 f2.8
This APSC lens has full frame coverage at 16mm. It heavy but it doubles up nicely for situations where you really need that ultrawide end. I treated it as a 16mm f2.8 prime on my A99.
Thanks for that yes I wanted to just include Minolta (though a few are Tamron designs)
The 11-16mm was a smart move for Tokina, Sony never bothered to update the APS-C Ultra Wide zoom and that lens is far superior to the old Tamron designed 11-18mm one.
It's tricky v the 100mm Minolta to the Tamron 90mm, I like the Tamron a lot but felt the Minolta has a slight edge for rendering at longer distances. Both are excellent though. The Sigma 105mm is probably optically the best lens for Macro Users (the latest version), though it's a bit heavier/larger.
Luminar Links (this helps fund the channel too at no extra cost to yourself)
Luminar Neo - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/1869007/3255
Luminar Mobile - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/1965581/3255
Aperty - skylum.evyy.net/c/1444360/2040463/3255
(10% Discount Code: MrBazReviews10)
For the price. Theses are a excellent option
I think so many are quite affordable
@@MrBazReviews yeah!
Cheaper to store my MD mount bodies and purchase Minolta A-Mount cameras and lenses rather than spend more for fewer MD mount lenses.
A lot of good suggestions there! I still use the 28 2.8 fairly regularly, maybe on film soon too as I'm getting my Minolta 600si going again, in any case I think the 28 2.8 is a little underrated on apsc digital as is the little 35-70 zoom, I have one of those too, I'd almost forgotten about it until I saw your review on it a few days ago. Another nice Minolta zoom I no longer own is the 35-105 3.5 4.5, that seems to have a good reputation too, worked nicely for me for a while but replaced it with a Sony 55-200, also a good apsc lens.
I always felt the 28mm 2.8 was underrated a bit (found the copies I tried to be decent optics wise and it's cheap to buy) used it on crop and full frame. The f/2 is so expensive in comparison, it's a shame they never released a newer version. The Sony branded 28mm 2.8 I had and they discontinued it (as they did with the 24-105mm, and never replaced either)
35-105mm is a solid lens, I went 28-105mm as I felt 28mm to 35mm is a notable difference, it might matter to some, thanks for your suggestion though and input.
@@MrBazReviews True 28-105 focal range is generally better on apsc especially. But the 35-105 f4 is also underrated generally I think. Probably because of the focal range. Think it was, a constant f4 if I remember correctly. I'd forgotten that. No, 3.5-4.5. Pretty inexpensive on ebay and elsewhere, one of Minolta's better zooms. As you point out the 50 1.7 is still a good deal too and probably also underrated.
@@timatwater8247 Pretty sure it was 3.5-4.5, like most of the others. Today that seems strangely fast! Look at the Canon RF 24-105mm it's 7.1 at the tele end! (the one most people can afford kit one). Lenses got slower for some reason, not my idea of progress!
Thanks! I recently picked up a Sony a300 for next to nothing and was pleasantly surprised to find out these 80s Minolta lenses were dirt cheap. I mainly shoot fashion and portraits, so started with the 50 f/1.7 and 28 f/2.8 and just recently got the 70-210 f/4 and the 35-70 f/4 I picked up all 4 lenses for $120 total, cant beat that with any other system I can think of. I mean, even the Canon EF 70-210 f/4 MACRO runs around $100 for one in good shape. Also really like the contrast and color from these lenses. They have that character thats sadly lacking from most every over-sharpened mirrorless lens these days that produce sterile images. Looking to pick up a FF Sony A mount camera next. What would be your choice for one thats moderately priced?
I agree the new trend in lenses is super sharp, but lacking in other areas - some of them have a less than exciting look to images, but I take each lens on it's own merits/drawbacks. Sharpness is just one area of a lens, a point many makers seem to forget.
Unfortunately full frame body prices are increasing, to a degree on the used market. So really you have the A850/900 bodies, or the A99 is the next option up in price. I wouldn't consider the A99II a wise investment. It's a shame Sony never bothered to make a budget (D610 type) body, because it probably would have pushed prices down long term.
A850/900 have a really good viewfinder, though somewhat dated sensor. A99 has more dynamic range but also the SLT/EVF which might or might not work for you.
I have the 50mm f1.7 that i found for 30 bucks, the 20mm f2.8 for 50, and i have the 100-300 apo wich is AWESOME, i use them on myA65 and nex 6 (With LA EA4) and oh god their wonderful, very sharp, speed af,... (35-105 and 100-200 incoming for 15 bucks EACH)
I also have the sigma 28-105 uc3 wich i got for 20 bucks and its so good, i can't understand why peoples (non pro) get high end and super expensive camera gear an lenses while you can have super good lenses with a very low budget
If YOU want to start photography, go grab a SLT camera (can be found in the 100 bucks) and some old minolta lenses, for less than 200 bucks you can have a very good setup to start
Also, very good video!
Thanks, yes there are some unbeatable bargains for A Mount and many of these lenses are still very decent performers. A mount always was a great deal, many overlooked it I think because Sony didn't put that much effort into it in later years. Some SLT's are OK value (A58/57 etc) some of the later ones are a bit expensive (A99, A77II).
@@MrBazReviews yep, and i'd say its really cheap to the perfomances they offer, i got my A65 for 120 bucks and i love it, i get the nex 6 for 100 bucks tho (for a better light body (and iso managment)
but yes i love A mount
Will you ever checkout MInolta AF Apo Tele 400mm f/4.5 G or the Minolta AF APO TELE 300mm f/2.8?
It's unlikely due to the cost and fact they are higher end lenses. Some people are still looking at Minolta lenses, but as Sony dropped A mount I only have a few items left as I sold off most of my equipment. Honestly the main issue is that higher end lenses get less interest then the more affordable ones do (the Beercan still gets quite a lot of views it's a popular one)
Also have a bunch of the old Minolta lenses. You can get a wide variety of lenses for the price of a new Sony lens. The 200 mm f2.8 HS - sharpness and bokeh... 100mm f2.8 Macro - sharpness comparable to the Sony FE zeis 55mm f1.8. (50mm Macro is also good, but not as sharp as the 100mm) My most used zoom lens 28-105mm RS. Not super, but good in daylight and cheap. 35-105 with macro switch - for the typical color this lens produces. And my most used long portrait lens: The pocket rocket 135mm f2.8. Is a good alrounder lens, lightweight and small. The 80-200 HS good, but heavy.
Some of these old lenses are still quite good optics wise (copies do vary of course the 28-105mm I had 2 one was notably better than the other). They have flaws, yet are still very usable in my view
hi sir, i already have sony 70-300 g ssm. from your opinion, which one is the best if i want to purchase another telephoto lens at f2.8. 80-200 mm f2.8 apo or 200mm f2.8 prime? i also has a 2x tc for the more reach if required
200mm prime can take more teleconverters, the 80-200mm can only be used with a few third party ones (Kenko). Depends if you need the zoom or lighter weight of the 200mm prime. If the TC is a must have and you have one then the prime is the obvious choice for you.
@MrBazReviews thank you sir for the recommendation. after all the studies maybe i will go for 80-200 since the kenko tc works with this lens.
@@adamnuqman2414 You will like it very good lens
@@MrBazReviews hi sir, i have change the order last minute and had received minolta 200mm f2.8 this morning. thank you for the suggestion very happy with this lens and it works well with my 2x kenko tc!!! the IQ is superb
@@adamnuqman2414 Yes can't go wrong with either lens both excellent you will like using this lens well made and great optics!
Have you tried 50mm macro lenses? Currently I am shooting with 50mm f3.5 and it's really sharp.
I used the 50mm 2.8 version it's a very good lens, I just prefer a longer macro typically.
That's a great lens, same as the later Sony but often much cheaper.
Thank you for the very useful assortment of lenses reviewed.
I purchased some of the lenses mentioned after recently buying a used Maxxum 600si in a local camera store.
Less expensive (so far) for me to buy a Maxxum A-Mount with some prime and zoom lenses rather than spend much more money on a few additional MD lenses for my old Minolta MD cameras.
Once bulk film arrives, I can load cartridges and shoot with each lens like it is the 1990s again.😉
Yes many of the SR/MD mount lenses are priced fairly high, the reality is a lot of the A mount designs are based on the MD/Rokkor ones. I think there is a bit of folk lore with some MD lenses about how the later ones non Rokkor branded are somehow bad or sub par. Every lens is unique, there are good and bad ones on many mounts. The A Mount ones are easy enough to adapt, and there are some unique bargains there. Thanks for the comment I appreciate it
@@MrBazReviews it would be nice if it were possible to adapt A-Mount lenses to cameras other than E-Mount Sony. Earlier, lower resolution Sony digital cameras still appear to sell well. Regrettably, I did not have the cash reserves to buy the A-Mount Sony's at time of production.
@@robertcuny934 You can adapt them but you have to adjust the focus manually and aperture, I looked at some K&F adapters they are fairly good. The Sony adapter works well enough with AF, but no AF for video (deliberate move probably by Sony even the older LAEA4 could do that with some limitations). Body support for screw drive AF is limited really A7IV, A7RV, A1 etc, only a couple of APS-C bodies work A6600/6700.
That's why I passed on it because I need video AF, too expensive to buy the bodies.
Had the A7III worked with the LAEA5 might have considered it viable cost wise
@@MrBazReviews Thank you for the insight into lens adaptor utility and the K&F adaptor suggestion.
I picked up a Sony a700 3 yrs ago so I could re-use my lenses from my Maxxum 7000, was my pandemic activity... building a kit with used body and digging around for classics like the beer can 70-210mm f4, 24mm 2.8, and even picked up a Sigma 90mm f2.8. A Tokina telephoto for my Maxxum however was not sensed by the a700, so that was not usable.
All lenses should be chipped, so maybe the Tokina had a problem with the EPROM (that's the chip they program). I have used Tokina lenses on A Mount without a problem. A700 is quite cheap these days, might do a video on it at some point as it seems popular for a used affordable body.
I could make my photos look great thanks to minolta glass. I got myself a 80-200 f2.8G, a 85mm 1.4G and the 50mm 1.7 you got too. Whenever I show people my photos they ask if I use a medium format camera, and I answer "no, I use a Sony A77II". My next pick is just a whimsical impulse, i'm doubting between the 400mm f4.5 or the SSM 300mm f2.8 / 300mm HS apo 2.8 just for the aesthetics. But i'm at conflict. IMO the best looking is the 400mm (it's big and has a massive lens hood, just as I like), the ssm is a good balance between the two but it's the most expensive, and the 300mm f2.8 APO is the best of the bunch as far as AF and wide open performance goes, but it's too small to impress myself whenever i would use it.
I don't shoot photos around people, mostly go alone, but I love to pull out my camera and huge lenses and stare at them like a mother admires her newly adopted baby with pride.
The only drawback to SSM is can you get the lens serviced if there is a problem? For this reason I tended to go with screw drive mostly on A Mount. There might be used parts around, but even the later Sony G lenses, evidently can't be serviced due to no parts being available. Something to think about perhaps.
Also might be worth looking at a full frame body at some point, just an idea for you.
@@MrBazReviews yes, i have in mind the a7m4, I'll buy an extra shutter mechanism along with la-ea5 with it for the future. I will still shoot in APS-C with it with the 90mm/80-200 and 150-600s nonetheless since I'm mostly focused on telephoto. A7IV seems to be more than enough for 10 more years for me. If the a6700 wasn't a glorified video camera i would buy it instead, despite being aps-c. I can't help but heave when I see that 25 milisecond electronic shutter readout and the mechanical shutter being limited to 1/4000 and less. Nonetheless I don't blame Sony, because every other camera brand is doing the same. Photographers are becoming youtubers lol.
@@MrBazReviews hello, I just got an A7IV and it focuses fantastically but that's on the 85mm 1.8 E mount lens you find in every random tech store. I am waiting for the LA-EA5 but it comes from DHL Netherlands ground freight. Package has been rolling for two days straight without stopping in any warehouse inbetween NL and my destination so I guess it's not detouring to Leipzig.
@@kingghidorah8106 The adapter is quite good, you lose video AF sadly (guess Sony didn't want to make it too good!). It works well mostly, though typical for mirrorless not so well if image is way out of focus, the macro lenses I tried on it really require manual intervention, not just a Sony thing seems common on all MILC bodies. Speed is decent, perhaps the A mount native cameras have a bit more torque/drive power. If you have a bunch of A Mount lenses to use it's worth getting. A7IV is a nice enough camera, lot of cropping power there if that's important for you.
@@MrBazReviews i do love heavy lenses with a lot of torque, and yes macro lenses require manual override constantly, I had to do it in A77II, and it's going to make me extremely sad if the difference is very noticeable in af speed/torque. I just love how the 80-200 feels. When I clicked the A7M4 for the first time I was delighted when the entire camera shook with the shutter mechanism (solenoid>servo), now unless the new la-ea5 is any sort of updated variant like these shady model revamps that are released without previous warning i would probably go for it forever.
But something I realized is that Sony was marketing standard silent autofocus lenses as "premium G glass" despite other cameras of their age already had silent autofocus lenses as kit (and I don't mean SAM lenses, they're not silent)
I have a 16-50 2.8 (dt) SSM and that thing beeps loud near the inaudible Hz range, my parents and friends can't hear it but my dog looks at me whenever she hears the lens turning and I can hear it too.
Heya, do you have any strong thoughts on the 35 1.4?
Only used it once, for a quick play around. Somewhat hazy at 1.4, gets fairly good at 1.7-2 aperture. It was a very expensive lens in it's day (G lens), Sony re-badged it too. I didn't feel the performance justified the retail price, but if you can pick one up for a good deal it might be worth a look. It has it's fans, some people swear by it and love the rendering. I wouldn't pay a high price for one.
How’s the 24-50mm??
It's quite good but of course the range is fairly limited for a zoom lens. Have to stop it down quite a bit at 24mm to get good corners (not quite sharp but not bad). It depends if you want the 24mm it's not bad for what it is (bit like the 35-70mm F4 has it's flaws but cheap and light/small)
100-200mm/f4.5 worked well as a sub-lens in the mountains. It seems to be rainproof. I remember it was originally made at the request of the Japanese police (for photographing speeding cars).
24-85mm zoom lens has less distortion and vignetting than 24-105mm and is easier to use digitally.
17-35mm/f3.5 is another noteworthy descriptive lens.
I did try the 24-85mm, but found my copy had some haze effect going up to 50mm and beyond, it cleared up stopping down slightly. I felt the 24-105mm was better overall (it didn't show the same haze effect tele end), but the 24-85mm has less distortion. I know copies vary though and it can be hard to get an accurate picture. 28-105mm seems to be optically the best from what I have used. 100-200mm I owned twice, sold it then re-bought it, and grew to like it even more than the 70-210mm. It's often overlooked, just that long min focus thing to hold it back a bit.
@@MrBazReviews I'm sure the 24-105mm has more contrast than the 24-85mm, but I think I got good enough colours. I think that these popular class lenses are not perfectly made for the body, and care must be taken when shooting them.
@@nex3movie Hard to say as samples vary, the one I had was almost new, but that doesn't mean much. The 24-105mm is a curious lens, it covers a nice range, but with pretty hefty distortion. Still it's a very compact lens. A better 24-85mm sample might impress more. You know if you are happy with a lens I think, and there are some nice deals out there on Minolta ones.
A jakim aparatem Pan fotografował?
Many different ones KM5D, A77, A57, A99 etc etc.
minolta 20 mm f2.8😊
It's pretty good but not a favourite of mine
As the owner of both the 17-35 2.8-4 lens and the Minolta 17-35 G 3.5 lens I would say the G version is better in every way to the KM-version. It focuses as fast, is sharper and has overall better image quality. The KM version only has 2.8 in the widest range and there I personally don't find it sharper compared to just having 3.5 with the G-version.
Great video as always though! I really like you videos and appreciated the shout out to the 200mm 2.8 lens which is simply fantastic. I preferer it even to my 80-200 APO just for the sharpness and size and often just bring the 85 1.4 D to supplement lacking 80mm
You could be right, it's just a question of availability/price, the 3.5 G is more expensive and seems harder to find. It's true the 2.8-4 isn't amazing, but I've used a few copies and it is overall quite good, just need to be stopped right down at 17mm, samples vary I found a few good ones, one poor one. The 200mm prime is good, again it's maybe the 80-200mm is more versatile, I've often found the wider part can be useful for action, events when you need to zoom back. Both are very good lenses.
A mount never had a good selection of Ultra Wide Zooms, even the Sony 16-35mm I heard pretty mixed reports on it. It was expensive too, no affordable one was ever made bar maybe that KM/Tamron re-badge. On APS-C Sony just kept the old 11-18mm, I bought a Tokina 11-16mm because again they never did an updated crop UWA either, lot of gaps there. So many people bought a 70-210mm f4 at the time, and still do due to the low price!
@@MrBazReviews Thais very true and I had lot of fun with the 28-4 before I finally got the 3.5 G. I did get the 3.5 G together with the 28-70 2.8 G for a steal, but even then the 2.8-4 was much cheaper.
It was the same with my portrait lenses, I also started with the 135mm for it's price and eventually got the 85mm D.
It's a pity Minolta quit the business when they did. They always were forerunners with lenses having many firsts. Also design wise (completely subjective of course), but the 85mm 1.4 D, the 28-70mm g and the sort are such beautiful lenses compared to the competition in my completely biased opinion.
Thank you for responding so fast and I do look forward to more great videos!
@@sofiadahlen1187 I would still be using them today if Minolta were around, out of all the makers they were the most innovative and were not scared to try new things. I don't see that with E Mount, tried a few bodies and just can't get along with them. I still have a few Minolta things left! So a talented Musician from Sweden! That is interesting. Many Musicians like photography too. Ha en bra dag!
Minolta af 80-200 G is my Favorite lens。
I think I agree, it's a great lens overall