Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Maxxum/Dynax 7D wide-angle lens?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:36:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

I've recently purchased a 7D and am using it with the lenses I used to have
on my old 500si. Stock 35-70 and 75-300

I'ld like to get some wider angle of view and am looking for some advice on
which lens(s) I should be considering

Recommendations anyone? Alan?

Toa
New Zealand
July 24, 2005 1:36:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
> I've recently purchased a 7D and am using it with the lenses I used to have
> on my old 500si. Stock 35-70 and 75-300
>
> I'ld like to get some wider angle of view and am looking for some advice on
> which lens(s) I should be considering
>
> Recommendations anyone? Alan?
>
> Toa
> New Zealand
>
>


I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough stick
time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.

And then there's this fresh from KM's news page...

http://tinyurl.com/b48u7

or...

http://kmpi.konicaminolta.us/eprise/main/kmpi/content/c...

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 1:36:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jer wrote:

> Toa wrote:

>
> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough stick
> time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.

f/3.5 you mean?

It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.

> And then there's this fresh from KM's news page...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/b48u7

Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you
want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well.

Cheers,
Alan


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Related resources
July 24, 2005 3:58:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Toa wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough
>> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.
>
>
> f/3.5 you mean?
>
> It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
> is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.


http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
or http://tinyurl.com/agnfs

I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned.

>
>> And then there's this fresh from KM's news page...
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/b48u7
>
>
> Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you
> want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well.


True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward
compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming I
ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D.


--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 24, 2005 8:52:14 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Jer wrote:

> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>> Jer wrote:
>>
>>> Toa wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough
>>> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.
>>
>>
>>
>> f/3.5 you mean?
>>
>> It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high
>> price is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8
>> - f/4.
>
>
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>
> or http://tinyurl.com/agnfs
>
> I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned.

Yes. Variable aperture (f/2.8 - f/4). The older Minolta model is fixed
aperture ( f/3.5 ) and about 3.5X more expensive. That is the one I've
been intending to buy. But for 2/7 the money I could get the
"Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version.

>> Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you
>> want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well.
>
> True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward
> compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming I
> ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D.

If you do, you'll likely have to ship both the flash and the camera back
to Minolta for calibration of some sort. I haven't done this yet
although there is about a 1.5 - 1.7 stop under flash. In the fall I'll
be shooting film only, so I'll ship both back then for calibration and
probably buy a secong 5600HS at the same time.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
July 24, 2005 10:12:50 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:
> Jer wrote:
>
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>>
>>> Jer wrote:
>>>
>>>> Toa wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I recently acquired a new KM 17-35mm f/2.8(D) lens, but not enough
>>>> stick time with it yet - however, my prelim is it's a keeper.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> f/3.5 you mean?
>>>
>>> It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high
>>> price is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8
>>> - f/4.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=produ...
>>
>> or http://tinyurl.com/agnfs
>>
>> I presume this is the rebadged model you mentioned.
>
>
> Yes. Variable aperture (f/2.8 - f/4). The older Minolta model is fixed
> aperture ( f/3.5 ) and about 3.5X more expensive. That is the one I've
> been intending to buy. But for 2/7 the money I could get the
> "Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version.
>
>>> Consumer / cropped sensor lenses. If you still have film cameras you
>>> want to use, then avoid these. These are relatively slow, as well.
>>
>>
>> True, but my recent acquisition wasn't intended to be backward
>> compatible with a film chassis. At least it's ADI compliant, assuming
>> I ever get a 5600 strobe for the 7D.
>
>
> If you do, you'll likely have to ship both the flash and the camera back
> to Minolta for calibration of some sort. I haven't done this yet
> although there is about a 1.5 - 1.7 stop under flash. In the fall I'll
> be shooting film only, so I'll ship both back then for calibration and
> probably buy a secong 5600HS at the same time.
>
> Cheers,
> Alan


I don't do a lot of work with strobes, but I'll keep this in mind. Thanks.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 12:55:48 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Alan Browne wrote:

> But for 2/7 the money I could get the
> "Tamron-Konica-Minolta-soon-to-include-Sony-in-this-space" version.

"Brand name continued on next camera." ;^)

I bet Minolta is beginning to look back fondly on the time when their
only problem was getting sued by Exxon for overlapping the 'X's in
'Maxxum'...

Bob ^,,^
July 25, 2005 2:06:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
>>It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
>>is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.
>>Alan
>
>
> What's your view on Sigma?
>
> Say the 24mm f1.8
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
>
> Or the 18-125mm F3.5
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...
>
> Toa
>
>

I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience
with them. They seem to offer competitive lenses at reasonable price
points. The nice fella at the local shop was pushing...

http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

....mainly because he knows I like really long lenses and he only wanted
a grand for it. I borrowed it for a while outside and doofed around
with it, seemed to do okay, but I've already deleted the playtime shots. :( 

Maybe someone else can chime in with some Sigma experiences.

--
jer
email reply - I am not a 'ten'
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:28:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:

>>It has long been on my A list and I'm trying to decide if the high price
>>is worth it v. the new Tamron made (Minolta badged) 17-35 f/2.8 - f/4.
>>Alan
>
>
> What's your view on Sigma?
>
> Say the 24mm f1.8
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

Given that it's a prime, there is a good chance that it is at least
"okay", possibly very good. The photo example at the Sigma site is not
a great example (poor contrast or possibly a poor scan).

>
> Or the 18-125mm F3.5
> http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

There are few Sigma's I would buy. The only one that comes to mind
right now is the 180mm f/3.5 macro.

My SO bought a 28-200 f/var that is 'okay'. Since she prints to 4x6 in
order to use scene material for her oil painting, it is fine for the
job. She (who is not terribly interested in photography itself) prefers
the look of the 50 f/1.7 when she can use it.

I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped
for the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not
very good.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 25, 2005 3:40:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I really don't know much about the Sigma line, don't have any experience
> with them. They seem to offer competitive lenses at reasonable price
> points. The nice fella at the local shop was pushing...
> jer

I like the look/price of the 18-125 lens
http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all_details.asp...

But I'm unsure if these lenses give a sufficiently clear image in comparison
to other lenses.

Toa
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:33:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

> I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for
> the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very
> good.
> Alan

I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand"
equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between
say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron

Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands?

Toa
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
[]
> I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about
> "name-brand" equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable
> difference between say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron
>
> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
> brands?

Even if the optical design were the same, cost savings can be achieved by
doing less quality control, so it's possible that some sources will
produce more bad lenses than others. But the optical design will be
different, more elements or fewer, using different glass, optimising for
best performance wide-open or stopped down, optimising for the wide-angle
or telephoto end of the zoom range.

The answer to your question: Yes.

David
Anonymous
July 26, 2005 1:33:16 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:

>>I've only bought Minolta lenses for my cameras. At that, I've shopped for
>>the best lenses they make, and I've sold off those that were not very
>>good.
>>Alan
>
>
> I can understand the rationale. But I've always wondered about "name-brand"
> equipment and whether for instance there is a noticeable difference between
> say Minolta and Sigma and Tamron
>
> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between brands?

Sigma make a few very-optically-good lenses. Construction is not as
good the as better OEM lenses. The mechanics feel cheap (esp. zoom) in
many Sigma lenses.

Tamron make several very good lenses. Tamron has (v. Sigma) a fairly
narrow line of lenses which include some jewels like the 90mm f/2.8 macro.

Tokina make several very good lenses, however, nits such as migrating
lubricants were a problem with some lenses in the past.

In the end, Nikon, Canon, Minolta et al make some real dogs too. But in
their better lenses, one cannot go seriously wrong. Just pay the piper.
With a patience and a bit of searching, you can get near new lenses
and save a lot of money.

Is it a personal thing? Sure. I would rather pay the premium and have
something that does what it is purported to do than pay half the price
and not have what I was expecting. To read the various magazines, many
third party lenses are "great value". Remember what value means and how
marketeers use the term.

Cheers,
Alan

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:39:53 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

>> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
>> brands?
>
> The answer to your question: Yes.
> David

Thought so <g>

Toa
Anonymous
July 27, 2005 1:39:54 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Toa wrote:
>>> Is it a personal thing or are there measureable differences between
>>> brands?
>>
>> The answer to your question: Yes.
>> David
>
> Thought so <g>
>
> Toa

Even so, considering MTF for example, some people may prefer a lens with a
long tail of MTF, providing detail at higher spatial frequencies, but at a
lower contrast level, whereas others may prefer a lens with a sharper
roll-off, but a higher MTF at mid spatial frequencies, so whilst you can
measure a difference, the measurements sometimes need to be interpreted in
accordance with your own tastes or needs.

Cheers,
David
!