Got a pair of lenses-worth it?

[minicoop1985]

Snagged 2 Minolta AFs: 35-70mm f/4 and a 100-200mm f/4.5. Both are constant apertures. Are these really worth having? Haven't had much of a chance to play with them yet, so I was wondering what you guys thought of them.

 

[Derrel]

35-70mm is a handy zoom range, nice size...not too overly large! 100-200mm f/4.5, yeah, that could be pretty useful. I remember both of those...the constant aperture is a nice thing. Minolta's AF lenses were usually pretty decent.

 

[minicoop1985]

Maybe this will convince my wife to hang on to these. I think she's partial to Sony branded lenses for some reason. I snagged them both with a Kiwi bag (old and kinda dirty, but HUGE-might try to clean it, might just pass it on) and a Minolta Maxxum 7000 that works (my other one doesn't) for $50 total. Seemed like a decent deal.

 

[DiskoJoe]

Both of these can be decent if in the right kind of condition.

 

[dxqcanada]

Minolta AF 35-70mm F4 lens detail page
Minolta AF 100-200mm F4.5 lens detail page

 

[astroNikon]

From the mind of Minolta !!

When my last Minolta film camera died after about 3 months of light use, I got a Nikon N80, which I recently sold.
Glad yours are still going strong.
Nice lenses.

 

[minicoop1985]

Thanks. I'm throwing some film through this one to see what happens. She still hasn't tested them on her A230 yet, so we'll see what their fate is. Here's a horrible cell phone photo of the Maxxum collection:

 

[dxqcanada]

You should get a Focusing Screen 70/90 Type PM for the 7000 ... as the AF is not so good and the microprism/split screen makes it easy for manual focusing.
I have this split screen in my Maxxum 9000 and I turn off the AF.

 

[minicoop1985]

If I keep it, I will definitely look into that. Single point AF is a bit annoying too...

 

[Stevepwns]

Both of those lenses are great IMO. I have both. The only down fall out of the 2 are... the 100 - 200 has a minimum focus of 4+ feet. Which is a pain in the but. I carry it when I don't feel like carrying my 2.8 70 - 200. Its really lite and produces great pictures, just the minimum focus distance is a pain in the but.

 

[minicoop1985]

I had her try them out for a couple days. While I liked them on her Alpha, she didn't care for them much. That minimum focus distance is what turned her off of the 100-200-she wants it more for macro kinda stuff. And that brings me to the 35-70... She's not big on the macro switch. Would much rather use AF to get in close, and with her a230 (viewfinder only-and her a55 is getting a cleaning), I don't blame her much there. Not the easiest thing I've ever tried.