Got a pair of lenses-worth it?

minicoop1985 · Oct 25, 2013

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 · Oct 25, 2013

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 · Oct 25, 2013

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 · Oct 25, 2013

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

dxqcanada · Oct 25, 2013

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

astroNikon · Oct 25, 2013

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 · Oct 25, 2013

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 · Oct 26, 2013

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 · Oct 27, 2013

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

Stevepwns · Nov 4, 2013

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 · Nov 5, 2013

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.