Minolta 80-200

[Nervine]

I've been looking at getting a lens in the 70-200 2.8 range for a while now and this time of year is always nice as work pays us bonus.

Anyway I've been trying to locate a Sony 70-200 used without luck in the price range of up to $1300 AUD.

I found an add for a Minolta 80-200 which I believe I can get for under $800.00. Only concern is the seller has confirmed there was fungus in the lens, which he paid around $350.00 to have cleaned. I am interested but cautious of it having fungus in it and if it were to grow back.

I was curious if anyone else has had experience with this and after cleaned it came back? Just don't want to spend money and then have to send it away for cleaning if it grew back.

 

[BGeise]

How do you get a fungus in your lens? You should be able to find something with your budget. Be patient one will pop up.

 

[dxqcanada]

Ah fungus. I have not had a lens that developed it ... I have purchased lenses with fungus, and that is not easy to remove ... so it may not have etched into the multicoating. Once the coating is damaged it has to be removed and recoated which could cost that much.

If it was just cleaned off, it may come back ... though if he paid that much to get it cleaned, and they did a thorough job, it should be OK for a while ... keep silica packs around when not in use.


FYI: there is a Dyxum sale for one at $700.00, though you will have to convince them to ship to AUS.

 

[robbins.photo]

I've been looking at getting a lens in the 70-200 2.8 range for a while now and this time of year is always nice as work pays us bonus.

Anyway I've been trying to locate a Sony 70-200 used without luck in the price range of up to $1300 AUD.

I found an add for a Minolta 80-200 which I believe I can get for under $800.00. Only concern is the seller has confirmed there was fungus in the lens, which he paid around $350.00 to have cleaned. I am interested but cautious of it having fungus in it and if it were to grow back.

I was curious if anyone else has had experience with this and after cleaned it came back? Just don't want to spend money and then have to send it away for cleaning if it grew back.

Honestly I don't think your really saving yourself enough money to really make it worth the risk, it's quite possible that the coating was damaged and unless they did a proper job of cleaning it then fungus is more likely to re-appear at some point especially if you don't take care to keep the lens stored in a cool, dry place (someone else mentioned silica paks, which would help). If the lens were about half that price, I might consider it - but for that kind of money honestly I'd be looking elsewhere for other options.

 

[Nervine]

Thankyou for the responses. I've decided May be best to pass on this lens due to risk and as mentioned the cost for it was one thing which turned me off it. I did see a Sony 70-200 sell for eBay the other week, sucks wasn't a week later otherwise I would have budded for it. Totally forgot about Dyxum and the listing in there does mention buyer pays shipping so will keep an eye on that one.

There is a 70-200 Tamron for sale on eBay new which I believe is the first edition, just need to wait for the right lens to come along

 

[robbins.photo]

Thankyou for the responses. I've decided May be best to pass on this lens due to risk and as mentioned the cost for it was one thing which turned me off it. I did see a Sony 70-200 sell for eBay the other week, sucks wasn't a week later otherwise I would have budded for it. Totally forgot about Dyxum and the listing in there does mention buyer pays shipping so will keep an eye on that one.

There is a 70-200 Tamron for sale on eBay new which I believe is the first edition, just need to wait for the right lens to come along

I use a sigma 70-200 mm F/2.8 OS version myself, in the Nikon mount - I really like it. I know a lot of guys who shoot the Tamron who swear by it as well, it seems to be highly regarded by the folks that own it.

 

[DiskoJoe]

I have an old Sigma AF APO 70-210 f2.8. Got it for $525. Good quality lens. AF is a little busted so focusing is a bit wonky at times but the picture quality is very nice.

Found this here:

No 3814 Sigma APO 70 200mm F2 8 F 2 8 EX for Minolta Sony Good | eBay

A friend of mine has a canon version of this model and it takes great pics

 

[Nervine]

I have an old Sigma AF APO 70-210 f2.8. Got it for $525. Good quality lens. AF is a little busted so focusing is a bit wonky at times but the picture quality is very nice. Found this here: No 3814 Sigma APO 70 200mm F2 8 F 2 8 EX for Minolta Sony Good | eBay A friend of mine has a canon version of this model and it takes great pics

That one mentions some fungus/haze

I think I will go with the Sigma 70-200 unless I can find a good deal on the new Tamron.

Thankyou for the replies.

 

[Nervine]

Little update. Was going to go buy the Sigma 70-200 for just under 1200 when I saw an add on a local classified site for a brand new 300 G2 2.8 (outside my budget) which advertised seller had other gear. Turns out they have a mint condition Minolta 80-200 (still need to inspect) but pictures look good. They want 1200 for it so $100 more than the Sigma.

I am going to go check out the lens and then try and haggle closer to $1000. Most versions of this lens I see on sites like eBay are around $1000 AUD although none I've seen have been mint. I'll keep you all updated. Leaning more to minolta/Sony based lens especially with Minoltas quality.

 

[Nervine]

Final update.

Purchased a used 80-200 Minolta locally in very very good condition. Trialled before paid with their camera and mine. Can't wait to get out and shoot with it.