Minolta's Digi SLR

Sander Vesik wrote:


If you care about quality (while needing zoom / VR), then you would get
Nikon 70-200mm VR and 200-400mm VR and *NOT* 80-400mm VR zoom. Apart from
'one tele zoom does it all' amateurs, there are just about two small niches
where you would be interested in the 80-400mm. Both involve unstable platforms.

Comparing 5x tele zooms to fixed focal tele objectives (esp when those
have large max aperture) is so entirely pointless.



One of my readers and regular correspondents in Spain went through a
lengthy process with Nikon UK trying to get exactly what he wanted.
Basically he wanted a lightweight, long reach (over 300mm) very sharp
lens for landscape work on a tripod and some journalistic stock work
hand-held. The 80-400mm VR sounded like an ideal solution and he managed
to get one to test, writing a report for us. It was OK but not up to
what he wanted for the landscape work.

There are plenty of photographers who don't like to cart round a large
bag of lenses, or very heavy ones. There is an odd correlation between
very fast, and good quality, in most brands - you can't buy a 400mm f6.3
from them with biting sharpness, but you can get a superb 400mm f4 too
big to use and too expensive to justify!

It's a pity this has happened. In the past, it was often possible to get
very simple, limited maximum aperture lenses of exceptional quality, in
both zooms and fixed lengths. It is becoming increasingly hard to find them.

I stuck with rangefinder 35mm for a lot of work for a long time because
the superb quality of lenses such as a Leitz 135mm f4, or 90mm f4, was
obtainable without a massive weight, bulk and obtrusiveness premium. In
the SLR field, there is pretty well so such thing as a 90mm f4 or 135mm
f4 - there was hardly anything comparable even in manual focus systems.
AF systems have gone even further. I use Minolta, I love the 85mm focal
length, but I do not want a bloody great big f1.4 85mm on my camera even
if it IS one of the best lenses around. I want an f2 like I used to
have, little bigger than a standard 50mm. Or even an f2.8!

5X tele zooms can be exceptionally good, and large apertures are not
essential. I don't see such lenses as non-professional.

David

Sander Vesik wrote:

If you care about quality (while needing zoom / VR), then you would get
Nikon 70-200mm VR and 200-400mm VR and *NOT* 80-400mm VR zoom.


A better alternative might be the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and a
teleconverter. Or even two teleconverters (1.4X and 2.0X).

The optical performance of the 70-200mm f/2.8 VR and a Nikon or Kenko
Pro 300 teleconverter will easily surpass that of the 80-400mm VR.

David Kilpatrick wrote:

In
the SLR field, there is pretty well so such thing as a 90mm f4 or 135mm
f4 - there was hardly anything comparable even in manual focus systems.

Pentax SMC-M 135mm f/3.5. Small, light, very sharp.

AF systems have gone even further. I use Minolta, I love the 85mm focal
length, but I do not want a bloody great big f1.4 85mm on my camera even
if it IS one of the best lenses around. I want an f2 like I used to
have, little bigger than a standard 50mm. Or even an f2.8!

Carl Zeiss 85mm f/2.8 for Contax.

"Orville Wright" wrote in message
om...
"Stuart Walker" wrote in
message ...

Orville you troll. What you know about digital photography can be summed up
in one word - "nothing".

TP wrote:

David Kilpatrick wrote:


In
the SLR field, there is pretty well so such thing as a 90mm f4 or 135mm
f4 - there was hardly anything comparable even in manual focus systems.


Pentax SMC-M 135mm f/3.5. Small, light, very sharp.


AF systems have gone even further. I use Minolta, I love the 85mm focal
length, but I do not want a bloody great big f1.4 85mm on my camera even
if it IS one of the best lenses around. I want an f2 like I used to
have, little bigger than a standard 50mm. Or even an f2.8!


Carl Zeiss 85mm f/2.8 for Contax.

Used to have the early 135mm f3.5 and funnily enough, changed for a 2.5
despite what I say about liking small lenses now (that was a long time
ago). I've used the 85mm f2.8 for Contax, on the titanium ST body, and
that combination is about as pure a design/optical thing as you can get.
But they didn't seem to do very well with the idea of reverting to
manual, mechanical everything; the body lacked 'feel' for some reason too.

David

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm David Kilpatrick wrote:

One of my readers and regular correspondents in Spain went through a
lengthy process with Nikon UK trying to get exactly what he wanted.
Basically he wanted a lightweight, long reach (over 300mm) very sharp
lens for landscape work on a tripod and some journalistic stock work
hand-held. The 80-400mm VR sounded like an ideal solution and he managed
to get one to test, writing a report for us. It was OK but not up to
what he wanted for the landscape work.

There are plenty of photographers who don't like to cart round a large
bag of lenses, or very heavy ones. There is an odd correlation between

Yes, me too. I normaly carry a 28-70 f/2.8 attached to camera. Plus maybe
a light mid-lenth tele zoom, but not all the time. If I switched to thes
24-120 VR, it would cut quite a bit into the tele lens.

But for planned shots, I would still switch to a prime.

very fast, and good quality, in most brands - you can't buy a 400mm f6.3
from them with biting sharpness, but you can get a superb 400mm f4 too
big to use and too expensive to justify!

Ok, but see, some of them is not because of some arbitrary desire by the
manufacturers but comes from small pesky details like physics and natural
laws. Its not a given that the f/6.3 will weight less if you demand the
same performance nor that it will cost less.


It's a pity this has happened. In the past, it was often possible to get
very simple, limited maximum aperture lenses of exceptional quality, in
both zooms and fixed lengths. It is becoming increasingly hard to find them.

Nothing ever comes for free.


I stuck with rangefinder 35mm for a lot of work for a long time because
the superb quality of lenses such as a Leitz 135mm f4, or 90mm f4, was
obtainable without a massive weight, bulk and obtrusiveness premium. In
the SLR field, there is pretty well so such thing as a 90mm f4 or 135mm
f4 - there was hardly anything comparable even in manual focus systems.
AF systems have gone even further. I use Minolta, I love the 85mm focal
length, but I do not want a bloody great big f1.4 85mm on my camera even
if it IS one of the best lenses around. I want an f2 like I used to
have, little bigger than a standard 50mm. Or even an f2.8!

You should be using Nikon then :P The 85mm f/1.8 weights in at 2/3rds of the
85mm f/1.4, and at f/2 gives ok results [ssuming you don't need the extra
stop for low light].


5X tele zooms can be exceptionally good, and large apertures are not
essential. I don't see such lenses as non-professional.

David


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote in message ...
snip

As for 80-400 not being 'real' ED quality - the people saying this are
simply out of their minds and/or don't know what use of ED glass actually
corrects for and are slamming the lens for reasons that have nothing to
do with ED vs. non-ED. ED glass will not help improve drawbacks caused
by most design tradeoffs.

snip

True. The 80-400 does use ED glass in the large elements up front
where it does the most good. My best information says its not a true
apochromat with three color crossings, but it certainly has alot less
secondary spectrum than a "normal" glass 400mm telephoto with similar
size and aperture. You'll find this to be true of nearly all "ED"
photographic lenses: virtually none of them are actually
apochromatic.

In my view, the real weakness of the 80-400mm is its very poor
close-focus image quality near the long end. For distant subjects its
fine, albeit with a trace of lateral color which is easy to correct
with Panorma Tools or equivalent.

Brian
www.caldwellphotographic.com

Minolta's *first* digi SLR? A few years ago. Here is their second digi
SLR:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/rd3000.html


"Stuart Walker" wrote in
message ...
Does anyone know a rough release date for MInolta's first Digi SLR?
They
mention autumn but that is 3 months long. I would also hope for a
price
slightly lower than the EOS 300D and D70 because Minolta have never
quite
been classed in the same quality bracket.

"Fred at home" wrote in message . au...
"Orville Wright" wrote in message
om...
"Stuart Walker" wrote in
message ...

Orville you troll. What you know about digital photography can be summed up
in one word - "nothing".

Considering the fact that I teach photography professionally at a
major University, your unresearched accusation couldn't be further
from the truth. Should you ever need any advice about Sigma equipment,
please do not hesitate to e-mail me.

Giorgio Preddio wrote:

"Fred at home" wrote in message . au...

"Orville Wright" wrote in message
.com...

"Stuart Walker" wrote in

message ...

Orville you troll. What you know about digital photography can be summed up
in one word - "nothing".


Considering the fact that I teach photography professionally at a
major University, your unresearched accusation couldn't be further
from the truth. Should you ever need any advice about Sigma equipment,
please do not hesitate to e-mail me.

Scary. All those young minds being misinformed re Sigmas. But it is
hard to believe someone on staff at a "major Univerity" would use all
the identities you show us here and (in particular) an obscenity-based
domain name.

Phil