A Favorite: Minolta 28-135 F4-F4.5 (Handshake)

LAbernethy wrote: QuietOC wrote: I Even have a nice metal hood for it. It works well on the LA-EA5/A7RIV. I've not found a lens hood that didn't shade the corners. Even with a step up ring. I did try a plumbing clamp and shorn off plunger to the outside of the bezel, it sort of worked but was too embarrassed to be seen in public with it.

I think another Dyxum user recommended this one. It is a short conical hood with a 95mm filter thread with that size center pinch lens cap included. It seems designed for the 28-135mm.

That might be a bit of a stretch. I stayed away from the 28-85 based on the lens reviews on Dyxum.

I agree with keith_h, my 28-85 is surprisingly good, distortion at 28 is easily corrected with modern software, and unsharpness at 85 is fixable.

I object to "sample variation" or "copy variation" when describing anything three decades old. Anything USED which does not have a American Kennel Club Certificate showing the exact lineage is an unknown. "Sample Variation" is valid for NEW copies.

A used Leica lens which was subjected to Quality Assurance and Quality Control beyond what Sony or Samyang is capable, is an unknown, but when NEW it could have been subject to "Sample Variation", but that is less likely. When USED, it could have been dropped, or otherwise compromised.

Anything USED will have variation based on differential wear and tear, storage, etc.

My 28-85 was purchased USED in the year I think 2003. I did not ask the lineage, I got it at a Local Camera Store before digital cameras caused unmitigated Gear Acquisition Syndrome. I used it on film for a couple years, then it went in a closet. In 2008 I took it out and put it on an a300 until the nex cameras came out, then I used it infrequently, maybe a few days a year, continuing to the present. All that is essential information if I want to generalize to all 28-85 lenses.

Even if I "test" several different copies of the 28-85, I am not doing what LensRentals does where they purchase many copies of a lens and then test, then adjust the lenses where possible, then possibly re-test.

Certainly I am guilty of romanticizing Minolta and lenses and "Minolta Colors" and "The Mind of Minolta" blah blah blah, in the A-mount Retirement Party there were stories of the origin of gear; I have original 1980s vintage Minolta equipment of which I am the sole owner:

sole owner: Maxxum5000, AF 50/1.7, and 70-210/3.5-4.5 RS
purchased from a forum member who says they were the original owner: 70-210 beercan

Other than that, I am unsure of the lineage of the rest. So my enthusiasm for the 50/1.7, beercan, and Not Beercan 70-210RS are because the equipment was well cared for ... except I dropped the Beercan and a screw came loose, so I disassembled it to put the screw back. It still looks good, but probably not as good as if I had let a professional put it back together.

I'm no fan of the dog industry, or any industry which requires papers, but it can be a useful data point.

There's another discussion about "Modern Lens Corrections", but that didn't go over well when I tried it on another thread so I'll stick to the Lineage argument.

Hey keith_h, do you know where your old Minolta lenses came from? I agree the 28-85 + 70-210 is "better" than just the 28-135, but as a single f4 almost-superzoom the 28-135 is magnificent. David Kilpatrick did a blog post a few years ago praising the 28-135 versus a new Canon lens.

The 28-85 has the same "macro" switch as the 28-135, so the optics at the wide end are similar, and man I really like that macro switch, since the old lenses don't focus closer than a meter and a half.

Lee, do you know where your old Minolta lenses came from? I got the Secret Handshake from someone here who had a rubber collapsible hood that looks EXACTLY like a plunger except it's black not red LOL. Collapsible because at 28mm the hood is in the shot, so you pull it back for wide shots, leave it extended otherwise, since it screws in instead of pinching.

My experience is that worn looking examples of old lenses are often better aligned than pristine looking ones. Who wants to use a lens with poor optics? Now by worn looking, I don't mean lenses that were dropped or otherwise damaged. The sharpest Minolta 50mm F1.4 I've had so far had patches of its front coating missing.