The Cheap Lineup

Paul07 wrote: macronut wrote: ...Imagine if Sony were to make a new 28-135 f4-4.5 that is built to last. Probably would sell for 700-1000 dollars.) There is an FE 24-105/4 now. Not a-mount, but indeed expensive. Does not have the same range, but does have f/4 across the range.

The FE 28-135 F4 G OSS came out in 2014, only $2500.

QuietOC wrote: Paul07 wrote: macronut wrote: ...Imagine if Sony were to make a new 28-135 f4-4.5 that is built to last. Probably would sell for 700-1000 dollars.) There is an FE 24-105/4 now. Not a-mount, but indeed expensive. Does not have the same range, but does have f/4 across the range. The FE 28-135 F4 G OSS came out in 2014, only $2500.

The 28-135 was around $525 in 1986, taking into account inflation, that would now be around $1200 - that is comparable to the FE 24-105/4. The 28-135/4 is a speciality video centric lens, a photo centric version would probably be cheaper. Neither fits a cheap lineup IMHO

Glad you're here, hope you find Dyxuming worth hanging around.

In the FWIW department. A 28-105mm is the default on my ff camera. While it may just be the copies I have I like it a lot better than the 24-105mm, even though that lens is considerably more compact. There's something I don't care for in the color rendering and bokeh of the 24-105mm. As Miranda F notes, the 28-100mm Minolta gives surprisingly good results, and at 10 bucks for the one I picked up it may be my best cheap lens buy.

A Zeiss 16-80mm is the default for me on APS-C. They have been around for more than a decade so the used price has gotten reasonable.

An f1.7 50mm has served me well for almost 30 years and I don't see much difference between it and a more recently acquired f1.4. That last half stop is not often important these days, and the f1.7 is dirt cheap.

The f2.6 Tokina 28-70mm has worked well for me, but in good light has largely been supplanted by the Minolta 28-105mm. The Tokina is metal and heavy, and is a link to the origins of zooms as an Angenieux design. Tokina's f2.8 28-70mm (yellow stripe) also gives surprisingly good results. It is slightly smaller and cheaper than the f2.6. I have also gotten good results from the lightly regarded Minolta/Sony 18-70mm kit lens.

I too was pleasantly surprised by the older Sigma f1.8 28mm. It both looks and performs like similar vintage Minolta glass. It is better than some and faster than all.

addy landzaat wrote: sybersitizen wrote: addy landzaat wrote: The 28-135 was around $525 in 1986 ... Suggested list price; but US buyers didn't pay SLP for such things. The street price was always way less. I have a 1991 camera store catalog showing the street price at $350. Nope, you're talking about MSRP, but these list prices "were culled from period publications, and receipts sent in by readers", so, $525 is the price it was listed for. That $350 price sounds like a close-out sale.

Nope, you're wrong. Look at your own source, which clearly says Suggested list price in the column of the $526 figure.



Suggested list price (exactly the same as MSRP) was a joke. Stores actually priced lenses at a particular markup percentage over their own cost. The cost to a retailer for that lens at that time was just $315 - or less depending on the quantity ordered. You can see that in your source too.

Regarding my 1991 catalog, $350 was the street price. It was good all year long on current products, either by mail-order or walk-in. All other local stores offered similar street prices on Minolta gear or risked losing business.

Trust me and don't argue. I lived through - and bought camera gear during - this period in the US.

Edited by sybersitizen - 21 October 2018 at 02:11

Miranda F wrote: My favourite film camera is the 600si (the one with all the separate controls like an old-fashioned camera)

Same on the 7, as it was inspired by the 600si. Definitely have to read the manual, never had so many buttons on a camera!

Cliff wrote: A 28-105mm is the default on my ff camera. While it may just be the copies I have I like it a lot better than the 24-105mm, even though that lens is considerably more compact. There's something I don't care for in the color rendering and bokeh of the 24-105mm. As Miranda F notes, the 28-100mm Minolta gives surprisingly good results, and at 10 bucks for the one I picked up it may be my best cheap lens buy.

I just think the minimum focus distance of 1.5m for the 28-105mm is a bit too long for my taste, but still, thanks!

Again, thanks everyone, will look around what I will find, I am sure it will be good.

Ah, actually I talked about the 28-135mm, mixed them up. This has this too long minimal focus: http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF-28-135mm-F4-4.5_lens38.html

Cliff wrote: While to some it's heresy, I thoroughly enjoy shooting old MC/MD glass with cheap adapters on E mount cameras. IBIS, focus peaking and exposure modes make it easy. While there is a lot to be said for modern coatings, those old lenses had to be sharp and have good colors to survive. Kodachrome was slow, but grainless and unforgiving. Pan-X took no B&W prisoners either.

Never heard it described like this. To whom is it heresy? A lot of people use legacy lenses on E-mount. Yes, MC/MD lenses on A-mount are a problem because of the adapter needed a glass element - but on E-mount there are no downsides. Older lenses render different from modern lenses and they can give you a certain look. They are not as good as modern lenses: there is so much more then just the coatings that is improved in lens design and production. But older lenses can give you a look that is unique.

I wonder what you mean by Pan-X, maybe Kodak Plus X Pan? If you want a fine grained general purpose film look at Ilford Delta 100 and 400 and if you want a "exceptionally fine grain" film, the Ilford Pan F is your film