FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Your Favorite A Mount Travel Kit

Page  <1 234
Author
owenn01 View Drop Down
Alpha Eyes group
Alpha Eyes group

Joined: 20 May 2008
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Kent
Status: Offline
Posts: 10798
Post Options Post Options   Quote owenn01 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 June 2020 at 15:18
+1 on the 100 - 200; I use one on my a99 and it's a great little performer which definitely punches above its weight. Cheap as well !
My Mantra: "Comment on other's work as you would wish to have yours commented upon". Go on - it's fun!
 



Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 1755
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 02:42
Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:

Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:



The Sony 70-300G is the better lens. I have 2 of the Minolta's and would be willing to sell you one.

For travel, traveling light, hiking I always recommend the Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 as a tele-zoom option, sharp at 4.5 as the Minolta 80-200/2.8 at a fraction of the size weight and cost.


This I cannot confirm. I have both the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G and the Minolta AF 100-200mm F4.5

The 80-200 F2.8 out-resolves the 100-200 F4.5 by a mile on my A77II. Sharpness of the 80-200 F2.8 is way above the 100-200 F4.5.

The 80-200 F2.8 is already sharp wide open, the 100-200 F4.5 is not IMHO. I have to stop it down at least 1 stop.

My travel lens is the Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 Carl Zeiss. At 80mm F4.5, it is also considerably sharper than the 100-200 F4.5 at 100mm.

I also have a Minolta 80-200mm F4.5-5.6 Xi. That one is not a good lens. Even at F8 it is still avarage. The Beercan and the 100-200mm F4.5 are better than the Xi.

So, what I do if just use the 16-80mm Carl Zeiss and sometimes put a Minolta AF 135mm F2.8 in my pocket.


I'm pretty sure you can confirm that your Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 was a fraction of the price of the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G.
I'm also confident you can confirm that your Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is a fraction of the size and weight of the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G.

The Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is not the best lens ever produced and has it's shortcomings, hence the reason I have two Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G's, a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO; but in situations where I want to travel light with A-Mount and supplement the reach of the 16-80mm or 24-105mm (particularly on full frame) the Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is a winner in my book.
Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 1012
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 11:01
I have the 100-200 and it's a nice little lens, but the MFD is irritatingly long.

Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:


My travel lens is the Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 Carl Zeiss. At 80mm F4.5, it is also considerably sharper than the 100-200 F4.5 at 100mm.

I also have a Minolta 80-200mm F4.5-5.6 Xi. That one is not a good lens. Even at F8 it is still avarage. The Beercan and the 100-200mm F4.5 are better than the Xi.

So, what I do if just use the 16-80mm Carl Zeiss and sometimes put a Minolta AF 135mm F2.8 in my pocket.


The 16-80 CZ is an APS lens - would it cover the OP's full-frame film?

The 80-200xi is not to be recommended, very much a budget lens with budget performance, the 80-200 f4.5-5.6 is better, but not a lot. The 100-300xi is far better, as is the 35-200xi, not a bad choice for FF hiking apart from the battery usage.

For a lightweight small kit for FF I might take the 24-105 with a 135/2.8 and a 1.4x TC (Kenko DG Pro), but it's all hypothesis, my A58 + Tamron 16-300 gives me more range, decent quality, light weight and no lens changes - it just isn't FF like the OP needs.

Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 1012
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 11:08
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:

I have 2 of the Minolta's and would be willing to sell you one.


Thanks for the offer Lee - feel free to message me a price, but I fear that it will be out of my budget. Sadly buying from outside the UK and EU is subject to a mark up of around 30% in taxes and fees.
Back to Top
LAbernethy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 25 November 2015
Country: Canada
Location: Ajax, Ontario
Status: Offline
Posts: 1755
Post Options Post Options   Quote LAbernethy Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 12:49
Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:

I have the 100-200 and it's a nice little lens, but the MFD is irritatingly long.

The MFD on the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G isn't much better. That's the reason for most cases where I need something requiring f/2.8 in 200mm range I reach for the Tamron, the MFD is half.
Back to Top
rastapartaman View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 03 March 2007
Country: Portugal
Location: Berkshire
Status: Offline
Posts: 492
Post Options Post Options   Quote rastapartaman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 13:45
The Minolta 28-105mm and the 75-300mm new can fit in a small bag with a neewer 300 flash. The Minolta 50mm 1.4 can go also if I need wider apertures.
Don't think, Just click it!!

my Flickr
 



Back to Top
adhox View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 September 2016
Country: Australia
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Posts: 251
Post Options Post Options   Quote adhox Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 14:48
A99ii with my old Minolta 24-105 is a very useful, but compact, combination. Is the 24-105 my best lens? No, but despite its recognised flaws, I still like it. If I was travelling somewhere that justified a tele, the Minolta 100-300 D is easy to carry. The 50/1.4 is also easy to squeeze into a bag. With carry-on baggage strictly limited to 7kg here, lightweight is important!

These days it's also possible that I'll use another system, either based around my E6600 or my L****.

If there's no flying involved, then I am more likely to indulge myself and pack a few of the bigger heavier lenses and a decent tripod into the car.
A99ii + 16-35Z | 24-70Z | 24-105 | 70-200G | 100-300 | 70-300G
20 | 28 | 50 | 300 | 500
A6600 + 10-18 | 16-70Z | 18-135 | 70-200/4G | 70-350G | 200-600G
28 | 56 | 85
Back to Top
Matt View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 November 2005
Country: Netherlands
Location: Maastricht
Status: Offline
Posts: 602
Post Options Post Options   Quote Matt Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 15:07
Originally posted by LAbernethy LAbernethy wrote:


I'm pretty sure you can confirm that your Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 was a fraction of the price of the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G.
I'm also confident you can confirm that your Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is a fraction of the size and weight of the Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G.

The Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is not the best lens ever produced and has it's shortcomings, hence the reason I have two Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G's, a Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Macro and a Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 APO; but in situations where I want to travel light with A-Mount and supplement the reach of the 16-80mm or 24-105mm (particularly on full frame) the Minolta AF 100-200mm f/4.5 is a winner in my book.


Yes, of course. The 80-200 F2.8 HS APO G is much, much more expensive that the 100-200 F4.5, but the difference in image quality is also quite big. If have have to travel light, I take the Minolta 135 F2.8 if I want to take a small tele. It is more restrictive being a prime, but the image quality is above the 100-200 F4.5

Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:


The 16-80 CZ is an APS lens - would it cover the OP's full-frame film?



Yes, it is a DT lens, so on an FF camera, you need to use crop mode, reducing the resolution. Still 18 MP on an A99II though.

Off-topic: personally, nowadays, I would take a camera like the Sony RX10IV as a travel camera.
Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 1012
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 June 2020 at 15:10
Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:



Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:


The 16-80 CZ is an APS lens - would it cover the OP's full-frame film?



Yes, it is a DT lens, so on an FF camera, you need to use crop mode, reducing the resolution. Still 18 MP on an A99II though.


The OP is using film - full frame, non-digital, no crop mode.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3497
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2020 at 22:47
Originally posted by Basil Basil wrote:

Originally posted by skm.sa100 skm.sa100 wrote:


Should I get one?


The 100 -200 is a great little lens that I really need to use more. It is wonderful for taking pictures through a chain link fence. The barrel fits through the openings and gives an unobstructed view of the other side. So yes, for the sake of research, pick one up. They are dirt cheap and loads of fun.

I have that one, but it's not much use to me as the MFD is too long at 1.9m and I expect a medium telephoto zoom to be good on flowers and things.
On ff I prefer the 70-210 f4.5-5.6 which is smaller still and focuses down to 1.1m, but the APS-C equivalents focus to about half that which is one of the many reasons I gave up on FF, except for film.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3497
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14 June 2020 at 22:51
Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:

Originally posted by Matt Matt wrote:



Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:


The 16-80 CZ is an APS lens - would it cover the OP's full-frame film?



Yes, it is a DT lens, so on an FF camera, you need to use crop mode, reducing the resolution. Still 18 MP on an A99II though.


The OP is using film - full frame, non-digital, no crop mode.

Actually there is a crop mode on film - process the negatives yourself or scan them digitally! Even if you take colour prints and never process or scan, there is some cropping of the image, and quite a few APS-C lenses can be used over part of their zoom range. But be aware that on most film cameras the VF crops the image significantly and hard vignetitng may be there on the film image but not the VF image.
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
skm.sa100 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 08 January 2009
Country: United States
Location: Charlotte, NC
Status: Offline
Posts: 3710
Post Options Post Options   Quote skm.sa100 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 June 2020 at 20:31
Originally posted by owenn01 owenn01 wrote:

+1 on the 100 - 200; I use one on my a99 and it's a great little performer which definitely punches above its weight. Cheap as well !


Got one in excellent condition with hood and original box for USD 50 including shipping from Japan. Will try to take it out for a spin soon and see how it performs.
There are good copies going for even $30.
More Dyxumer, less photographer.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Camera Talk > A-mount full frame Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.