Discussion:
MF lenses on Sony a900
(too old to reply)
Alan Browne
2009-10-07 22:56:14 UTC
Permalink
Just to keep this group pumped up a little bit.

Slightly OT.

I've been using my MF lenses on a Sony a900 (36x24mm).

The results have been very good, but not better than my better
Sony/Minolta lenses of approx. the same FL.

The drawback is stop down metering (and AF, but I don't use that much in
any case).

Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
mikey4
2009-10-08 00:00:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Just to keep this group pumped up a little bit.
Slightly OT.
I've been using my MF lenses on a Sony a900 (36x24mm).
The results have been very good, but not better than my better
Sony/Minolta lenses of approx. the same FL.
The drawback is stop down metering (and AF, but I don't use that much in
any case).
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Not yet. I'm not sure using one of my RB lenses on my K2 or LX body is
practial, at this point.
Michael Benveniste
2009-10-08 01:27:15 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:14 -0400, Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
I recently bought an adapter to allow use of my Pentax 645 lenses on
my Nikon cameras, but haven't done much with it yet. The two lenses I
plan on trying are a 135mm f/4LS, for it's leaf shutter, and the 120mm
f/4 Macro in a head-to-head comparison with a 105mm VR.
--
Mike Benveniste -- ***@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Alan Browne
2009-10-08 18:28:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael Benveniste
On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 18:56:14 -0400, Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
I recently bought an adapter to allow use of my Pentax 645 lenses on
my Nikon cameras, but haven't done much with it yet. The two lenses I
plan on trying are a 135mm f/4LS, for it's leaf shutter, and the 120mm
f/4 Macro in a head-to-head comparison with a 105mm VR.
How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?

With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf in
the lenses (Hasselblad).

I compared the Hassy 120 f/4 Makro to the Sony 135 f/1.8 (non macro) for
very comparable results in the center area at max-close focus.

The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).
Mike Benveniste
2009-10-09 15:10:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?
My answer is "awkwardly at best." On the 645, the procedure
is described here:
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/645_LS_75mmto135mm_Lens.pdf

I think it's the roughly the same procedure when using the adapter.
Set the camera to manual mode at 1/8th of a second, select f-stop
and shutter speed on the lens, cock and shoot.
Post by Alan Browne
With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf in
the lenses (Hasselblad).
Mine works the same way, unless I want a 1/500th sync speed for
some reason.
Post by Alan Browne
The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).
The Pentax is 1:1 natively, so it ought to be interesting.
--
Mike Benveniste -- ***@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
Don't succumb to the false authority of a tool or model. There
is no substitute for thinking.
Alan Browne
2009-10-09 21:14:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Benveniste
Post by Alan Browne
How do you cock the leaf shutter and trigger it?
My answer is "awkwardly at best." On the 645, the procedure
http://www.pentaximaging.com/files/manual/645_LS_75mmto135mm_Lens.pdf
I think it's the roughly the same procedure when using the adapter.
Set the camera to manual mode at 1/8th of a second, select f-stop
and shutter speed on the lens, cock and shoot.
Hmm. No way I can do that with the HB lens as the leaf shutter
cock/release is on the back flange of the lens. No way to trip it (that
I can tell).
Post by Mike Benveniste
Post by Alan Browne
With my adapter, it is the camera shutter that is used, not the leaf
in the lenses (Hasselblad).
Mine works the same way, unless I want a 1/500th sync speed for
some reason.
My Sony a900 syncs at 1/250 and the Minolta Maxxum 9 at 1/300 so it's
not that big a deal (For that matter, I can safely sync the 9 to about
1/350).
Post by Mike Benveniste
Post by Alan Browne
The Minolta (or Sony) 100 f/2.8 macro completely blows away the
Hasselblad (since the Hassy is 1:3 and the Minolta is 1:1 that goes to
follow).
The Pentax is 1:1 natively, so it ought to be interesting.
Grimly Curmudgeon
2009-10-19 11:26:58 UTC
Permalink
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
RolandRB
2009-10-25 15:22:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.

I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
Alan Browne
2009-10-25 15:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.

As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.

I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).
RolandRB
2009-11-09 12:51:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount.  There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on.  I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons.  I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M.  Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900.  I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
Alan Browne
2009-11-09 19:21:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.
RolandRB
2009-11-10 07:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount.  There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on.  I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons.  I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M.  Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900.  I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime.  80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?
RolandRB
2009-11-10 13:43:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount.  There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on.  I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons.  I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M.  Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900.  I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime.  80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with
any accuracy?
Alan Browne
2009-11-10 17:17:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with
any accuracy?
That's another reason why I prefer my 300 f/2.8 (which I've sold) for 300mm.
RolandRB
2009-11-10 22:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount.  There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on.  I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons.  I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M.  Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900.  I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime.  80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with
any accuracy?
That's another reason why I prefer my 300 f/2.8 (which I've sold) for 300mm.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's just too expensive for me since I will probably only use that
focal length a few times. If I were doing a lot of sports photography
then maybe I would shell out. But then 300mm seems too short so I
wonder what you use it for that justifies your expenditure.
Alan Browne
2009-11-10 23:00:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
But do you think f5.6 will be enough light to manually focus with with
any accuracy?
That's another reason why I prefer my 300 f/2.8 (which I've sold) for 300mm.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That's just too expensive for me since I will probably only use that
focal length a few times. If I were doing a lot of sports photography
then maybe I would shell out. But then 300mm seems too short so I
wonder what you use it for that justifies your expenditure.
All sorts of things (nature, studio, portraiture, sports,
theatre/concerts ....)

But, like I said, I've sold it. (I bought it used in the first place
for $2,000 with 1.4x and 2.0x TC's).
Alan Browne
2009-11-10 17:16:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?
No idea how that would stack up. I don't like TC"s and I believe you're
more likely to see CA with them than not.
RolandRB
2009-11-14 08:59:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount.  There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on.  I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons.  I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M.  Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900.  I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime.  80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?
No idea how that would stack up.  I don't like TC"s and I believe you're
more likely to see CA with them than not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just purchased the Minolta 75-300mm budget zoom from ebay and
judging through the viewfinder only then the lens is OK for my
purposes. No poster sized prints from this one. The image at 300mm is
a bit soft and auto focussing is hit and miss but I am not seeing the
CA I was trying to avoid in the situations I was looking at. My main
aim for the lens is to photograph the jackdaws in Biberach an der Riss
where I live and it will be OK for that. Jackdaws in the snow might be
a slight problem but then its Photoshop time or smaller prints and
just because I am using a digital camera it will give me nasty fringe
effects in the snow quite apart from what the lens can do.
Alan Browne
2009-11-14 14:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by RolandRB
Post by Alan Browne
Post by RolandRB
Post by Grimly Curmudgeon
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember Alan Browne
Post by Alan Browne
Anyone else using their MF lenses on 35mm bodies?
Often.
Pentacon and Russian MF glass on Canon and Pentax dSLR bodies.
If you are using the A900 which takes Minolta AF lenses then why not
sell your MF lenses and get yourself some of the better Minolta mount
lenses? The MF lenses won't give you an advantage in quality unless
you have paid stupid money for them and then you have got to consider
the unwanted extra light from the edges entering the camera. If the
A900 does the job for you in terms of resolution such that you do not
need the higher formats then it is time to concentrate on that camera
and the decent Minolta AF lenses that work on it.
I think 50x75cm is doable with the A900. Do you need bigger than that?
I already have some very decent Minolta/Sony/Carl Zeiss lenses for the
Minolta/Sony mount. There are a few more to get over time such as the
16-35 f/2.8, the 85mm f/1.4 (Minolta or Sony or CZ), the 135 STF and so
on. I sold my 300 f/2.8 - and I regret that now - but I really didn't
use it all that often.
As to selling the MF glass, no for two reasons. I still shoot film and
I am looking forward to the day when I can add a digital back to the 500
C/M. Used prices should bring a ~20 Mpix back into reasonable range
within the next few years.
I regularly print to 17x11 inches (28 x 43 cm) with very nice results
from the a900. I would confidently print to 50x75 from the better
images at lower ISO (400 and down, maybe 800).- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
Have you any suggestions for a decent quality zoom for the A900 that
goes out to 300mm? It is this longer focal length I seek but I would
want to use the 200-300mm range to frame shots. All the zooms that fit
this mount I have seen reviews of show up CA at this longer focal
length which I find unacceptable. I know it can be partially corrected
if I keep the raw shots but I would rather have a good image that does
not need processing.
At 300 I use a prime. 80-200 f/2.8 G otherwise.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
- Zitierten Text anzeigen -
I need to get out to 300mm or close. Quality does not have to be that
great but hopefully no visible CA. What about a Minolta 2x converter
so I can use MD lenses and use a Minolta MD f2.8 135mm lens?
No idea how that would stack up. I don't like TC"s and I believe you're
more likely to see CA with them than not.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I just purchased the Minolta 75-300mm budget zoom from ebay and
judging through the viewfinder only then the lens is OK for my
purposes. No poster sized prints from this one. The image at 300mm is
a bit soft and auto focussing is hit and miss but I am not seeing the
CA I was trying to avoid in the situations I was looking at. My main
aim for the lens is to photograph the jackdaws in Biberach an der Riss
where I live and it will be OK for that. Jackdaws in the snow might be
a slight problem but then its Photoshop time or smaller prints and
just because I am using a digital camera it will give me nasty fringe
effects in the snow quite apart from what the lens can do.
That's a known lens design that is good up to about 200mm and then gets
soft towards 300.

To avoid purple fringes attempt to reduce contrast in shots with snow,
iow place the snow a little below the right edge of the histogram
instead of right at it. Unfortunately, this will reduce details in the
dark areas of the birds as well.

Loading...