Minolta AF 28-135mm F/4-4.5*

Crezzlin · 12 Feb 2013 at 00:03

Hi has anyone got or used this kens Minolta AF 28-135mm F/4-4.5, I have a chance to purchase one but wonder it its just all talk from the seller

Thanks

Columbo · 12 Feb 2013 at 07:53

Check over at Dyxum, this lens is known as the 'Secret Handshake' for reasons that are utterly pointless.

It a very over rated lens imo and commands a high price tag for its apparent quality.

A lot of users view the old Minolta glass through rose tinted spectacles and refuse to admit that some modern cheaper options are optically better though perhaps not built as well.

Its no good on an APS-C sensor as its not wide enough though thats probably a different story on full frame.

Here is about best review of it.

I'd be looking at a Sony 16-105mm if you are looking for something with a comparable range (presuming you are on APS-C that is!)

Crezzlin · 12 Feb 2013 at 11:37

Thanks, I'm on a Sony A65 and yes I think I have paid over the odds but like the story's, the main reason was its macro option that I noticed it on the bey,

Thanks for the info and link, I'll have a read this afternoon

Crezzlin · 13 Feb 2013 at 07:39

Would you say the Sony is better for sport? I can get the Minolta for £255 or a Sony for £330? So should I take the Sony, but saying that I would like to try Macro photography. Thanks

Ksanti · 13 Feb 2013 at 08:06

No zoom lens will really let you try macro photography, best to ignore it totally then get a dedicated lens like the Tamron 90mm when you can afford it - the lens design goals for a sports lens (fast focus, moderately fast aperture, good build) and a macro lens (slow focus, aperture stops down to f/32, sharpness absolute priority) mean that if you ever try to get a lens that can do both, it will be a compromise - no matter what third party manufacturers would have you believe when they slap Macro on every other lens they make.

Columbo · 13 Feb 2013 at 09:42

Crezzlin said:
Would you say the Sony is better for sport? I can get the Minolta for £255 or a Sony for £330? So should I take the Sony, but saying that I would like to try Macro photography. Thanks

A decent and cheap way into macro photography on Sony is the 30mm f2.8 Macro.

Its relatively cheap, sharp and light though it wont win any awards for build quality. If you buy used you also won't lose any cash if and when you decide to sell it on.

I had one for a while when I had an A77 and it was fine.

For sports there are a few options but it all depends on how close you can get to the action and what the lighting is like (eg indoors or outdoors).

The Minolta 70-210mm F4 (Beercan) wouldn't be a bad place to start though. Its got a relatively fast F4 on the long end, built well and with Steadyshot you'll obviously have stabilisation as well. You should be able to pick a decent copy up for around £100.

It focused very quickly on my A77 because of the high torque AF motor inside the body though I'm not sure if the A65 has the same one.