| Author |
Message |
    
Kennym
Tinkerer
Username: Kennym
Post Number: 19
Registered: 01-2010
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 04, 2010 - 01:40 pm: | 
|
hi,i have just bought this lens off ebay for £7.00,minola md rokkor 50-135mm f3.5 constant,
after 40+yrs using minolta gear i have never come across this lens,nor heard about it,i cant find anything about it on the web,does anyone know about this lens,i think it must be rare, |
Mikeb
Tinkerer
Username: Mikeb
Post Number: 3
Registered: 12-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Friday, February 12, 2010 - 09:05 pm: |
|
Intersting, I would love to see a picture or two. Care to post some? |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 213
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 09:18 am: |
|
I have an HP Books Minolta guide with last copyright date 1985, and this lens is listed.
On the chart, it says the field of view is 47-18 degrees, the min. focus distance 4.9 feet (1.5 meters), min aperture F32, 55 mm filter diameter, 2.7x4.6 inch dimiensions, and a weight of 16.9 ounces. No pictures or other info that I see.
I can imagine that this would be a fairly rare lens, simply because its range lacks wider angles, and because it has no close focusing. I'd go for this range, especially at a constant 3.5 aperture, if it's optically good (and I'll bet it is), but many probably would have preferred a 35- something with something approaching macro focusing. |
M_currie
Tinkerer
Username: M_currie
Post Number: 214
Registered: 07-2006
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 06:58 pm: |
|
Looking at the chart in the book, I can see why this lens might have been rare. Right next to it is the 35-135 f 3.5-4 zoom, with the same focusing distance, and it's actually a little smaller. Unless there's a noticeable superiority in the 50-135, or you need a constant aperture for match-needle metering, there's not much reason to prefer it. |
Mikeb
Tinkerer
Username: Mikeb
Post Number: 4
Registered: 12-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Saturday, February 13, 2010 - 10:04 pm: |
|
According to A Guide to the Minolta SLR System of Creative Photography, page 26, it's valuable for general photography, portraits, journalism, and sports photography.
I agree that back then the 35-135 would have been the more likely choice unless there was a great difference in price. Today I wouldn't pass it up if the price were right though, and generally it is. |
Gyurmi
Tinkerer
Username: Gyurmi
Post Number: 7
Registered: 12-2009
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Sunday, May 30, 2010 - 07:21 am: |
|
Hmmm, I also have one. Never thought it was rare. Nice lens, though. |
|
