1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

"D" lenses, worth it?

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by jhill, Oct 7, 2001.

  1. jhill

    jhill Well-Known Member

    I am a new user and so will probably annoy everyone with a lot of inane questions but please understand I am not posting just for the hell of it but because I have a genuine need to learn.
    So, are D lenses worth sticking with, or to put it another way are Minolta lenses worth the extra cost as compared to, say, Sigma?
    AS far as I can work out the D lens passes distance info to the flash( not much use for anything over 85mm? or is it?) and the depth of field page on the Dynax 7. Do these lenses have any other advantages? Are they better quality glass as well?

    Ignorance is bliss-I am a very happy bunny
  2. Brian

    Brian Venerable Elder

    Well I'm glad you are a happy bunny, myself I'm quite a smug Snail./img/wwwthreads/smile.gif

    But to answer your question. I know absolutely NOTHING about either the Minolta or the Sigma range of lenses. But from received information I have always believed Minolta to be an excellent camera and optical system. Sigma? I don't know. But I would suggest that the resale value of the Minolta range would be higher.

    I use Leicas, but I use Voigtlander lenses. No, the Leitz optics are superior but as every test shows you would need an optical bench to tell the difference. But with these manufacturers the difference is in price, by a walloping 6/7 times!

    I don't know the price of Minolta optics compared to Sigma but I have just looked up a couple of prices, the Minolta 24-105mm D is £299and the Sigma 28-105mm is £180, A Minolta 24mm f2 is £424 and the Sigma f1.8 is £224. To me the price difference doesn't seem to be that much. But there again I don't think that there are many 'bad' lenses anymore. So you pays your money and takes your chance.

  3. RonM

    RonM Alpha Napper


    The answer to your question is Yes, the new 'D' series lenses have been developed to work specifically with the new Dynax Cameras (the 5 & 7) as well as the ADI (flash) info they also will with the 7 give you info of where your image will be sharp, essentially an electronic measure of DoF, The new 'D' lenses also have the latest developments in terms of glass & design technology and therefore should be better, AP did a test on the new 100 mm D Macro lens not long after it was introduced (AP 3rd Feb issue) where the lens received a very good review, I would say that the new 'D' series lenses are probably better than the previous minolta optics, and I am just waiting on minolta to widen the range to some of its other 'primes'

    Good luck with the lenses and have fun with the 7 (No Will! not Jerri, the Dynax twit!)

    <font color=blue>RonM
  4. jhill

    jhill Well-Known Member

    Err....double the price does seem to be qite a difference!
    But going by what RonM says below it does seem to be worth it

    Ta to you both.

    Ignorance is bliss-I am a very happy bunny
  5. raminolta

    raminolta Member

    All new Minolta D lenses all have circular aperture.
    ADI flash system certainly makes a difference in flash shots if one is concerned about this.
    But as you mentioned you ay not use ADI for in long focal lengths.
    I have been using the DOF display quite more often recently. In many occasions it's just more quick to check it than trying to see through the dark viewfinder. Some times i focus in different distances from the camera and then check how much depth of field i have (without changing the aperture. It's good for landscape photography.
    Neverthless, i can't say how much th eoptical quality, ADI and DOF display are worth the extra cost. It's a personal matter.

Share This Page