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

    Any content, information, or advice found on social media platforms and the wider Internet, including forums such as AP, should NOT be acted upon unless checked against a reliable, authoritative source, and re-checked, particularly where personal health is at stake. Seek professional advice/confirmation before acting on such at all times.

Minolta AF 75-300 f4.5-5.6D

Discussion in 'Sony Chat' started by swanseadave, Jun 22, 2020.

  1. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    Many months ago in early 2019 I spotted in a used gear store a near mint copy of the above lens in a glass cabinet with a ticket price of £70.
    I asked to examine it and found it was in better condition than at first it appeared in the case.
    Being unable to afford that at the time I said thanks and left the shop.
    To cut a long story short I looked in from time to time and it was still there so I thought do I need this?
    In march this year just before lockdown I asked again to see it and asked how much.£50 I was told.
    I replied that it had been there about 12 months and I`d like to take it off their hands for £10!

    Amazingly they accepted and I walked away with it.Though not exceptional,unsurprisingly, it is pretty sharp
    but I`ve noticed a small amount of fungus on the inside of the front element.Obviously picture quality is not affected but I`m keeping it well away from my other glass. anyone else had that sort of purchase?
     
  2. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath

    Not the same but we have all had some good purchase, just depends on how good you are.

    I buy a lot on ebay, (and sell as an individual)

    Recently I bought three Giottos tripods, not at once, one where the seller wrongly listed the HEAD number not the tripod, it was listed as "giottos tripod MH5400 Aluminium Tripod", in fact it was a Giottos Vitruvian VGR9255+head, I got it for £18 inc postage.

    Last week I bought two more tripods (they have all been mint, one unused one selling from a furloughed person), I wanted the legs not the heads as I have my own, and sold the mint pan/tilts for what I paid for the tripods cost of the tripods.

    Remembering my post here about my Canon D60 and zoom lens I got from London camera Exchange last week for £24 (body) £8 (lens)

    ................. To be fair, I think perhaps £10-15 was the right price for that lens, they are on ebay, no fungus for £29 buy it now", sorry...... I would ALWAYS check ebay prices when I see something in a shp. We all carry phones.

     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2020
  3. PeteRob

    PeteRob Well-Known Member

    Lens with fungus - yes, Minolta AF - no, only got MD.
     
  4. SqueamishOssifrage

    SqueamishOssifrage Well-Known Member

    I have got the Sony version of that lens, which is optically exactly the same as the Minolta except, perhaps, for the coatings. Frankly, it is just as good as my much more expensive Tamron Di VC equivalent, and being lighter and smaller, gets used far more often than the Tamron.
     
  5. Dorset_Mike

    Dorset_Mike Grumpy Old Fart

    I've had a Tokina 80-400 .5 - 5.6 since Minolta 7000 days, not easy to find these days, no complaints, the extra 100 at the long end is very useful for air shows, birds and wild animals.
     
  6. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member

    Well you can't complain for a tenner !
    Though I suspect he knew about the fungus ......
    Anyway. .....while it's sunny , take the front lens cap off ( leave the rear cap on ) , put it on a sunny windowsill , propped up so the sun gets onto each element .
    The UV light should kill off any fungi and stop it getting any worse .
    Leave it there at least a week to ten days .
    I've done this with a few lenses I've had as a precaution , regardless of whether I've had them apart to clean them up .

    Don't do anything with it and it'll spread to all the elements in the lens , and probably other lenses too .
     
  7. swanseadave

    swanseadave Well-Known Member

    I`ve been using it for birds in the garden.Trouble is they won`t pose even if I ask nicely.Seriously I got some good ones the other day,blue,coal&longtailed tits,as well as gold finches,chaffinches, house sparrows nesting under the eaves,nuthatch,blackbird and others I can`t recall at the moment.Great fun.
    BTW how are you Mike?Keeping well I hope in these difficult times.

    Neilt3,I`m keeping it well away from all other glass.Thanks for the idea,I`ll try it.
     
  8. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath

    Be very careful and don't put it in with lenses with no fungus
     
  9. Stephen Rundle

    Stephen Rundle In the Stop Bath


    Boy is that an old tale that is so fals

    All lenses are UV coated so as to stop UV rays therefore it does NO good, plenty of sites will say do it, then there are plenty that say we live on a flat Earth :) :) :) when we all know we live in a hollow Earth ;)

    Just like the idea of putting a wet phone in rice, when (a) it does not work and (b) even silica gel would have trouble.

    Remember even if you killed the fungus it will still be etched into the coatings on the lens

    You could leave it under the sahara sun for a year and do nothing UV wise.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2020
  10. neilt3

    neilt3 Well-Known Member


    And that's a very sweeping statement that's not true .

    First off , please explain UV filters and when your up a mountain or on the coast the use for them .
    I've had problems with UV light that I've needed to use either a UV or Skylight filter to correct , on film cameras .
    Not needed with digital cameras I've used due to the UV/IR block filter they use above the sensors to prevent bloat .

    If the lenses already had UV block coatings , this wouldn't be necessary .
    Putting a UV filter on the lens wouldn't make any difference if what you say is true .

    Now explain UV photography on my full spectrum digital camera .
    How can I possibly get an image on my sensor when I fit a UV bandpass filter on the lens ?
    These filters block out light in the visible ( to humans ) spectrum and infrared spectrum .
    So only UV light can pass .
    If the lenses didn't allow UV to pass , then no light at all would reach the sensor .

    The "glass" used in lenses vary from lens to lens , some pass more UV than others , some lenses are better therefore than others , and some practically pass little if any UV light and are useless for UV photography .

    Some enlarger lenses give best results though , as they never had to be corrected for UV light .

    Don't believe me ?

    Before you totally dismiss the possibility of cameras lenses actually passing UV light , have a bit of a read up on the matter .

    Start here as examples are given ; https://kolarivision.com/uv-photography-lens-compatibility/

    There's a lot if information out there , it's not that hard to find .
    You can also look on Flickr to see the results of UV photography and the gear used .

    Getting back to the point , putting a lens in a position so it gets plenty of sunlight into can help with fungi , the sunlight can also help kill it by dehydration .

    You can also buy / make UV sterilisers to do a similar job .
    But I wouldn't recommend that with most modern lenses due to the plastics used , and the uncertainty of how the UV light could affect them .
    Even if you do wrap the bodies in tinfoil !

    Stripping down a lens to clean it still the best option , but not a DIY job for most people .
    Even all the lubricants need removing as the spores gets on that and you can still have the problem coming back at a later date .
     
    swanseadave likes this.

Share This Page