Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

`   

   

 

Suggestion ? Yes. Be open to ANY common 

lens mount, not just FD. Adapters are cheap 

and the "lens of your dreams" is likely to pop 

up in Nikon, Pentax, or Minolta mount. 28 to 

135 is not that common, but can be found in 

various mounts.   

   

----------------------------------------------------  

   

Mine are in Nikon and Maxxum mounts, but 

they are left over from my use of those lines 

of cameras, not acquired as "legacy" but as 

current lenses long ago. I was never an FD 

user so I don't know how rare or common a 

28 to 135 would be for FD ... but I DO know 

that the great majority of "more interesting" 

lenses are in Nikon mount [for the obvious 

reason]. Even today Nikon offers a lens with 

similar range, their 24-120 VR. Same zoom 

ratio but shifted a bit wider to include 24mm.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

There is the Minolta "secret handshake" lens, 28-135mm f4-4.5. It's an autofocus lens so it uses the LA-EA4 adapter. The lens is legendary for having an "impossibly" good image quality for its zoom range when it was made. It's still pretty good.

 

The LA-EA4 adapter is obviously a bit more expensive than the manual adapters but it is well worth having with an E-mount system. It opens up the use of a range of very good Minolta autofocus lenses. In fact most of Minolta's 1980s zooms and primes are still really good and cheap to buy.

 

The AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5 is even better if you can live with less zoom range, as is the 28-85mm f3.5-4.5.

 

You can check the lenses out on dyxum.com to find which ones are the best.

Link to post
Share on other sites

`   

........... 28 to 135 is not that common, but can

be found in various mounts.   

   

Mine are in Nikon and Maxxum mounts, ...........

   

Yup, I'm selfie quoting. Re-read what's 

above and there's no way around it, I've 

got that "handshake" lens. It's large and

heavy, and 30 year old tech, but it does 

feature internal focusing ... and you will 

hafta pry it from my cold dead paws !  

   

IOW, despite it's shortcomings, it's very 

capable, a real workhorse, and built like 

a Clydesdale. Whatever you do, do NOT 

read any "Lab Test" reports about it. It's 

not designed to score in competitions. A 

Clydesdale is not a race horse :-) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest Jaf-Photo

If the 28-135 range is super-important, the handshake is the one to get. if not, I would recommend the 35-105 over it. It's sharper, more uniform and... wait for it... has great bokeh in macro mode.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the 28-135 range is super-important, the handshake is the one to get.............

   

Especially on an a7 of the Mk-II period, adapting "handshake" 

zooms has a major advantage over adapting Nikon or Canon 

lenses. Altho the IBIS is active regardless of which brand you 

adapt, adapting a Nikon Ai, Canon FD, or other zoom requires 

you to manually re-input the FL as you zoom such a wide ratio 

lens. With the Sony adapters the FL is automatically read from 

the lens into the camera, even with Maxxum lenses of the era 

before IBIS was was invented. I guess it was to inform the "P" 

mode as to what shutter speeds to prefer.   

    

OTOH if you shoot by daylight at 3-digit shutter speeds, all of   

this hardly matters .... 

      

----------------------------------------------------------------------------   

      

  

P.S. to anyone considering adapting a non-handshake zoom 

for use with IBIS: Simply manually setting the IBIS for the max 

FL of a zoom is a reeeeeally baaaaad idea. Setting for mid FL 

is also a Bad Idea. Setting for the minimum FL is safe, but will 

greatly diminish the effect of IBIS as you zoom to longer FLs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • I've been using this lens extensively without any sharpness issues. At long focal lengths, you'll have to factor in the need for a faster shutter speed (< 1/500-ish at 350mm) and other factors like atmospheric distortion, fog/dust haze, etc. All these factors contribute to a deterioration of image quality at longer focal lengths.
    • That's supposed to be a pretty good APS-C lens. Can you try it on a different camera just for the heck of it? Friend? Camera shop? The lens is noted for sharpness, so if you're having as much trouble as you say, you may want to look into a replacement or repair. 
    • Hi everyone, I’m reaching out to the community because I’m facing a persistent image quality issue with my Sony 70–350mm f/4.5–6.3 G OSS lens, and I’d like to know if this is normal behavior or if my copy is defective. Problem description: I’ve extensively compared the 70–350mm G OSS with my Sony 18–135mm f/3.5–5.6 OSS, using a Sony A6700, under controlled conditions: • Identical lighting and background • Same subject and position (LEGO figure, consistent framing) • Tripod or steady support • Manual focus or AF with center point • Same shutter speed (e.g., 1/200s), similar ISO (ISO 4000–6400), RAW + JPEG • OIS turned on (and also tested with OIS off) My observations: • At 135mm, the 70–350mm G OSS delivers softer, flatter images than the 18–135mm, even when stopped down. • At 350mm, the sharpness drops significantly – the center is soft, and textures (like LEGO tiles or fabric) appear blurred or smudged. • Contrast and micro-detail are noticeably inferior across all focal lengths. • The 18–135mm at 135mm (even cropped) retains better edge sharpness and detail definition. • Both JPEG and RAW files confirm the issue – this is not just JPEG processing or noise reduction. Question to the community: • Have others experienced similar softness with the 70–350mm? • Is it possible I have a decentered or optically misaligned copy? • Is there a known issue with OSS introducing softness at long focal lengths? I wanted to love this lens due to the range and portability, but currently it’s unusable for anything where image quality matters. I’m considering returning or sending it for service. Thanks in advance for any feedback or comparison results you can share.  
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...