Minolta Maxxum 5 or 70

Any first hand experiences? A lot of people have pointed out that the
70 has slower shutter speed and flash sync. Maxxum 5 seems to have
gotten good reviews mostly except for some who say that its not easy to
use the camera in the manual mode with a single button for aperture and
exposure.

Ofcourse, I will try them in the store first.

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from my Oly
C-750).

Thanks,

Siddhartha

John Doe wrote:

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from Oly C-750).

The previous 28-80/3.5-5.6 D was unusually good for its price, at least
according to Pop Photo's SQF testing, and never contradicted here on
this newsgroup or anywhere else I read.

However the new 28-100 tested quite badly. You might want to dig out
the Pop Photo review before plonking down money on it. It's unlike the
new Nikon 28-100, which they said was a good value.

Alternatives are the 35-70/3.5-4.5 (cheap), a used 35-70/4 (very good),
a used or new 24-50/4 (excellent) or the 24-105/3.5-4.5 (expensive).
Or the 28-80/3.5-5.6 D if you can still find one.

You should also pick up a used 70-210/4 because it's a screaming bargain
and does excellent portraits at the short end.

John Doe wrote:

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from Oly C-750).

The previous 28-80/3.5-5.6 D was unusually good for its price, at least
according to Pop Photo's SQF testing, and never contradicted here on
this newsgroup or anywhere else I read.

However the new 28-100 tested quite badly. You might want to dig out
the Pop Photo review before plonking down money on it. It's unlike the
new Nikon 28-100, which they said was a good value.

Alternatives are the 35-70/3.5-4.5 (cheap), a used 35-70/4 (very good),
a used or new 24-50/4 (excellent) or the 24-105/3.5-4.5 (expensive).
Or the 28-80/3.5-5.6 D if you can still find one.

You should also pick up a used 70-210/4 because it's a screaming bargain
and does excellent portraits at the short end.

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
John Doe wrote:

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from Oly C-750).

The previous 28-80/3.5-5.6 D was unusually good for its price, at least
according to Pop Photo's SQF testing, and never contradicted here on
this newsgroup or anywhere else I read.

However the new 28-100 tested quite badly. You might want to dig out
the Pop Photo review before plonking down money on it. It's unlike the
new Nikon 28-100, which they said was a good value.

Alternatives are the 35-70/3.5-4.5 (cheap), a used 35-70/4 (very good),
a used or new 24-50/4 (excellent) or the 24-105/3.5-4.5 (expensive).
Or the 28-80/3.5-5.6 D if you can still find one.

You should also pick up a used 70-210/4 because it's a screaming bargain
and does excellent portraits at the short end.

Ok, I have decided to buy a new body and pick up a few used lenses
from www.keh.com
50mm f/1.7
28-80mm D
75-300mm D

Should any of these be avoided? Or replaced with ones from, say,
Tamron?

How important is the "D" factor in the lenses? From what I read, it
seems to measure depth of field in flash mode. Does not having "D"
impact the non-flash photos?

Thanks,

Siddhartha

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
John Doe wrote:

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from Oly C-750).

The previous 28-80/3.5-5.6 D was unusually good for its price, at least
according to Pop Photo's SQF testing, and never contradicted here on
this newsgroup or anywhere else I read.

However the new 28-100 tested quite badly. You might want to dig out
the Pop Photo review before plonking down money on it. It's unlike the
new Nikon 28-100, which they said was a good value.

Alternatives are the 35-70/3.5-4.5 (cheap), a used 35-70/4 (very good),
a used or new 24-50/4 (excellent) or the 24-105/3.5-4.5 (expensive).
Or the 28-80/3.5-5.6 D if you can still find one.

You should also pick up a used 70-210/4 because it's a screaming bargain
and does excellent portraits at the short end.

Ok, I have decided to buy a new body and pick up a few used lenses
from www.keh.com
50mm f/1.7
28-80mm D
75-300mm D

Should any of these be avoided? Or replaced with ones from, say,
Tamron?

How important is the "D" factor in the lenses? From what I read, it
seems to measure depth of field in flash mode. Does not having "D"
impact the non-flash photos?

Thanks,

Siddhartha

Bill Tuthill wrote in message ...
John Doe wrote:

Also, is the kit 28-100mm Minolta lens any good or should I just buy
the body? If not the kit lens then what lens would be good for a
beginner? I am not looking to zoom much (as I learned from Oly C-750).

The previous 28-80/3.5-5.6 D was unusually good for its price, at least
according to Pop Photo's SQF testing, and never contradicted here on
this newsgroup or anywhere else I read.

However the new 28-100 tested quite badly. You might want to dig out
the Pop Photo review before plonking down money on it. It's unlike the
new Nikon 28-100, which they said was a good value.

Alternatives are the 35-70/3.5-4.5 (cheap), a used 35-70/4 (very good),
a used or new 24-50/4 (excellent) or the 24-105/3.5-4.5 (expensive).
Or the 28-80/3.5-5.6 D if you can still find one.

You should also pick up a used 70-210/4 because it's a screaming bargain
and does excellent portraits at the short end.

Also, in 75-300mm, I see three types of lenses:
- 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D VII MACRO SILVER (55)
- 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D MACRO SILVER (55)
- 75-300 F4.5-5.6 I MACRO (55)
- 75-300 F4.5-5.6 II MACRO SILVER (55)

Ofcourse, the last two are not "D" lenses but what the difference
between "VII" and non-"VII". Googling didn't reveal much on the
subject.

Thanks,

Siddhartha

John Doe wrote:



Ok, I have decided to buy a new body and pick up a few used lenses
from www.keh.com
50mm f/1.7
28-80mm D
75-300mm D

The 75-300 is (like all in this range) soft from 200 to 200mm. I
had this lens, sold it.

Look for a 70-210 f/4. They you will be cooking.



Should any of these be avoided? Or replaced with ones from, say,
Tamron?

No difference in this respect.


How important is the "D" factor in the lenses? From what I read, it
seems to measure depth of field in flash mode. Does not having "D"
impact the non-flash photos?

The "D" is distance integration with "D" flashes such as the
5600HS and 3600HS. The lens, body and flash must be "D"
compatible to take advantage of the feature. Otherwise it will
still work fine.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

John Doe wrote:



Ok, I have decided to buy a new body and pick up a few used lenses
from www.keh.com
50mm f/1.7
28-80mm D
75-300mm D

The 75-300 is (like all in this range) soft from 200 to 200mm. I
had this lens, sold it.

Look for a 70-210 f/4. They you will be cooking.



Should any of these be avoided? Or replaced with ones from, say,
Tamron?

No difference in this respect.


How important is the "D" factor in the lenses? From what I read, it
seems to measure depth of field in flash mode. Does not having "D"
impact the non-flash photos?

The "D" is distance integration with "D" flashes such as the
5600HS and 3600HS. The lens, body and flash must be "D"
compatible to take advantage of the feature. Otherwise it will
still work fine.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

John Doe wrote:



Ok, I have decided to buy a new body and pick up a few used lenses
from www.keh.com
50mm f/1.7
28-80mm D
75-300mm D

The 75-300 is (like all in this range) soft from 200 to 200mm. I
had this lens, sold it.

Look for a 70-210 f/4. They you will be cooking.



Should any of these be avoided? Or replaced with ones from, say,
Tamron?

No difference in this respect.


How important is the "D" factor in the lenses? From what I read, it
seems to measure depth of field in flash mode. Does not having "D"
impact the non-flash photos?

The "D" is distance integration with "D" flashes such as the
5600HS and 3600HS. The lens, body and flash must be "D"
compatible to take advantage of the feature. Otherwise it will
still work fine.

Cheers,
Alan
--
-- rec.photo.equipment.35mm user resource:
-- http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- e-meil: there's no such thing as a FreeLunch.--

Alan Browne wrote in message ...

Look for a 70-210 f/4. They you will be cooking.


Thanks Alan. Alongwith the 70-210 f/4, I also see:
- 70-210 F4.5-5.6 I MACRO (49)
- 70-210 F4.5-5.6 II MACRO (49)

Any thoughts on these?

Siddhartha