Hey Spud, or anyone else with A-Mount experience

Brownie

Legendary Member
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Followers
21
Following
1
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
4,897
Likes Received
3,786
Name
Tim
Country
United States
City/State
SE Michigan
@spudhead et-al, any experience with the Minolta 500/8 AF reflex? I'm looking for a compact telephoto to take on vacation this summer. I want to keep my kit as small and light as possible, so the 200-600 and 100-400 are staying home. At slightly under 1-1/2lbs. and under 5" long, its pretty compact and close to half the size and weight of the 100-400. There will be compromises, but I'm thinking they're worth it.

The 500 is very well thought of amongst reflex lenses, and is pretty sharp with decent contrast under enough light. We're going to a small mountain range along Lake Superior and I want something with reach. There will be museums, street walking, maybe a copper mine, and probably some indoor shots. Right now I'm thinking 17-28, 24-105, 35/1.4, and the A-Mount 75-300 or 80-200 for sure. That would be a nice range without carrying too much. The 500 would be a good cap to the set without adding a lot of bulk.

Thoughts anyone?
 
@spudhead et-al, any experience with the Minolta 500/8 AF reflex? I'm looking for a compact telephoto to take on vacation this summer. I want to keep my kit as small and light as possible, so the 200-600 and 100-400 are staying home. At slightly under 1-1/2lbs. and under 5" long, its pretty compact and close to half the size and weight of the 100-400. There will be compromises, but I'm thinking they're worth it.

The 500 is very well thought of amongst reflex lenses, and is pretty sharp with decent contrast under enough light. We're going to a small mountain range along Lake Superior and I want something with reach. There will be museums, street walking, maybe a copper mine, and probably some indoor shots. Right now I'm thinking 17-28, 24-105, 35/1.4, and the A-Mount 75-300 or 80-200 for sure. That would be a nice range without carrying too much. The 500 would be a good cap to the set without adding a lot of bulk.

Thoughts anyone?
hi I was of the opinion that the 500 reflex did not work on the sony adaptors, the monster adaptor is proven to work with the 500 reflex all be it slow as can be seen on youtube reviews. other sony forums have mases of info on all lens function with sony adaptors, it has never been on my radar because of low light issue in the general drab light of the uk
 
Thanks, I'll check into that before buying. I shoot @ f/8 a lot outdoors, so while there are compromises it shouldn't be an issue.
 
It works but you can only choose center spot AF, which is fine for my purpose. I found one complaint on DPR where a guy was PO'd because his AF didn't fit, but it turns out he bought a Rokkor MD mount lens. Caveat Emptor!

This is with the A7 IV. I'd need the LA-EA4 to work with the A7R III, not worth it. It would also be a candidate for the manual adapter since there's no aperture adjustment.


Screenshot 2022-04-17 121036.jpg
 
It works but you can only choose center spot AF, which is fine for my purpose. I found one complaint on DPR where a guy was PO'd because his AF didn't fit, but it turns out he bought a Rokkor MD mount lens. Caveat Emptor!

This is with the A7 IV. I'd need the LA-EA4 to work with the A7R III, not worth it. It would also be a candidate for the manual adapter since there's no aperture adjustment.
It works but you can only choose center spot AF, which is fine for my purpose. I found one complaint on DPR where a guy was PO'd because his AF didn't fit, but it turns out he bought a Rokkor MD mount lens. Caveat Emptor!

This is with the A7 IV. I'd need the LA-EA4 to work with the A7R III, not worth it. It would also be a candidate for the manual adapter since there's no aperture adjustment.


View attachment 19273
interesting , I know the minolta version is considered to be better than the sony, I would be interested in seeing some shots from that lens for sure
 
I managed to get out for a small vacation last year and at those times that I wanted a lot of shots without fussing with the camera my Sony 24-105 was perfect. It's even more perfect if you already own it, which you do. Here is my "One lens Album" from last year. And by the way, this is not a small lens but it didn't bother me toting it around all day.
 
I managed to get out for a small vacation last year and at those times that I wanted a lot of shots without fussing with the camera my Sony 24-105 was perfect. It's even more perfect if you already own it, which you do. Here is my "One lens Album" from last year. And by the way, this is not a small lens but it didn't bother me toting it around all day.
It's a great lens, but it's not suitable in a museum or copper mine where w-i-d-e and low light matter. It's also not the best choice if you want a telephoto. When I travel I typically take a gear bag and a day bag. The gear bag has everything in it I think I'll need or want for the trip, and the day bag is for whatever we're doing at the time. On a woods walk where panoramic views are expected, the 24-105 and 500. In a copper mine, the 17-28 and possibly the 35/1.4. On a walk around town the 24-105 would to the trick by itself. All tools for a specific reason.
 
interesting , I know the minolta version is considered to be better than the sony, I would be interested in seeing some shots from that lens for sure
Count on it!
 
Here's the one I chose, coming out of Canada. Seller says it's immaculate, it looks brand new in the photos. We exchanged messages and he further confirmed it's barely been used. $286 US, shipped. That's one thing about these specialty lenses, people bought them thinking they'd get a lot of use, and they didn't. I'll probably end up doing the same thing, but I've wanted one of these since I had my original Maxxum back in the day!

Has the original case, both caps, hood, and both rear filters, the plain and the ND4 which reduces light by 2 stops. One in this condition and all accessories from Japan would normally be another $50-100.

s-l1600 (4).jpg
s-l1600 (7).jpg
s-l1600 (6).jpg
s-l1600 (5).jpg
s-l1600 (8).jpg
 
looks good to me the drop in filters are a must have as they form part of the focusing system and believe me 42mm filters are hard to find and worth a small fortune alone, a skylight would be a good add on if you find you like this lens, hope it does what you hope
 
I'm not sure that the filters are part of the focusing system. I did some checking and they say if the 'normal' filter is missing you can simply put electrical tape over the opening to cover the slot that filter would normally be in. I'll poke around some more, or maybe just try it when the lens gets here.

Man, Canada Post shipping is S-L-O-W. He dropped it off on Monday, and they just now processed it through the office that will send it to the US. That's the same number of days it took for the 80-200 to get to my house from Japan!
 
I'm not sure that the filters are part of the focusing system. I did some checking and they say if the 'normal' filter is missing you can simply put electrical tape over the opening to cover the slot that filter would normally be in. I'll poke around some more, or maybe just try it when the lens gets here.

Man, Canada Post shipping is S-L-O-W. He dropped it off on Monday, and they just now processed it through the office that will send it to the US. That's the same number of days it took for the 80-200 to get to my house from Japan!
Hi has it arrived yet?
 
No. The tracking info still shows it 'processed through' a facility in Vancouver. No update for 2 days. I don't know if it's left Canada or if it's still there. Kind of the exact polar opposite of the lens from Japan which was 4 days from ship to delivered. In all fairness it was shipped 'standard shipping', although I thought that meant FedEx ground, not the post office.

However...:whistle:

I did purchase this. Brand new in the box, $25 shipped. No idea if it's worth a crap but is listed on Dyxum as one of the TC options, so hopefully.

I am hoping it won't degrade the image too much on either the 75-300 or 500 Ref. If it turns out to be junk at least I didn't spend much. I suppose it's too much to ask for it to be acceptable on the 500, reflex lenses being what they are.

s-l1600 (1).jpg
 
No. The tracking info still shows it 'processed through' a facility in Vancouver. No update for 2 days. I don't know if it's left Canada or if it has crossed the boarder. Kind of the exact polar opposite of the lens from Japan which was 4 days from ship to delivered.

However...:whistle:

I did purchase this. Brand new in the box, $25 shipped. No idea if it's worth a crap but is listed on Dyxum as one of the TC options, so hopefully.

I am hoping it won't degrade the image too much on either the 75-300 or 500 Ref. If it turns out to be junk at least I didn't spend much. I suppose it's too much to ask for it to be acceptable on the 500, reflex lenses being what they are.

View attachment 19542
regarding filters I checked kurt muglers review and its state that the filter is part of the element count and must be in place, this has been my experience with all the old minolta primes, and in fact I had a mate who bought an apo 300 2.8 without a filter in place and could not find filters as it did not focus properly. He finally had the filter mount altered to take 43 mm filters and bingo worked as advertised
 
Man, could this be much slower?

Screenshot 2022-04-24 134625.jpg
 
regarding filters I checked kurt muglers review and its state that the filter is part of the element count and must be in place, this has been my experience with all the old minolta primes, and in fact I had a mate who bought an apo 300 2.8 without a filter in place and could not find filters as it did not focus properly. He finally had the filter mount altered to take 43 mm filters and bingo worked as advertised
Kurt (Munger)'s review actually says you don't need the filter. It cites the owner's manual from Sony (exact same lens as Minolta, just rebranded) which does state that it needs to be in place, but his tests showed no effect in or out. His review is the one that says to cover the slot with electrical tape if you lose the 'normal' filter.
 
Kurt (Munger)'s review actually says you don't need the filter. It cites the owner's manual from Sony (exact same lens as Minolta, just rebranded) which does state that it needs to be in place, but his tests showed no effect in or out. His review is the one that says to cover the slot with electrical tape if you lose the 'normal' filter.
ok well you can try it soon and we will both have the answer that matters.
 
Supposedly this (and the rebranded Sony) is the only AF Reflex lens ever made. Both Minolta and Sony advertised it as such.

There was actually one other, the V 400 f/8 Reflex, introduced in 1996 in the Vectis mount which was APS format.
 
Pushed back from the 25th/27th to the 29th.

If anyone offers you 'standard' shipping on an eBay item, tell them no. :mad:
 
Last edited:
The TC came today. Optically it's not awful, but it doesn't work. The camera doesn't recognize the lens, it kicks itself into manual focus. It won't read the aperture, although it seems to change when I turn the dial. both the lens and the TC are 5-pin, I don't know why it wouldn't work. I only had time to try it on the 75-300. I will try it tomorrow on another lens, but there isn't much point if it only works with shorter lenses. On the other hand, for the $25 I paid, if I only use it in MF with the 500, not that big of a deal.

This is the 75-300 at full extension. IQ suffers but could be much worse.

DSC01826 by telecast, on Flickr
 
So...

Did some reading at Dyxum and learned that this is pretty common. For some reason AF and aperture reporting using a TC is fairly sporadic, depending on the TC and for some reason even the lens. Some may work and some not. It doesn't depend on screw drive or in-lens AF, also doesn't depend on the camera, the same thing was an issue with A-Mount bodies.

I guess I approached it correctly as a $25 experiment. It doesn't appear that there's anything wrong with the TC, and it is brand new. I will be interested to see if IQ is even remotely acceptable on the 500 AF. Heck, the AF might even work with that lens.
 
Good grief. It took 5 days for it to travel 25 miles give or take. It's supposed to be here tomorrow, but the latest update shows it still in California. I won't be surprised if they push back delivery again to next week. I am hoping it was put on an airplane this morning and is currently awaiting scanning at the local distribution center.

I messaged the seller and suggested he rethink his future shipping choices. He said it would've cost more. No kidding, eh? I would gladly dropped another $20 to get it here in a reasonable amount of time. It's probably being manhandled by postal employees of two countries. Yeesh!

Hopefully it gets here in one piece. The best the seller can hope for right now is no feedback.

Capture.JPG
 
Good grief. It took 5 days for it to travel 25 miles give or take. It's supposed to be here tomorrow, but the latest update shows it still in California. I won't be surprised if they push back delivery again to next week. I am hoping it was put on an airplane this morning and is currently awaiting scanning at the local distribution center.

I messaged the seller and suggested he rethink his future shipping choices. He said it would've cost more. No kidding, eh? I would gladly dropped another $20 to get it here in a reasonable amount of time. It's probably being manhandled by postal employees of two countries. Yeesh!

Hopefully it gets here in one piece. The best the seller can hope for right now is no feedback.

View attachment 19756
Wow snail mail
 
Yesterday was the second delivery date, and the second missed delivery date. The new estimate is: Delayed delivery with no estimate. It made it out of LA to Chicago, and now out of Chicago. Maybe to the local hub by Monday and delivered on Tuesday?

I know no one gives a rat's fat butt, just me being a whiner.
 
Hooray!!! The lens made it to my hometown post office @ 3:47 a.m. and is on a delivery vehicle.

Of course, perfect for testing an f/8 lens, it would appear I've moved to Jolly Old England, or perhaps the Pacific Northwest!!! :ROFLMAO:



Capture.JPG


Ok, I'll stop picking on you guys now. Michigan is only a few states behind the Pacific Northwest in clouds thanks to the Great Lakes. At least until Summer comes.

Nonetheless, we shall sally forth (weather permitting) and see what this marvel of 1989 technology can do!
 
good look I was looking at one of the 500 reflex lens here in the uk they are cheap now anyway I will see what your verdict is
 
Back
Top