Which Minolta lenses will work on Dynax camera bodies?

Cluster

Cluster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
770
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
Yes
Although I can't possibly need another camera system, I was fascinated by the Minolta Dynax cameras from around the year 2000.
I ended up buying one on thE bay for around the same cost as the post. It will arrive soon.
I discovered that I like the functionality of AF cameras from this era and enjoy using my Pentax MZ cameras.
Is the Dynax 404si and Dynax 5 limited to AF lenses of that era?
 
If you are looking for used lenses then Minolta had the SR mount which predates your cameras andare completely manual, (no AF) and these are not compatible

Then there is the Minolta A mount - which then may be branded Konica-Minolta on some later lenses - and then Sony A or Alpha mount. These are the AF lenses.

There are two drive methods in the lenses. The original A mount lenses use screw drive where there is a motor in the camera that then links through the lens mount mechanically to drive the focusing mechanism in the lens. Then later lenses changed to SSM which used motor in the lens which is driven electrically.

The oldest cameras will only support the screw drive lenses.

The later cameras will support both.

A quick search suggests the Dynax 5 will support SSM but the Dynax 404si does not.
 
Last edited:
I've got a lot of old minolta AF and sigma lenses. I've used them all on the dynax 9. Dynax 7 is slightly different and there's a few things it doesn't like but the 9 is different again I think. Sigma used to do an update thing and my ancient 28-300 was updated I think to be better behaved with the Sony A580 I think had at the time. I've used both the sigma 105 and minolta version on the dynax 9 I think. My 7 died due to aperture failure and that's the other thing to watch for on some of them. If my 9 ever dies I may have to have a wake and a formal burial as it was always my dream SLR.

The sony A99 is very like the old minolta dynax 9 film camera in feeling.

I think it's a case of try it and see. I don't think I have an SSM lens to try on my 9. I have a sneaky feeling that later 9s were ok and earlier ones might not have been. I think you just have to see. It's all old stuff now so there will be odd behaviour at times.

There was a hoohah with the early sony digital bodies as the motor was a bit too enthusiastic and it did cause issues with some lenses. There's also the minolta digital 9 that was a pre cursor to the sony alpha digital bodies.
 
Can older, manual lenses not be used on the Dynax cameras? (I guess that the "A" lens series denotes AF and not auto aperture, as per Pentax A series).
 
Cluster said:
Can older, manual lenses not be used on the Dynax cameras? (I guess that the "A" lens series denotes AF and not auto aperture, as per Pentax A series).
Click to expand...

I think the MD ones might be able to but it's honestly not worth the hassle. I think you need an adaptor. I have a feeling I did have one at some point and messed around with extensions tubes and all sorts on the sony digital body. I still had all the Centon lenses so it didn't mean having to buy something and find out it was annoying.

I haven't tried any MD ones on the Dynax 9. I think you can even get a nikon adaptor to use nikon lenses on a minolta AF. I had one of those at one point and managed never to use it.
 
Cluster said:
Can older, manual lenses not be used on the Dynax cameras? (I guess that the "A" lens series denotes AF and not auto aperture, as per Pentax A series).
Click to expand...

No, there were no non-A mount lenses that were compatible, and yes, they were AF. MD won't fit.

I have a Minolta 7000 that I bought used in about '88, and no-one was interested in manual lenses for those cameras.

FWIW, if you (generally) go buying lenses, try to avoid the consumer models (28-80, 28-100) which are garbage, but instead get the enthusiast or pro lenses.
 
One of the early Minolta AF lenses, from around late 80's I think, the 35-105mm is very decent. Heavy, though cheap to buy, and also not a popular range focal length wise then and now. I loved it though.
 
Last edited:
As has been already said - MD lenses don't fit (different bayonet, different diameter). The early Minolta AF zoom lenses were quite good and I have had great results with both versions of the 35-70mm (f3.5-4.5 and f4 constant), plus the 70-210mm f4 "Beer Can" has a very good reputation. Minolta AF lenses that I have used have produced stunning colour rendition. I have A-Mount zooms from Tamron and Sigma which are also quite good, especially the Tamron.
 
Thanks so much for the info and advice. I was mildly interested in this range of cameras as I found that they could be very inexpensive and thought I'd buy one to play with. I assumed that they would be much like the Pentax MZ series in terms of functionality etc. I have a few Pentax MZ camera bodies and lenses. One of their advantages is that almost the entire range of K mount lenses can be used on the later plastic AF bodies. The Dynax appears to be limited in this way, so the camera that is on it's way can be used with the kit lens for interest. I won't be buying better lenses, unless the handling of the cam(s) floats my boat.
 
Minolta A lenses also work with Sony FE mount cameras with an adapter - I still use the beercan I bought in '88, a Sigma 12-24 and a Tamron 90 macro with my A7III.

The 35-105 is a nice lens. I really like the rendering of the 50 f1.4, but it's not great for fine detail compared to a modern lens in the same class and suffers coma badly.
 
I learn something new every day, I thought that Minolta, when they went AF and adopted the new mount did the same as Canon - electrical contacts ie no AF drive from the body.. Whereas Pentax and Nikon kept the same mount, and only went lens driven AF comparatively recently (2006 for Pentax with SDM)..

I love the Pentax K-mount back compatability, especially when putting my D-FA lenses on my P50, however the AF of the D-FA lenses is not compatible with the Z- or MZ-series camera (and non SDM- compatible K-cameras) ie AF is inoperable.

On the subject of Minolta lenses I was told that some of the zoom lenses were actually pretty decent. Not sure which ones though.
 
A quick search showed that the 35-70 zoom (two versions) seems to be well thought of and is cheap... I may try one with the body that is coming.
 
welshwizard645 said:
On the subject of Minolta lenses I was told that some of the zoom lenses were actually pretty decent. Not sure which ones though.
Click to expand...

The consumer lenses were especially poor, but the metal bodied lenses are almost all good, especially for the era. I used a 28-85 on crop for a while, and even with a wobbly front element it wasn't bad at all.
 
Cluster said:
A quick search showed that the 35-70 zoom (two versions) seems to be well thought of and is cheap... I may try one with the body that is coming.
Click to expand...

The constant aperture (f4 IIRC) is the one to get.
 
They had a 28-135, called the secret handshake because it was supposed to be almost supernaturally good, and it's decent for a superzoom of the era but not *that* special.
 
The Oldun said:
I have both and in normal shooting use I can't see any difference - both perform well and both have great colour rendition
Click to expand...

Confession time - I've used neither, but the fixed aperture version had a good rep and the variable version less so. There are times, such as when using flash, that a fixed aperture is helpful, although with modern digital cameras flash is much more about choices than need these days.
 
The Dynax 404si arrived today. It's in great condition, but the lens has a little fungus around the perimeter of the outer element. All advice (here and in other threads) is to put the 28-80 kit lens to one side and find one of the better zooms.
The shutter fires with a good clunk, not particularly quiet. I noticed that the camera body is plastic, the MZ series has a plastic outer but a metal chassis. I guess that makes the MZ cams a little heavier.
I'm looking forward to running a film through it soon.
 
Last edited:
Cluster said:
The Dynax 404si arrived today. It's in great condition, but the lens has a little fungus around the perimeter of the outer element. All advice (here and in other threads) is to put the 28-80 kit lens to one side and find one of the better zooms.
The shutter fires with a good clunk, not particularly quiet. I noticed that the camera body is plastic, the MZ series has a plastic outer but a metal chassis. I guess that makes the MZ cams a little heavier.
I'm looking forward to running a film through it soon.
Click to expand...
I bought a Dynax 4 which came with the 28-80 and my non-scientific impression was that it wasn't as good as the earlier 35-70s. I just checked ebay and there are loads of both 35-70 variants being auctioned. It may even be cheaper to get one mounted on a body.
 
This Dynax has a yellow tint to the VF and is a little darker than I would expect, but will be ok for normal light. Seems that it is a known issue with the Dynax range, maybe others too, where the mirror (the one in the prism roof of the V path, a prism in better cams) degrades and can take on a yellow or blue tint, sometimes quite strong.
 
Cluster said:
This Dynax has a yellow tint to the VF and is a little darker than I would expect, but will be ok for normal light. Seems that it is a known issue with the Dynax range, maybe others too, where the mirror (the one in the prism roof of the V path, a prism in better cams) degrades and can take on a yellow or blue tint, sometimes quite strong.
Click to expand...
My Dynax 4 was also discolouring in the viewfinder. These cameras use a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism. They were cheaper, lighter and unfortunately the silvering seems to tarnish over time. My earlier 300si and 500si cameras don't suffer from this (yet?) so probably had a superior coating on the mirrors.
 
i had a 404si new. Not a bad little slr. Forgotten I had one.

Kit lens was ok but I think I got the sigma 28-300 as an upgrade.
 
welshwizard645 said:
On the subject of Minolta lenses I was told that some of the zoom lenses were actually pretty decent. Not sure which ones though.
Click to expand...

There was a 70-210mm F4 with constant F4 aperture nicknamed the 'beercan' which was well regarded - at one point with the early DSLRs the used market prices spiked because of its reputation.

Minolta produced some interesting lenses. There was a 500mm F8 catadioptric lens with AF which was unique because these lenses are usually manually focused. There was also the 135mm STF which had an apodisation filter to improve the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. This was very unique. It was A-mount but manual focus. It is still unusual with only a few modern equivalents - Sony make a 100mm for their E mount, Fuji make a 56mm 'APD' lens, and Laowa make a 105mm.
 
Dryce said:
There was a 70-210mm F4 with constant F4 aperture nicknamed the 'beercan' which was well regarded - at one point with the early DSLRs the used market prices spiked because of its reputation.

Minolta produced some interesting lenses. There was a 500mm F8 catadioptric lens with AF which was unique because these lenses are usually manually focused. There was also the 135mm STF which had an apodisation filter to improve the transition from in focus to out of focus areas. This was very unique. It was A-mount but manual focus. It is still unusual with only a few modern equivalents - Sony make a 100mm for their E mount, Fuji make a 56mm 'APD' lens, and Laowa make a 105mm.
Click to expand...

Some of the older, rarer pro lenses still fetch high prices, although the beercan is excellent value now.
 
The Oldun said:
I bought a Dynax 4 which came with the 28-80 and my non-scientific impression was that it wasn't as good as the earlier 35-70s. I just checked ebay and there are loads of both 35-70 variants being auctioned. It may even be cheaper to get one mounted on a body.
Click to expand...
That's right! I now have two 35-70mm lenses on their way to me, one is the f4 and the other the 3.5 to 4.5. Each has a camera body attached. Both are something of a risk, but at a combined cost of around £20, it's fine.
For info..... I hurt my back a few days ago and am laid up at home, spending hours a day on't internet, unsupervised. There's a bunch of cameras and lenses coming my way. I have a feeling that I will be rumbled when these things arrive.
 
Cluster said:
That's right! I now have two 35-70mm lenses on their way to me, one is the f4 and the other the 3.5 to 4.5. Each has a camera body attached. Both are something of a risk, but at a combined cost of around £20, it's fine.
For info..... I hurt my back a few days ago and am laid up at home, spending hours a day on't internet, unsupervised. There's a bunch of cameras and lenses coming my way. I have a feeling that I will be rumbled when these things arrive.
Click to expand...
Early on-set Dynaxia Syndrome, for which there is no known cure. :D
 
Outside in the sunshine with the Dynax 404si today. Just a couple of shots with the kit lens on. The view through the VF is wildly yellow, as if a yellow filter had been added. It takes a little off the brightness, but no so much as to affect my use of it. This is something to look out for in other Dynax cams...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top