Do you think I can swap a Minolta XK for a Nikon F2AS?

[Chan Tran]

I have a Minolta XK with the early version of the AE finder and a 58mm f/1.2 MC lens. They are in good condition and fully functioning. If I sell them can I expect to get enough money to buy me a nice Nikon F2AS (which I think about $500)?

 

[Huss]

The 58 1.2 lens, if in excellent condition, is worth about $450.

A nice F2AS is about $250-$300

(I have both the Nikon and the Minolta)

 

[Marco Gilardetti]

Since you are the one reselling and then buying, you will most probably find out that the 58 f:1,2 lens will no way sell for $450, and that finding a decent F2 for as low as $300 will be a very hard task. Or at least this is what happens to me all of the times.

 

[Les Sarile]

That is a very desirable combination so an F2AS should an easy reach. The used market can be finicky so anything is possible. I have that lens and it is an outstanding performer.

 

[blockend]

eBay UK shows a Minolta 58mm 1.2 selling at £295 and £360, and the same lens with an 85mm 1.7 at £500. Not sure about their condition relative to yours.

 

[Dennis-B]

I attended a local show a couple of weeks ago, and the F2-AS models were going for $450+. They've developed a following, and even a good condition F2 is fetching a minimum of $250. The ones I've seen have various body defects (not affecting function), and even non-functional meters. I've always liked the F2-xx iterations, but finally settled on a F3-HP with a MD-4. And today, I found a beautiful condition F5 for around $400.

At a local shop, they listed an F2-AS for $450 on eBay, and it lasted all of fifteen minutes with a B-I-N of $425.

The best bet is to sell the Minolta and/or lens outright, then spend time finding a nice F2.

 

[flavio81]

I have a Minolta XK with the early version of the AE finder and a 58mm f/1.2 MC lens. They are in good condition and fully functioning. If I sell them can I expect to get enough money to buy me a nice Nikon F2AS (which I think about $500)?

As a former owner of a F2AS let me tell you my view:

- an XK is a very rare camera, even more if it's in good shape. The F2AS isn't rare at at , just expensive. In my many years of camera collecting I never found an XK in my city.

- too much hype on the F2AS. I sold mine and traded it for the F2 standard. It shows the f-stop in a clearer way, analog needle is nicer (and far less distracting) than the nervous flickering LEDs, works.wirh pre-AI and AI lenses, and probably draws less battery power.

- you have one of the most desireable Minolta standard lenses, why change systems? Minolta made great cameras, some Leicas were minoltas in disguise.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

...
- too much hype on the F2AS. I sold mine and traded it for the F2 standard. It shows the f-stop in a clearer way, analog needle is nicer (and far less distracting) than the nervous flickering LEDs, works.wirh pre-AI and AI lenses, and probably draws less battery power.

Completely agree. Also, if you like and have pre-AI lenses, the F2 Photomic, F2S, or F2SB I think are better choices because they'll meter those lenses and AI lenses wide open. The F2A or F2AS will meter AI lenses wide open, but require stop-down for pre-AI.

- you have one of the most desireable Minolta standard lenses...

Sexiest lens of all time. Should keep it.

 

[M-88]

There's a lot of people who would trade their soul just to get XK. So yes, you can swap it for virtually any Nikon. But I get the feelin that one with Minolta is a winner in this deal.

 

[CMoore]

Circa 1978-1982.....i was completely and foolishly blind to Minolta.
They had (i now know) some really awesome cameras.
If I'd had different friends i might have owned some type of Minolta, rather than my Canon AE-1 and AE-1P.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

Circa 1978-1982.....i was completely and foolishly blind to Minolta.
They had (i now know) some really awesome cameras.
If I'd had different friends i might have owned some type of Minolta, rather than my Canon AE-1 and AE-1P.

The good news is that you can buy them now at a fraction of their original 1970's price.

 

[Chan Tran]

Thank you for all your replies. I post the question because I knew that the XK and the f/1.2 lens are worth good money and that's why I want to sell them to buy the F2AS. I know the XK value as a collector item but I do not like the XK as my camera. I made that decision way back in 1977 when I decided to buy the Nikon F2AS instead of the Minolta XK. My Nikon F2AS was stolen in 1984 when it was in like new condition. I want a good F2AS not beat up because I miss the first camera I bought.
I know the monetary value of the f/1.2 lens but no I never like an f/1.2 lens. I much rather have the f/1.4 lens. I don't like lens with maximum aperture not at whole stop.

 

[Chan Tran]

The good news is that you can buy them now at a fraction of their original 1970's price.

And to get a good F2AS I would have to pay about the same price as the original price in the 70's. I paid $550 for the black F2AS brand new. I also got the plain prism for $42 as nobody wanted the plain prism back then. When my camera was stolen I gave away the plain prism. If I kept it I may be able to sell it for good money. That's the reason why I didn't buy an F2 outright. I currently have the F3HP (my favorite), an F4S (my least like) and the F5 which I bought new in 2002. The F5 I think would have fewer than 5000 actuations and it's in like new condition and yet if I sell it I would get at the most 1/4 of its original price.
I bought the Canon AE-1, A-1 and AE-1P recently and the one I paid the least was $5 for the AE-1 and the most is $25 for the AE-1P. All with the f/1.8 lens.

 

[CMoore]

.
I bought the Canon AE-1, A-1 and AE-1P recently and the one I paid the least was $5 for the AE-1 and the most is $25 for the AE-1P. All with the f/1.8 lens.

Yeah, Canon A-Series (it seems) have not held their value very well.
Trying to "sell" my A-1 and AE1-P that have had a CLA (body only) is next to impossible.
I may just have to donate them to my local college.
It's either that, or put them on Craigslist for 30 bux each, and watch the offers of $4.37 roll in.

 

[RichardJack]

Your 58mm f1.2 is worth more than the body and combined worth at least $400. Many people don't realize that many of the old Rokkor lenses were better than the Nikkors of the same period. The new Nikon glass which is superb won't work on that F2. Consider a F6 if you want to stick with film.

 

[Chan Tran]

Your 58mm f1.2 is worth more than the body and combined worth at least $400. Many people don't realize that many of the old Rokkor lenses were better than the Nikkors of the same period. The new Nikon glass which is superb won't work on that F2. Consider a F6 if you want to stick with film.

When I shoot film I think my choice is the F3HP. I do own an F4 and an F5. I don't care for the F6 I think it's a lesser camera than the F5. After the F2AS I might want to get an F but not the F6. As I said in earlier post I want the F2AS because it was my first camera.

 

[blockend]

Here's another one who'd stick with the XK. That said, cameras are a visceral pleasure as much as a practical one, some register in our affections while other leave us stone cold - even if the rest of the world thinks otherwise. I bought a used F2AS to replace the plain prism F I'd sold some years earlier, and the camera did absolutely nothing for me. It was sold a few months later with no regrets whatsoever. Like your earlier camera, my F was a low number model in near perfect condition, and finding another plain top F in similar fettle would cost way more than I'm prepared to pay. We move on.

Yeah, Canon A-Series (it seems) have not held their value very well.

It can only be their ubiquity that accounts for the disdain, the Canon A-series are perfectly good cameras carrying some great lenses. My A-1, AT-1, AV-1 get regular use. Curiously, the Canon F range hold their value as well as any Japanese professional camera of the era, and better than most. It must be the plastic bodies that modern consumers resent, the slippery technological and construction slope that gave us the modern DSLR.​

 

[CMoore]

Here's another one who'd stick with the XK. That said, cameras are a visceral pleasure as much as a practical one, some register in our affections while other leave us stone cold - even if the rest of the world thinks otherwise. I bought a used F2AS to replace the plain prism F I'd sold some years earlier, and the camera did absolutely nothing for me. It was sold a few months later with no regrets whatsoever. Like your earlier camera, my F was a low number model in near perfect condition, and finding another plain top F in similar fettle would cost way more than I'm prepared to pay. We move on.

It can only be their ubiquity that accounts for the disdain, the Canon A-series are perfectly good cameras carrying some great lenses. My A-1, AT-1, AV-1 get regular use. Curiously, the Canon F range hold their value as well as any Japanese professional camera of the era, and better than most. It must be the plastic bodies that modern consumers resent, the slippery technological and construction slope that gave us the modern DSLR.​

I used my A-1 camera A LOT and it served me well. I rarely used the AE-1P...probably because it is so similar (in what it can do) to the A-1, not because it was "no good".
Reason i am selling them, or giving them away.?.......i simply have way more 35mm bodies than i can use.
For Canon, i have the New F-1 and AT-1...so the other A-Series get no use. They are fine cameras otherwise.

 

[Dennis-B]

When I shoot film I think my choice is the F3HP. I do own an F4 and an F5. I don't care for the F6 I think it's a lesser camera than the F5. After the F2AS I might want to get an F but not the F6. As I said in earlier post I want the F2AS because it was my first camera.

I also use my F3-HP, but I just bought a near-mint F5 yesterday, and I just can't leave it in the closet. I also rotate the F4-S in the mix. Tough to not use one.