Minolta. What I have got and what next

[ongakublue]

Hi guys,

So further to my earlier thread about adapters I'd like to talk about what I bought re lenses:

I got a 50 1.4 MC Rokkor PG

50 1.7 MD

A 35-70 3.5 (Macro version)

I guess I might not be accurate in my descriptions of them. So far I am very happy. The 35-70 has surprised me most with how good it is.

Any ideas for wide angle preferably 35mm? And also what about something more telephoto (85 upwards). I saw a 135mm f3.5 but didn't get it because it was the 135mm 2.8 I heard all the good things about online.

Thanks for your thoughts

 

[Paul Howell]

It seems that you have all MD lens, Minolta MD lens are for the most very good, I knew pros who shot with Minolta just for the glass. From I have read on line the 35 to 70 was designed by Leica, as turn out some Leica R lens were designed by Minolta, and Minolta made a version of the Leica CL. I don't use MD lens, I have newer autofocus lens, but for long I would be unhappy with the 135 3.5

 

[miha]

The 35-70 f3.5 was designed and made by Minolta, adapted by Leica at some stage as well. Same goes for the great Minolta 24mm, which would be on my wish list if I were a Minolta user (I had a Dynax / Maxxum once).

 

[jeffreythree]

I inherited and use my Grandfather's old Minolta gear while adding a bit of my own, mostly on my favorite SR-T 102. I have the same 50mm 1.4 MC Rokkor PG and use it a lot now that I had the dented filter ring fixed, and it uses the same size filters as my Rokkor 135mm 2.8(55mm). The 135mm 2.8 really is a nice lens. I use a Bushnell 28mm 2.8 for wide angle. It is pretty decent, good enough that I have not bothered replacing it with a Rokkor or Rokkor-X. I have not found a need for a 35mm lens to fit between the 50mm and 28mm yet, but would find room(and funds) for a 35mm 2.8 Shift CA if one crossed my path. A 28mm lens may be a better option for you as well since your zoom that gave good results is 35-70mm.

 

[Bearman]

Look for an 85mm f2 and maybe an MC 35mm f1.8. The 85/2 arguably better than more expensive 85mm/1.7. The 1.7 is a looker, though.

 

[John Koehrer]

Your 35-70 has 35mm covered unless you want/need more speed.
28mm would be the next step wider.

 

[ongakublue]

It seems that you have all MD lens, Minolta MD lens are for the most very good, I knew pros who shot with Minolta just for the glass. From I have read on line the 35 to 70 was designed by Leica, as turn out some Leica R lens were designed by Minolta, and Minolta made a version of the Leica CL. I don't use MD lens, I have newer autofocus lens, but for long I would be unhappy with the 135 3.5

Yes all MD. Do you think it is worth buying an adapter to use the AF Minolta lenses? I assume some AF Minolta lenses are very good. Do you have any?

Pity the AF lenses won't work using the MD/MC adapter for Sony e-mount even without auto focus. It seems I need another adapter which surprises me. Why would minolta change the size of their mount for AF lenses.


J

 

[pbromaghin]

Yes all MD. Do you think it is worth buying an adapter to use the AF Minolta lenses? I assume some AF Minolta lenses are very good. Do you have any? J

No. Maybe. No.

Stick with Rokkor MD. The autofocus lenses will just cost you more for nothing better. The MD lenses are among the best ever made by anybody, very well-behaved. The out-of-focus areas melt into a sweet, soft fuzz. They are so cheap on the market that there is no reason to buy any 3rd party lenses, either. And don't go for the cheaper, plastic barrel, brand made by Minolta (I can't remember the name), the Rokkers are just too good to bother with anything else.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

The OP has yet to state what he intends to do with these lenses or what bodies he has.
I assume he wants to use MD lenses in Minolta MD bodies.

 

[ongakublue]

The OP has yet to state what he intends to do with these lenses or what bodies he has.
I assume he wants to use MD lenses in Minolta MD bodies.

It is true I have yet to state what my intentions are So now I will... I got a Minolta xe-5 and I am going to use these lenses on it. I am also going to put the lenses via adapter onto a Sony A6000 mirrorless camera. I have the adapter and already tried it and I see good results too. I am interested mostly in portraits and I think I am pretty well covered now although something around 100mm would be useful. (on that apsc camera the 70 end of my 35-70 is the equivalent in terms of fov as 105 I think so actually not bad in that regard).


Thanks for the advice so far too. Very helpful.

J

 

[magkelly]

I recently picked up the Rokkor 45mm F2 and I'm very pleased with it. I've been using it on both my M43 bodies and a couple of Minolta XG-SE's that I got and I think it's pretty stellar actually, my favorite Minolta lens thus far. I have a few of them now, including several 50's but I think overall I like this one the best.

 

[John Koehrer]

I got a 50 1.4 MC Rokkor PG

That one's an MC lens not MD.
The MD came out when the newer cameras with Automatic modes came out. The MD's also had common filter sizes
through most of the series.

 

[Sirius Glass]

The Minolta 50mm 1.4 MC Rokkor PG is a good lens. If possible get MD lenses over MC lenses for the additional features.

 

[Fixcinater]

The 58/1.2 is pretty fantastic but is not at all necessary.

I shot a bit with the 135/2.8 and still have a 135/3.5 which is pretty much identical from what I've seen. Teles blur the background so nicely you don't need the widest apertures unless you are really good at focusing.

 

[naaldvoerder]

I second the suggestion for the 85/2.0. It is sweet, and hardly bigger then the 50/1.4.

 

[mklw1954]

The MD 28mm f2.8 is very good. The MD Zoom 70-210mm f4 was also developed along with Leica like the 35-70mm f3.5 and is excellent. Both are inexpensive although more expensive now than in the last 5-8 years now that they're being used on digital cameras.