Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by kevistopheles, Nov 13, 2014.
Yeeeeees? by dixeyk, on Flickr
Minolta MC Rokkor 105/2.5
I got distracted when I posted this...I MEANT to actually have an explanation attached that related back to the title. Over the last few years (since I went manual focus only with my NEX) I thought I had been pretty low key when it comes to buying gear. I hadn't bought a new body until the XE1 a week or so ago. When I looked at my lens cabinet and was shooting some test shots I realized I have been collecting a bit more in the way of lenses than I had thought.
I have a pretty complete set of Minoltas (24/2.8, 50/1.7, 50/1.4, 100/2.5, 135/2.8. 35-70/3.5 macro and 70-210/4 macro). Clearly I have thing for Minoltas. I also have a coupe of Hexanons (40/1.8 and 35/2.8) that will stay with the NEX for my son to use an Olympus Pen-F 38/1.8, Takumar 50/1.4 and a couple of Komine made Vivitars (28/2 close focus and 70-210/2.8-4).
This was all while I THOUGHT I wasn't buying much of anything. Legacy lenses are sneaky that way. FWIW I'd love to add a Minolta 28/2.5 or 35/1.8
My MD 28/2.8 is a pretty nice lens. A little soft, but not distractingly. The older MC 55/1.7 is staggeringly good in the center.
The only Minolta lens that I still have is the 50mm f/2.0 Rokkor-X that came on my 1975 SRT-200. Still have the camera as well. I got by with that single camera and single lens for something like seven years.
I've often wondered what that lens was like. It's very inexpensive (even nice copies) and I have heard people say it's amazingly sharp and other say it's terrible.
My copy is very sharp and I find that I can easily obtain shallow depth of field as if I was using a lens with an aperture of f/1.8 or even f/1.4 in some circumstances.