Minolta Lenses on Sony E-mount

jamiebonline

jamiebonline

Messages
194
Name
Jamie
Edit My Images
No
Hi all,

I recently picked up a few vintage Minolta MD lenses and an adapter. A Kiwi adapter minolta md/mc to nex. The point is that the images I am getting are really not very sharp. Even though I have some of the best Rokkor lenses ever made. I suppose these old lenses can't compete to well with the most modern ones? I sold a Sigma 60 2.8 recently. It is know for being excellently sharp and when I compare it with these old lenses I can see a difference. However, the zoom I have is still sharper than a modern kit lens and with much more interesting and beautiful bokeh. The primes are small and easy to carry around and have a certain look to them which is unique I feel.

Any experience with theses? Any recommendations on which ones you like?
 
is it the glass or is it the difficulty manually focusing on a DSLR which was built with AF in mind ?
 
Ulfric M Douglas said:
I would try them on a different body or even a different system.
My old lenses vary in IQ according to what sensor is behind them, which isn't obvious.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I just got a roll of 35mm film printed from an old Minolta camera using two of the lenses which I am getting tomorrow. It might not be the best way to tell but I am curious about it. I don't have any other digital camera to test it on.

Also I am using focus peaking on a mirrorless camera not a dslr and I can see the sharpest parts of the image I think.
 
Last edited:
I have the following and have used them on my micro four thirds cameras and also on my Sony A7...

Rokkor 24mm and 28mm f2.8, 35mm f1.8, 50mm f1.4 and f1.2, 85mm f2, 135mm f2.8 and f3.5. I've also owned 50mm f1.7, 55mm f1.7 and 35mm f2.8

Without going into a detailed review of each I'll generalise as follows...

In the centre all are useable at their widest apertures and once stopped down all are sharp and stand up to pixel peeping and all can stand comparison with good modern lenses... in the centre of the frame and when stopped down. Away from the centre it's a different story and non of them stand comparison to a good modern lens. For whole images all are perfectly useable and indeed the fall off towards the edges can actually make a nice image. The 50mm f1.2 is probably the worst optically but even it makes nice whole images :D

I use a cheap adapter on my MFT cameras, bought off the auction site and I use an expensive Novoflex adapter on my A7.

I wouldn't hesitate to use any of these lenses on my digital cameras the only caviats being that at their widest aprtures you're going to get relative softness, vignetting, glowing and fringing and even when stopped down you're never going to get near to matching a really good modern lens towards the edges.

I have a lot if really nice pictures taken with these lenses :D although they do perform better on the FF A7 than on MFT.
 
Last edited:
I think I would be shining a bright light down these lenses to check for fungus.
 
set a button to zoom, the peaking isnt super acurate,

other thing is cheap uv filters will have a effect, and when lenses run out resolution it tends to look "glowy"
 
do you think the pictures I posted look very soft? softer than a modern kit lens? i took a picture the other day with the zoom lens and it was much sharper and it was still wide open! i think focus peaking is being deceptive also. macro is also not the best judge perhaps. the fact is there is no kit lens as sharp as that zoom and it is cheaper than anyone on the market now. imo.
 
My friend uses a few old Minolta primes on his A7, They look a similar sharpness to your pictures. I think he uses a 50mm 1.2 and some kind of pump 24-1xx zoom. The older zooms and primes aren't too hot wide open in my experience, But typically you shouldn't really need subjects at that aperture bitingly sharp with the primes at least!
 
Last edited:
What is your focus peaking set at: low, medium or high?
What colour peaking do you use?
I normally use high and yellow.
For static subjects I would also use the zoom function for focusing.

Rokkor are certainly among some of the best older lenses and should be fine for normal viewing.
 
I would expect the 50/1.7 to have a bit of a glow wide open, but stopped down a stop it should sharpen up.

The 35-70/3.5 cookie shot, I don't see anything wrong with this - looks sharp enough at the resolution posted, and you've given no indication at all of how you've processed the image for sharpness and contrast. The 35-70/3.5 is a fantastic lens, it's usually my walkabout lens on my X-E2.


I'm not sure what you're question really is - you've got a couple of nice lenses (the zoom being the better) and you're early results look about right. Stop worrying about sharpness (it's a distraction) and get out there and use the lenses for the purpose they were designed, taking photos! ;)
 
Alastair said:
I would expect the 50/1.7 to have a bit of a glow wide open, but stopped down a stop it should sharpen up.

The 35-70/3.5 cookie shot, I don't see anything wrong with this - looks sharp enough at the resolution posted, and you've given no indication at all of how you've processed the image for sharpness and contrast. The 35-70/3.5 is a fantastic lens, it's usually my walkabout lens on my X-E2.


I'm not sure what you're question really is - you've got a couple of nice lenses (the zoom being the better) and you're early results look about right. Stop worrying about sharpness (it's a distraction) and get out there and use the lenses for the purpose they were designed, taking photos! ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah maybe I needed to hear this :) I have been distracted by it.
 
Alastair said:
I'm not sure what you're question really is - you've got a couple of nice lenses (the zoom being the better) and you're early results look about right. Stop worrying about sharpness (it's a distraction) and get out there and use the lenses for the purpose they were designed, taking photos! ;)
Click to expand...

(y) - absolute sharpness, along with noise, CA, and a bunch of other stuff are only cared about by photographers - non photographers viewing the pics don't even notice them... particularly if the pic has impact through its subject and composition
 
big soft moose said:
(y) - absolute sharpness, along with noise, CA, and a bunch of other stuff are only cared about by photographers - non photographers viewing the pics don't even notice them... particularly if the pic has impact through its subject and composition
Click to expand...
Exactly.. and this is the reason why photography forums and magazines tend to be so terrible for photography. Too much emphasis on the unimportant because it can be measured and not enough on what is important because it can't be measured.
 
jamiebonline said:
Hi all,

I recently picked up a few vintage Minolta MD lenses and an adapter. A Kiwi adapter minolta md/mc to nex. The point is that the images I am getting are really not very sharp. Even though I have some of the best Rokkor lenses ever made. I suppose these old lenses can't compete to well with the most modern ones? I sold a Sigma 60 2.8 recently. It is know for being excellently sharp and when I compare it with these old lenses I can see a difference. However, the zoom I have is still sharper than a modern kit lens and with much more interesting and beautiful bokeh. The primes are small and easy to carry around and have a certain look to them which is unique I feel.

Any experience with theses? Any recommendations on which ones you like?
Click to expand...

You may be interested in this thread over on F&M. I quite often have a peak at the alt lens pics.
It's worth keeping an eye out for Phillip Reeve's contributions. There are some about half way down this page:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/924270/108
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top