Not new to film (but might as well be)...

[Rodinal]

You 'old' X500 is almost certainly better than a P30 Pentax which by comparison is quite plasticky compare to the X500. In the past the X500 has been claimed to be better than a X700. I have had both so would probably agree. As for lenses a 28/70 and a 70/210 will probably suit your needs. There are some quite good bargains out there. If you are going with B&W I would agree with XP2 which is such a versatile film and can be processed at any minilab.
Consider when you are passing through the airport to ask for a hand search so the film is not put at risk by the scanner X rays. On the way back if you have had the film at least developed and not necessarily printed, that risk is eliminated.

 

[Kell]

Thanks.

Having used both for a couple of rolls each I still prefer the Minolta. Whether that’s just familiarity or not. I don’t know.

I certainly don’t see much/any difference in the results. So I think I’m going to move the Pentax on. As it was gifted to me, I’ll either gift it to someone else or sell it and give the money to charity.

In the end, I sent back the Minolta 28-85 lens as it has obvious fungus despite being described as clean. While I did do some tests with it, and liked the range it was basically unusable and was obviously poor in comparison to both the 28-70 and 35-70.

Instead, I saw someone offering a triple set of primes - which actually are clean.

50mm f/1.4
28mm f/2.8
135mm f/3.5

These have only just arrived so I’ve taken some test shots with these.

Certainly enjoying it.

 

[Rodinal]

Thanks.

Having used both for a couple of rolls each I still prefer the Minolta. Whether that’s just familiarity or not. I don’t know.

I certainly don’t see much/any difference in the results. So I think I’m going to move the Pentax on. As it was gifted to me, I’ll either gift it to someone else or sell it and give the money to charity.

In the end, I sent back the Minolta 28-85 lens as it has obvious fungus despite being described as clean. While I did do some tests with it, and liked the range it was basically unusable and was obviously poor in comparison to both the 28-70 and 35-70.

Instead, I saw someone offering a triple set of primes - which actually are clean.

50mm f/1.4
28mm f/2.8
135mm f/3.5

These have only just arrived so I’ve taken some test shots with these.

Certainly enjoying it.

Good choice of primes.

 

[excalibur2]

Thanks.

Having used both for a couple of rolls each I still prefer the Minolta. Whether that’s just familiarity or not. I don’t know.

I certainly don’t see much/any difference in the results. So I think I’m going to move the Pentax on. As it was gifted to me, I’ll either gift it to someone else or sell it and give the money to charity.

In the end, I sent back the Minolta 28-85 lens as it has obvious fungus despite being described as clean. While I did do some tests with it, and liked the range it was basically unusable and was obviously poor in comparison to both the 28-70 and 35-70.

Instead, I saw someone offering a triple set of primes - which actually are clean.

50mm f/1.4
28mm f/2.8
135mm f/3.5

These have only just arrived so I’ve taken some test shots with these.

Certainly enjoying it.

Are you testing your lenses on a digi camera?

 

[Rodinal]

Are you asking me or Kell. I think he is talking about using film in a Minolta camera, nothing digital.

 

[excalibur2]

Are you asking me or Kell. I think he is talking about using film in a Minolta camera, nothing digital.

picked wrong quote ......I was asking Kell if he was testing his lenses on a digi before using on a film camera.

 

[Rodinal]

Out of curiosity why would he? It would mean locating a lens mount adapter.
Some of the finest lenses for 35mm were made by Minolta and MC coating was ahead of the bunch a smidgen before Pentax! The 50/1.4 is well up with the best of the likes of Nikon and Canon, and the other two are not far behind. I have always said all that stopped them being equals was they did not even get into the pro market until very late and were then mere runners up

 

[excalibur2]

Out of curiosity why would he? It would mean locating a lens mount adapter.
Some of the finest lenses for 35mm were made by Minolta and MC coating was ahead of the bunch a smidgen before Pentax! The 50/1.4 is well up with the best of the likes of Nikon and Canon, and the other two are not far behind. I have always said all that stopped them being equals was they did not even get into the pro market until very late and were then mere runners up

If you have the adapter for a digi it's a cheap and easy way for testing lenses.......for me without a digi (at the time) have tested most of my lenses on film when cheap (esp bootie film) and would get scanned results at Asda in 20 mins (middle of the week when not busy).
But as you say it might be pointless testing Minolta primes as most of them are up with the best.

 

[Kell]

To answer the question,

I bought adapters for the Pentax lenses and Minolta lenses.

Unfortunately my only option for testing them is a Canon 5DIII.

None of the lenses play nicely with the mirror.

The Pentax ones caused the Err 20 to flash up.

And while the Minolta lenses don’t have that issue, they won’t focus beyond a couple of feet. I had heard you couldn’t use certain lenses at infinity focus but this is way shorter than that. It’s more akin to putting extension tubes on.

I did start looking at a MKI Sony A7 before common sense got the better of me and I stopped myself bidding.

I do have a calibration chart for micro adjusting digital lens/camera pairings, so I’m using that to check clarity of image.

With the obvious delays that causes in getting the negatives developed and scans back.

 

[Kell]

Here was my little exploration into the possibility of using them on my 5D.

I’ve only really had any success with either free-lensing or ultra-close ups.

Anyone using vintage lenses on modern bodies?

For years I wondered if my very old Minolta Prime lens (50mm, f1.7) could be used on my Canon - with an adapter of course. Seems it's become massive of late with some real high-end videographers (especially) collecting serial matched sets of vintage primes. View...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

 

[excalibur2]

Here was my little exploration into the possibility of using them on my 5D.

I’ve only really had any success with either free-lensing or ultra-close ups.

Anyone using vintage lenses on modern bodies?

For years I wondered if my very old Minolta Prime lens (50mm, f1.7) could be used on my Canon - with an adapter of course. Seems it's become massive of late with some real high-end videographers (especially) collecting serial matched sets of vintage primes. View...

www.talkphotography.co.uk

For years have visited mflenses.com as they test old lenses on digi cameras and from them....... tips on the hidden gems to get.

 

[Kell]

Just to add to this.

I'm out of film so popped in to Snappy Snaps as I wanted to use my camera tonight and had nothing to put in it.

XP2 = £18.

That's twice as much as Amazon.

Development.

£15 a roll.
Large scans (JPEG) an additional £8.

That's three times the price of Film Dev and would make it more than a pound per shot.

 

[Rodinal]

Even that Amazon Price is expensive AG Photographic are listing it at £7.74 incl VAT. Development and low res scanning £12.95 and returned in a standard film storage sheet Incl

 

[Kell]

Even that Amazon Price is expensive AG Photographic are listing it at £7.74 incl VAT. Development and low res scanning £12.95 and returned in a standard film storage sheet Incl

I should have mentioned that price was for a roll of 36.

Just checked the AG Photographic site. It's £9.73 for 36. But they charge £4.94 for delivery.

Making it £34.15 for three rolls delivered.

When I looked for XP2, Amazon wasn't the cheapest per roll. But it's not that much more.

I bought three rolls for £32 making it £10.66(66666666666666) per roll.

But as I'm a prime member, it came the next day with free delivery.

So it's actually cheaper on Amazon and without the hassle of setting up a new payment.

That might not ordinarily be that important, but the week I bought the film, my wife had her phone stolen and thousands of pounds was spent from our account.

So I was more than a little cautious giving out bank details that week.

 

[Kell]

As an update to this.

I started off with one Minolta lens and one Minolta camera.

I now have 10 lenses and two bodies with another lens on the way.

Minolta MDII 24mm f/2.8
Minolta MDII 28mm f/2.8
Minolta MDII 35mm f/1.8
Minolta MDII 45mm f/2.0
Minolta MDII 50mm f/1.7
Minolta MDII 50mm f/1.4
Minolta MDIII 100mm f/2.5 < this one is on its way.
Minolta MDII 135 f/3.5
Minolta MDIIIa 28-70mm f/3.5-4.8
Minolta MDIII 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta MDIIIa 35-70mm f/3.5

Lens Line up by Kell, on Flickr

With film, it's obviously a laborious process to test the lenses and, as I've found out, unless you make painstaking notes, it's also hard to tell which image you took with which lens. @excalibur2 - I did also add a first gen Sony A7 to the stable to see how that feels. ideal for testing the lenses and so far they all appear to perform well. The only exception being the 50mm 1.4 is very soft at 1.4.

I've not ad much time to test them all while out and about though. Went out last night in Chinatown, but it absolutely chucked it down and I was concerned about lenses getting wet (as well as electronics). But the initial results (with the 35-70) are great (IMHOOC). Very sharp.

Not made any concrete decisions about what I'm taking to New York yet, but my current thinking is that I'll opt for the 35-70, plus a 24mm and either the 100mm (if it turns up and is clean - I've already rejected one) or the 135mm.

Then it's a case of taking something small for the evenings. But now I have the Sony, I'm thinking that maybe that with the Minolta lenses might be perfect.