Canon, Nikon, Minolta?

[Scott Free]

This is my first post here. Not only am I new to this forum, but also mostly new to digital too. I'm getting very close to pulling the trigger on an A7R II after shooting with a Pentax 67 system and Mamiya 7II for 30-some years. Long ago, when I shot 35mm film, my workhorse lenses were 24mm and 105mm. With the Pentax 67 it was 55mm and 200mm (closely comparable to my 35mm lenses.) Now that I'm considering switching over to the A7R II, I figure I'll be starting out with a 24mm and a 100 or 105mm and then add other lenses later. For the sake of cost, space and simplicity, I only want to buy one adapter (Novoflex?.) All this said, do certain brands of legacy lenses work better with the A7R II than others? In other words, do Canons work better with the camera/adapter the Nikon and Minolta? Do Nikons work better than...etc, etc...

 

I apologize for not even knowing enough to ask intelligent questions. Any and all advice for this extreme digital newbie is very welcome.

[Scott Free]

A follow-up question...

 

Am I even thinking about this correctly? Do people generally buy one adapter to use with different lenses of the same brand? Or is it less fiddly to have an adapter for each particular lens regardless of brand? In other words, if I have three Canon lenses, will it be less fiddly to have three adapters?

[Username]

It's a long story. Some adapters are "dumb" ... 

physical connection with proper flange distance 

[ slightly +/-, unfortunately], but no interface, no 

auto-iris stop-down, no nothing. 

   

Smart adapters pass thru the electrical signals 

but since the lens has "Brand A" protocol and 

the body has "Brand B", problems do arise.   

   

B&H has very good introductory page on using 

...  and BUYING, natch ! ... adapters. Start with 

that. What B&H doesn't mention is what you will 

find in searching these forums, that adapting EF

lenses to Sony varies from heavenly to hellish. 

It's understandable that they ignore that. But if 

yoy consider their excellent returns policy, you 

can't fault the ethics of it from a retailers stand. 

  

Quality-wise, you can choose any brand lenses 

but most users prefer the consistency of using 

just one type of mount. Also the convenience of

not juggling multiple adapters. The widest array 

of used lenses is NF-mount. But if all you ever 

intend to use is those two very common FL you 

mentioned, you can find them in any brand and 

Minolta or Canon FD will cost less cuz they are 

"dead" mounts while the NF and EF mounts still 

fit cameras in current production.  

  

For a dumb adapter, the Novoflex is very nearly 

identical to the Metabones but costs much more. 

The Metabones is about $90 while the Novoflex 

is more than 2X that. Cheap adapters are $10 to 

$30 dollars and have inferior body-side flanges 

and inferior lens-side latching mechanisms. IOW 

the Metabones is the "$weet $pot".  

   

If you can't/won't deal with the primitive operating 

procedures of a dumb adapter, IOW if you wanna 

adapt Canon EF lenses or Nikon G lenses, since 

you rely mainly on 2 prime lenses I very strongly 

suggest you stay outa the weeds and just go with 

native mount lenses, Sony OR 3rd party ... altho 

3rd party ain't cheap anymore so again, for just 2 

primes, consider Sony lenses.  

   

If you really insist on bargain hunting, and if you 

want auto-iris and full metering features, there is 

one other avenue ...Sony OEM adapters and old 

film-era Minolta AF [Maxxum] lenses. Sony's less 

expensive aapter [LAEA3] provides auto-iris plus

full electronic coupling. This means "everything 

except AF" cuz AF on such lenses is mechanical, 

not electronic. That is why these lenses, of quite 

decent quality, are affordable oldies. The LAEA3 

is $150 and thaz $75 per old lens if you never add 

another lens. Acoarst more lenses = less $$ per

lens :-) The same adapter will provide electronic 

[nonmechanical] AF on the a7R-II but that means 

finding bargains on newer type A-mount FF lenses 

which are harder to find than the old Maxxum type

lenses, but cheaper than the elite level new FE

line-up that Sony is currently pushing. 

  

There's also a more expensive aapter LAEA4 to

provide AF with the old Maxxum type lenses but ... 

  

BUT !   

You're amortizing $350-400 across only 2 lenses,

the AF is less accurate, and that AF relies on a

beam splitter that costs 1/3 EV of transmission.  

    

For my a7-II [non-"R"] I'm using your favored pair, 

a 24/2.8 Maxxum lens and a 90/2.8 Sigma macro. 

No AF with my LAEA3 and no complaint and most 

importantly NO GRIEF cuz it's Sony's own adapter. 

While this is Hawg Hevvin, these lenses are not all 

that easy to find :-( Mine are leftover from my using 

the Maxxum system 30 yrs ago, along with several 

more Maxxum lenses ... so my adapter has cost me

only about $15 per lens :-) :-) :-) 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

A big step. Having shot those great analogue cameras, you"ll be used to very high IQ. Adapting lenses on A7 cameras is far from a fool-proof solution. Some lenses and adapters work well, some don't.

 

I would suggest two alternative routes. If you really plan on adapting manual lenses go for the first version A7R. You can buy a nice used one for a quarter of the price of a new A7R2. It has a very good sensor. Then you can spend extra on high-end vintage lenses, such as Zeiss.

 

If you want to spend more, you can go the A7R2 route but then I would suggest getting native AF lenses. Then you get much more functionality and high quality optics.

[JimmyD]

Some great advice from other forum members above. I am going to point out another option (as noted by others above, there are many choices). From your original post, I am going to assume cost is important, you are comfortable with manual focus, and image quality is very important; below are my thoughts based on these assumptions. As an aside, there is a very high likelihood that Sony will be announcing the A7R III soon, which will cause the prices of A7R II's (new and used) to drop. In fact, they already are dropping based on the A7R III speculation and the A9 announcement.

 

For IQ, I would go with your original thought of the A7R II. If for no other reason, the built in image stabilization is a huge benefit when using manual focus and any other lens that does not have image stabilization.

 

You are certainly safe going with Nikon, Canon, or MInolta legacy glass. I have shot extensively with legacy glass from all three brands. Just read up on on-line reviews to pick your lenses. It is certainly less expensve to go with one brand, as you can use one adapter for all of your lenses. With a high quality adapter it is no harder to switch lenses with the adapter mounter on the camera than on an old manual focus body itself. Which brings me to the adapter.

 

Novoflex is the most expensive, but it is the best. While Metabones is the "best of the rest" the only complaint I have ever heard from anyone on Novovflex is price, whereas many people have experienced quality issues with every onther brand including Metabones. And Novoflex price has come down. And they are available used if you hunt.

 

In terms of the lens brand, there is an availability advantage to Nikon as they simply sold the most manual focus lenses. And, unlike the other brands, there are Nikon manual focus lenses you can still purchase new today (B&H; Adorama)! And, as it so happens, one of Nikon's legendary manual focus lengths is 105mm (they have f/1.8 and f/2.5 versions which are both great lenses). They also have very capable 24mm and 28mm f/2.8s (the 28mm is reputed to be one of the sharpest legacy wide angles of all time). So if I had to pick one brand, it would be Nikon, however, you will be able to make great images with any of the three. (Check out forum member Phillip Reeeves' website for a lot of fantastic images made with a variety of Minolta MD glass.) However, if you need a fast 24mm, then Canon has a great 24mm f/1.4.

[Scott Free]

Thanks for all the helpful and replies. It's nice to get quick and easy answers. It's especially appreciated when people post lengthy and thoughtful replies. Thank you.

 

Yes, cost is certainly an issue with the lenses. I'm not a fan of autofocus for my style of work (although for certain applications it's certainly appropriate.) The other thing I appreciate about old manual lenses is they have easy to use depth of field scales. When using the Pentax 67 and the Mamiya 7, I use those scales almost always (at least with wide angle lenses.) Finally, I'm liking those old manual lenses because of their size and weight compared to modern autofocus lenses. The Sony with a 28mm would make a nice walk-around camera for me (but even smaller and lighter than the Mamiya 7 I use now.)

 

For those of you waiting for the upcoming A7R III, I'm going to help you out by hopefully buying my camera this week. If I do, you can be sure the A7R III will be available next week.

 

Thanks again for the helpful replies!

[JimmyD]

Following up on my prior post, below is a link to B&H Photo for the Nikon manual focus 24mm f/2.8 lens that you can still purchase new and works flawlessly with the Novoflex adapter (although no electronic communication of EXIF data).  You can search B&H's website to see the other manual focus lenses you can still buy new, like a 105mm f/2.8 macro lens (which Nikon call a "micro").  All of these lenses can be purchased for much less used . . .

 

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36919-GREY/Nikon_1416_Wide_Angle_24mm_f_2_8.html

[aliengrove]

If you are looking at manual focus legacy lenses there are also a lot of excellent Pentax and Olympus lenses worth looking at. My current favourite legacy lenses are :

Pentax smc-M 28mm f3.5

Pentax smc-A 35mm f2.8

Pentax smc-A 50mm f1.4

Minolta Auto-Rokkor PF 55mm f1.8

All are extremely sharp and the most expensive (Pentax 28mm) cost me £65. I have bought and sold a lot of legacy lenses while looking for a great set of primes and these 4 are the ones I will never sell. I use them on the A7s and A7rii.

 

As for adapters, by all means buy an expensive dumb adapter if you want, but the four K&F Concept adapters I have bought work perfectly well. I have never had any issues with any of them, including when shooting infrared. They cost about

£12 each and imo there is no reason at all to spend loads of dosh on more expensive adapters which are extremely over-priced for what is effectively a small piece of alloy tubing.

[nomad]

Isn't that Minolta PF Rokkor a 55mm f1.7 ? Or are there two versions?

[Username]

..... imo there is no reason at all to spend loads of dosh on more

expensive adapters which are extremely over-priced for what is

effectively a small piece of alloy tubing.

   

Compared to $10 to $20 adapters, the Novoflex is so 

overpriced it's remarkable it actual sells at all ... mainly 

cuz you get the same superior quality from MetaBones 

at about half the cost.   

   

The first adapter I used was a borrowed Fotasy which,  

IIRC, cost my friend $25. The focus [flange distance] 

on his example was absolutely dead on, and parallel :-)   

   

But, like all inexpensive adapters, the front latch was 

undersized and wobbly and rear flange was machined

directly onto the aluminum barrel. The rear flange is

best made out of chromed brass, as on any good lens.   

   

MetaBones and Novoflex correct those shortcomings,  

and being unwilling to tolerate same, I opted for the 

MetaBones. It cost $75 extra to go that route. I admit 

that the $75 difference shoulda been more like a $25 

difference .... so the MetaBones is priced about $50 

more than would be reasonable for the improvements.

     

But, I have survived in this world minus that $50, and

gone on to "waste" other similar amounts on personal

contentment over and over again. I would not "rewind

and edit" if given opportunity. When shopping adapters,

it's your $50, to compromise or not. For pocket change

I chose not to compromise. I see that in these forums 

the near universal belief is that many hundreds dollars 

are "well spent" on invisible optical "superiority" and 

other chimerical holy grails. But $50 extra for a better 

adapter ? Seems it's almost a crime to do so :-( Well, I 

did the crime and paid my fine, and would do it again ! 

[aliengrove]

Isn't that Minolta PF Rokkor a 55mm f1.7 ? Or are there two versions?

 

Mine is f1.8. There seem to be several minor variants, made up to 1966. The f1.7 was the replacement for this lens and is I believe very similar. I really like the f1.8 version I have, it's very sharp and has a great look to images from it and nice smooth bokeh. However, I haven't found an f1.7 version to compare it to (I bought the f1.8 version as I couldn't find the f1.7 version, and the lens I bought was also unused, along with a 135mm f2.8 I bought with it. I couldn't resist two new yet old lenses). 

 

This is the only info I have found online regarding the genealogy of these lenses. http://www.subclub.org/minman/5017.htm