Search the Community

From a business related trip to Antalya. Taken with A7ii & Rokkor 28mm 2.5. <a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/97103793@N06/23608303354/in/dateposted-public/" title="ants1"><img src="https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1502/23608303354_f979208d96_h.jpg" width="1600" height="1147" alt="Fruit Juice"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script> <a data-flickr-embed="true" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/97103793@N06/23507396799/in/dateposted-public/" title="kici2"><img src="https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5669/23507396799_dc549a2e25_o.jpg" width="1350" height="865" alt="kici2"></a><script async src="//embedr.flickr.com/assets/client-code.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I bought this lens when looking for the later f1.7 version. However, I'm very happy with this lens and doubt whether the f1.7 version could be much better. It's now one of my favourite lenses. Here's a couple of shots taken at f1.8 and f2.8, with 100% crops. Camera used was A7rii with K&F Concept adapter. Great bokeh, and the lens is pretty sharp considering it's made pre 1966. Corners are good too, though obviously not apparent on these shots. If anyone is interested I'll post a couple of shots showing the corners. f1.8 Minolta Auto-Rokkor PF f1.8@ f1.8 by Jon, on Flickr f2.8 Minolta Auto-Rokkor PF 55mm f1.8 @f2.8 by Jon, on Flickr f1.8 100% crop Minolta Auto-Rokkor PF f1.8@ F1.8 by Jon, on Flickr f2.8 100% crop Minolta Auto-Rokkor PF 55mm f1.8 @f2.8 by Jon, on Flickr

I currently have the a7R, seriously thinking about getting the a7Rii. I own a few Minolta lenses. I read that with the new AF on the mark ii, I only need to buy the sony LAEA3 adapter and then I can use my old lenses. It is a given that this works with the newer Sony A mount, but will this combo works with old Minolta? My Minolta' all have AF. TIA everyone.

Hello everybody, I made some shots with the LA-EA4 and the Minolta Beercan. Still pleased by the bokeh and colors it produces, even 20 years after the lens released I thought it could be of interest for people to see how it performs. It's a bit bulky with the A7 but I always loved this lens so I'm still happy to use it, even more with a FF camera.

I just put my old Minolta MD Rokkor-X 50mm f1.4 on my a7 II this morning and took a stroll with it to see if it still had it. Apparently it does. I would put these images up against my Sony "Zeiss" lenses any day. These images were shot handheld at around f8:

Sony A99V, Minolta AF 80-200mm f/2.8 G HS Black Forest (Schwarzwald) in Southern Germany https://www.flickr.com/photos/seelenpfluecker/ https://500px.com/seelenpfluecker https://www.facebook.com/2wielicht

Since 2012 I've tested hundreds of legacy lenses on the SONY NEX7 and A7r. Here's a quick overview of some favorites Biggest bang for the buck - the Minolta MD Rokkor lenses. The 50mm 1.7 tests as well any other 50s until the FE55 and Otus 55 - especially as you head into f4 to f5.6. These lenses were as cheap as $17 from KEH. The MD 28 2.5 is also a fun lens that I prefer over the Zeiss Hollywood Distagon f2.0 depending on the situation. The best zoom value ever is probably the Contax Zeiss 28-85mm. It's a dust pump, it's heavy, the g'damn front element rotates, no one single hood works across its range, but it is very very sharp, has perfect Zeiss color and is cheaper and broader than the fragile 35-70mm. Coming up in focal lengths - The Rokinon 14mm 2.8 (not legacy really) but a screaming bargain at $300ish. I had to test several to get a great one, and the damn thing reaches infinity halfway in the throw. But otherwise perfect corner to corner. 21mm - hands down the Zeiss Distagon 21mm - we all know DXO is wrong again in their guesstimates. 28mm - in daylight and 3d effect - the Hollywood Distagon 28mm 2.0 AEG - but at night leave it at home - it absolutely sucks due to coma. 35mm - The Contax 35 f.15 AEG - some PF wide open but settles down nicely by 4.0 - 5.6 50mm - either C/Y 50mm 1,4 and 1.7 - same issues as 35mm 1.4 but nice by 4.0 - the Minolta's are a bargain 85mm - as many swear by as swear at the Contax 85mm lenses. I never missed them too much. 100mm - overrated Contax - the ones I've tested had crazy bad CA. I passed 135mm - never found a good one until the new Zeiss Apo-Sonnar - this is probably the finest lens bargain on the planet. It is a true APO. 180mm - The C/Y Sonnar 2.8 is good for reach as long as there isn't high contrast. 300mm - the 300 f4 is a piece of crap - not really good for anything other than clubbing a Leicaphile with. I never really found a Leica that performed really well but they do draw nicely if blurred pixels are your thing. There is almost always an issue with every Leica lens - flare, ca, poor resolution, it's always something. I tried a few Nikon manual focusing lenses out - they weren't that good either - the Contax always won over the Nikons in the 20mm-100mm range.

At f/4 this lens is sharp, but the Jupiter-9 85mm it is sharper still already when opened at two more stops (at f/2). That being said, I find the Jupiter better for b/w work (smoother tonalities), while I like the 90 M-Rokkor much more for its colors. It is extremely compact, and together with the 28/2.8 and the 40/2 M-Rokkor it takes the same space of a tube of chocolates Understory, Sila mountains, Italy (vignetting added in post) Beach house walls, Cetraro, Italy "Tasso" forest ("Beaver" forest) under the snow Winter sea at Lampetia cape, Cetraro, Italy

This lens has been dubbed, I don't remember by what famous photographer, the "water lens" for the way it treats the out-of-focus areas. It is quite sharp straight on from f/2 (but there are sharper lenses out here at that aperture) and becomes really really sharp stopping down. At least on my sample there is a super-correction of the borders at f/4: this means that the center is less sharp than at f/2, but the borders are sharper than at f/8 and almost as sharp at f/11. This lens is the twin of the Leica Summicron-C 40/2; what changes is the exterior of the lens, that in the Leica version sports a 39mm not-standard threading filter ring, while the Minolta uses 40.5mm filters. Also, rumors have that the Minolta version is multi-coated, while the Leica version is not. I don't know if that's true, but like you can see I've had no trouble even shooting straight into the light. "Tasso" forest ("Beaver" forest), Italy "Fossiata" forest, Italy

One of my all time favorite lenses. From tests I've seen online sharper than the 2nd version Leica Elmarit M. It's sharp, but it will not be the sharpness per-se that will win you over. There is something, at least to my eyes, in the way this lens treats the tonal values of an image and the out of focus areas (no, I'm not talking about bokeh, more about the areas that are not "exactly" in focus) that I find extremely captivating. I have serious trouble leaving this one out of my bag. Luckily it is so small that I can tuck it in every small remaining space! Many of them suffers from what, in large format circles in reference to another brand, is called "Schneideritis". Basically the glass will looks full of tiny bubbles (even though these should not be bubbles in the glass, but according to many just spot of antireflective paint coming off the "walls" of the lens). This is my second one and it is clean; my first one, on the other hand, was affected pretty heavily by Schneideritis. Even so, the only thing I noticed with it was a certain propensity to flare more easily, but it was sharp as ever, in fact in my opinion probably ever so slightly sharper than the clean sample I have now. Acquappesa marina in the winter, Italy Storm clouds out of my kitchen window