Sony FE adapter for Minolta lenses?

[Alexi]

Hi,

A friend of mine has some old lenses for an Minolta XD11 camera.

 

The lenses are:

Minolta MC W.ROKKOR 28mm f2.8

Minolta MD ROKKOR 50mm f1.7

Tokina RMC 80-200mm f4

Vivitar 400mm f5.6

Minolta RF ROKKOR-X 500mm f8

 

Don't know anything about them. Are they full frame? What adapter for my A7RII would work whit these lenses?

Searching I just find adapters for Minolta MD and MC, will that also work for the rest?

[molan]

You mean like this:

 

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/994952-REG/fotodiox_md_nex_p_adapter_for_minolta_md_mc_sr.html

[addicted2light]

As for adapters, I use the K&F.

 

I discussed them at length in this old post here on the forum:

 

http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/384-a-good-brand-of-cheap-chinese-adapters/

 

You can find a few reviews of Minolta MC/MD lenses on Sony A7 series cameras on:

 

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/

http://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-minolta-lens-ratings/

 

And if you read German (or if you use Google Translate) you can see quite a few more tests (even against Sony Zeiss lenses) on:

 

http://artaphot.ch/minolta-sr/objektiv-vergleiche

 

The 50 should be pretty darn good, just don't expect 55/1.8 Sonnar levels of sharpness wide open (20 points of clarity help a lot with vintage lenses, that had a less effective coating).

 

The 28 should be between competent and good enough, depending on sample variation.

 

I wouldn't use the 80-200 and the 500 (that said, once you buy the adapter you should try them anyway, my requisites might not be the same as yours).

 

The 400 could be usable / decent enough, especially with a bit of post processing for the removal of the chromatic aberration that, it's just my guess, will plague the lens (it was impossible to remove without special glass, like ED and such). Nowadays thanks to Lighroom it is a simple process (you do loose a bit of quality, but it is not always noticeable), while on film it was a mortal sin.

 

In the Minolta MC/MD series, the best lenses appear to be the following ones (and they all sell in the bracket between "not expensive" and "downright cheap", with the exception of the 21mm and the f/1.2 versions):

- 21/2.8 (controversial, some loves it some says it's just ok)

- 24/2.8 (two different versions with different optical schemes, one with 55mm filter ring another with 49mm filters, some swears for the former some for the latter)

- 35/1.8 (a tad big and dense, but a great piece of glass)

- 50 / 55 / 58mm (different optical schemes and apertures, different signatures, but all pretty darn good; personally, even if it's not the sharpest, I love the 55/1.7 PF)

- 85/1.7 and f/2

- 100/2.5 (both optical versions)

- 200/4 (really quite good, especially for landscapes stopped down)

 

I use an original A7r and I kept a barebones Minolta MC/MD kit for portraits and for when I want low contrast and/or smooth bokeh, specifically the:

24/2.8 MC (55mm filter ring)

55/1.7 MC PF

100/2.5 MD

 

They are plenty sharp enough even on the demanding sensor of the A7r, and the 100/2.5 is actually razor sharp and sells for peanuts, so IMO is one of the bargain of the century. For me f/2.5 is enough, because if I'm shooting someone's portrait I usually want something more than just the tip of her nose in focus  

 

 

 

 

[Alexi]

Thank you very much for your help!

[addicted2light]

Thank you very much for your help!

 

 

You're welcome!

[Al Pha]

I use an original A7r and I kept a barebones Minolta MC/MD kit for portraits and for when I want low contrast and/or smooth bokeh, specifically the:

24/2.8 MC (55mm filter ring)

55/1.7 MC PF

100/2.5 MD

 

They are plenty sharp enough even on the demanding sensor of the A7r, and the 100/2.5 is actually razor sharp and sells for peanuts, so IMO is one of the bargain of the century. For me f/2.5 is enough, because if I'm shooting someone's portrait I usually want something more than just the tip of her nose in focus  

 

I just bought the following Rokkors: 1. MC 85mm/1.7; 2. MC 28mm/3.5; 3. MC 58mm/1.4. I have my eye on the 100/2.5 and your comments cemented by desire to get it. Best!

[IamJF]

The best cheap adapter I found is from fotga.

Fits tight on alls lenses and cameras I have - not usual for cheap adapters.

[celalexis]

hey guys. I've got some Minolta lenses like the MC ROKKOR etc and a spare Canon AE1 body. does anyone have any idea what adapter I need to I can use these lenses on both my Minolta camera and Canon camera? I've seen someone who has an adapter like that but I can't seem to find it anywhere online. anyone?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dclark2171]

We just went to west coast on a trip and I never removed the Minolta 24mm with La-ea4 once. The lens was perfect and my copy is really sharp.

[Golem]

hey guys. I've got some Minolta lenses like the MC ROKKOR etc and

a spare Canon AE1 body. does anyone have any idea what adapter I

need to I can use these lenses on both my Minolta camera and Canon

camera? I've seen someone who has an adapter like that but I can't

seem to find it anywhere online. anyone?

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

   

The AE1 is not adaptable.

[celalexis]

The AE1 is not adaptable.

oh really?

 

I'm pretty sure I saw a pic of an AE1 with a MC lens on Instagram though! hmm thanks anyway x

[addicted2light]

oh really?

 

I'm pretty sure I saw a pic of an AE1 with a MC lens on Instagram though! hmm thanks anyway x

 

 

Technically it is feasible. The difference in thickness between the Canon FD and the Minolta MC/MD mounts (42mm vs 43.5mm) is even a tad bigger than the one between Canon EF and M42 (44mm vs 45.46mm), and for that there are plenty of adapters available.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

 

The problem is that probably the market segment is borderline non-existant.

 

But if you have access to a 3D printer you could try printing your own adapter, like this guy did (and he is sharing the print file and plenty of suggestions):

 

http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:135038

[Golem]

Technically it is feasible. The difference in thickness between the Canon

FD and the Minolta MC/MD mounts (42mm vs 43.5mm) is even a tad bigger

than the one between Canon EF and M42 (44mm vs 45.46mm), and for that

there are plenty of adapters available.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

 

The problem is that probably the market segment is borderline non-existant. 

 

 

...............

  

You are one of the more insightful members of the forum, but are

overlooking the reason that adapters to M-42 screw mount are so

feasible: The M-42 is a much smaller opening than most bayonet

mounts, and therefor it INSETS with the bayonet mount, while a

bayonet-to-bayonet adapter cannot inset, so it hasta fit outside of,

and therefor OVER, the camera body bayonet flange ... and thus

stacking one mount atop another, resulting in excessive distance

from lens mount to image sensor [aka focal distance].

  

Actually, there are many adapters for the supposedly impossible

adaptations, and so one may see such adaptations in use .... but

these are the trashy adapters fitted with a single concave element

to allow infinity focus. It was proper of me to not even mention that

type of adapter vis-a-vis the OP. But the later reply about having

SEEN such things in use makes it necessary to explain them just

enuf to recommend ignoring them.

  

If you need to accomplish an otherwise highly non-recommended

adaptation for shooting low rez very small images such as for web

page pop-ups, get you a single element adapter. Otherwise just

proceed as tho they don't exist.

[addicted2light]

[...] but are overlooking the reason that adapters to M-42 screw mount are so

feasible: The M-42 is a much smaller opening than most bayonet

mounts, and therefor it INSETS with the bayonet mount, while a

bayonet-to-bayonet adapter cannot inset, so it hasta fit outside of,

and therefor OVER, the camera body bayonet flange ... and thus

stacking one mount atop another, resulting in excessive distance

from lens mount to image sensor [aka focal distance].

 

 

You're right, I overlooked that the m42 mount insets!

 

Still, I don't know the diameter of the FD mount, but should it be roughly as large as the EF one 1.5mm are plenty to build high quality adapters. And judging from the pictures of the 3d printer adapter I linked at the bottom of the preceding post the Minolta MC mount it looks quite a bit smaller, in diameter, than the FD, so it might actually inset all the same like the m42 does.

 

1.5mm is the same difference between the Canon EF mount and the Contax one (and the Contax lenses inset as well), and I used for years Contax glass on Canon with great results, technically speaking. The weakest link with regard to gear has always been me, unless I'm using an Holga  

 

And if you take a look at the plastic, 3d printed, adapter I linked in the previous post you'll see that shouldn't be too difficult for a manufacturer to realize the same thing but with brass. Obviously "possible" and "economically feasible" are two entirely different things.

 

That said, if I were the OP I honestly wouldn't bother: with the prices that FD lenses are selling why not just buy a couple of lenses and be done? And if instead the problem is that he wants to carry two cameras then why doesn't he buy a nice Minolta X-500 / X-700 etc.?

[addicted2light]

You are one of the more insightful members of the forum, but are

overlooking the reason that adapters to M-42 screw mount are so

feasible: The M-42 is a much smaller opening than most bayonet

mounts, and therefor it INSETS with the bayonet mount, while a

bayonet-to-bayonet adapter cannot inset, so it hasta fit outside of,

and therefor OVER, the camera body bayonet flange ... and thus

stacking one mount atop another, resulting in excessive distance

from lens mount to image sensor [aka focal distance].

  

Actually, there are many adapters for the supposedly impossible

adaptations, and so one may see such adaptations in use .... but

these are the trashy adapters fitted with a single concave element

to allow infinity focus. It was proper of me to not even mention that

type of adapter vis-a-vis the OP. But the later reply about having

SEEN such things in use makes it necessary to explain them just

enuf to recommend ignoring them.

  

If you need to accomplish an otherwise highly non-recommended

adaptation for shooting low rez very small images such as for web

page pop-ups, get you a single element adapter. Otherwise just

proceed as tho they don't exist.

 

 

BTW, I forgot to ask (and sorry to the OP for highjacking for a moment his thread).

 

You are quite knowledgeable, so I meant to ask you something. I don't know if you've ever seen something like this:

 

Weird shadow on A7r with adapted long lenses

 

I've no idea how to explain this, and even more how to solve it! Thanks anyway for trying...

[JimmyD]

I use the Novoflex Minolta to Nex adapter with the MC Rokkor 55mm f/1.2 and the MD 105mm f/2.5.  While it is possible to get a good copy of a cheap adapter,  Novoflex adapters are unbeatable for consistent high quality and results; I have also used them with Nikon, Canon and Olympus legacy glass and have never had a problem.  Of course, they are the most expensive. 

[Austerror]

I don't remember which brand of adapter I have for my Nex-7.  But using old MC/MD Minolta lenses is lots of fun.  Loads of cheap options.

 

The 58 f/1.4 is nice.

 

Also don't forget to test at all apertures.  Some of the older lenses don't show their best until stopped down a little.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Oddly, the one Novoflex I bought had a defective locking mechanism, so it went back.

 

I've had good luck with Fotodiox and Kiwi adapters. They are well-machined and fit well. The upside is they are affordable. You can buy several and keep them on the lenses.

 

I use the Novoflex Minolta to Nex adapter with the MC Rokkor 55mm f/1.2 and the MD 105mm f/2.5. While it is possible to get a good copy of a cheap adapter, Novoflex adapters are unbeatable for consistent high quality and results; I have also used them with Nikon, Canon and Olympus legacy glass and have never had a problem. Of course, they are the most expensive.