Any Minolta MD lens fans…

Deep pockets and deep cupboards both. To be fair, the average price is reasonable, possibly even low, but 50 lenses in one go is a lot.
 
There are some interesting lenses there. Don't they work well with certain Sony cameras? The rice is a bit steep, but if LCE can afford to sit on it for a while, there may be a taker. If they advertised it in Japan, I think it would sell easily.
 
These appear to be all M/MD lenses, so not suitable for the later autofocus Minoltas. Konicas or Digital cameras.
 
I've had quite a few MF Minolta lenses but sold most of them. I still have 35mm f2.8 MC MK1, 55mm f1.7 MC MK2, 28mm f2.8 MC MK3, 50mm f1.7 MC MK3, 50mm f1.4 MD, 135MM f2.8 (the non Rokkor one.) I had Minolta, Canon FD, Olympus Zuiko, Nikon AIS and various others including third party lenses in those mounts and others such as Takumars, Tokina, Vivitar and Sigma etc and IMO the Minoltas were very often about the best at their focal lengths.
 
Well I have four Minolta cameras:- SRT101b, X-300, X-700 and XD11 but very few Minolta lenses as they were more expensive than Canon, Olympus, Konica etc......anyway using hidden 3rd party gems and concentrating on Canon lenses (and just my opinion for results), you'd need a digi camera or very large enlargements to see the difference....if any esp if all you are going to do is post 1000 X 820px here or A4 scanned prints from a home printer.
 
Last edited:
excalibur2 said:
Well I have four Minolta cameras:- SRT101b, X-300, X-700 and XD11 but very few Minolta lenses as they were more expensive than Canon, Olympus, Konica etc......anyway using hidden 3rd party gems and concentrating on Canon lenses (and just my opinion for results), you'd need a digi camera or very large enlargements to see the difference....if any esp if all you are going to do is post 1000 X 820px here or A4 scanned prints from a home printer.
Click to expand...

When stopped down I'd agree but I do think differences are more noticeable when looking at pictures taken at the wider apertures and also when looking at things like flare ghosting, veiling etc. and the character of the bokeh.
 
woof woof said:
When stopped down I'd agree but I do think differences are more noticeable when looking at pictures taken at the wider apertures and also when looking at things like flare ghosting, veiling etc. and the character of the bokeh.
Click to expand...
Good points in why you pay more for minolta, Contax etc lenses......but in a way WO can give you the shot you don't want as I have a Vivitar lens ( 24mm f2) that gives a lovely dreamy effect esp on old cottages or say a wood of bluebells........when used WO (y)
 
Last edited:
I see LCE Strand are selling these lenses one by one now.
 
When I get around to it I'll be advertising most of my remaining film era primes including Minoltas MK1, 2, 3 and beyond and probably at more tempting prices than at a dealer. I sold a lot a while back but hung on to some of my favourites but TBH they're not getting used and so will either go on here or to a dealer.
 
lindsay said:
There are some interesting lenses there. Don't they work well with certain Sony cameras? The rice is a bit steep, but if LCE can afford to sit on it for a while, there may be a taker. If they advertised it in Japan, I think it would sell easily.
Click to expand...

Later Minolta AF lenses fit straight on to A-mount Cameras as Sony bought Minolta. MD and MC lenses need adapters to fit e-mount.

I have adapters for both my Sony A7 and Canon R6ii - I prefer using the Sony. Colours seem richer. Though logically I should really be using the Canon as it has in-body stabilisation and my Sony doesn't.

Quite interested in the 50/1.2.

And the 500/8 mirror.

And the 16mm fisheye.

And the 17/4.

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top