Adapted lens question

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by mikefromli, Jan 13, 2015.

  1. mikefromli

    mikefromli TalkEmount Regular

    Dec 29, 2014
    Long Island, NY USA
    Ok I am still new with the a6000 loving it so far got my self some primes (20mm with the adaptors and 35mm Sony's) and they are doing great. I am debating for my first foray into adapted would be a 50mm (75? equivalent) for a portrait lens or a macro since manual focus would be appropriate for the task any suggestion of which system to adapt? Cannon(meta) or Minolta?

    Also all things being equal is there a reason for an adapted 35mm if I already have the sel3518? artistic differences? or is there even better glass or do people get them for the geek factor (and that their cheap)

  2. xXx1

    xXx1 TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jan 15, 2013
    Canons are quite cheap for their quality. A fast manual fifty is nice to have and they are cheap. I think that very wide legacy lenses aren't very cost effective and duplicating AF lenses you already own won't be very cost effective either (legacy 35mm aren't probably even as fast). One possibility is a 50mm/2.8 macro if you aren't into thin depth of field. Basically legacy lenses from 28mm to 135mm are pretty cheap and prices increase moderately to 300mm (quality ones but not ultra fast can be had for 250 €) and more steeply after that. On the wide end prices rise quite rapidly below 24mm.

    (I purchased today Yashica ML 28mm, Super Danubia 28mm/28mm and Contax 137 MA for 45.50 € today).
  3. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Some was asking me about recommendations of affordable adapted lens for A6000 on G+, here's my answer:

    * I'm limiting my recommendations to 35mm SLR lenses. As rangerfinder ones are usually more expensive.

    * Any major SLR manufacturer's 50mm are good. The ones I have experience with and I can recommend, are Konica 50/1.4, 57/1.4, 50/1.7; Olympus 50/1.8 mij version; Nikon 50/2; Minolta 50/1.4; Pentax Takumar 55/1.8 or 50/1.4.

    * Most SLR macro lenses are good to excellent. For affordable ones, I can recommend Canon FD 50/3.5, Olympus 50/3.5, Tamron 90/2.5, and Cosina made 100/3.5 macro.

    * For 35mm I like Takumar 35/3.5 any version. Some of the slow lenses I recommend remain inexpensive but they are overlooked and excellent.

    * 28mm and 135mm are typically still quite affordable. 28mm is a very good focal length on APS-C. Canon FD 28/2.8 is a quite okay lens; Olympus 28mm/3.5 is good quality; Komine made Vivitar 28mm/2.8 "close focus" version is great. I don't find 135mm that useful on APS-C. I'd look for 100mm/105mm instead, such as the wonderful lightweight Konica Hexanon 100/2.8 used above, Nikon Series E 100/2.8, Nikon 105/2.5, Takumar 105/2.8. The Konica 135/3.2 is a gem though.

    * 24mm affordable choices are less. Usually runs you $150 or more. I've experience with Sigma super wide II 24/2.8 and it's not bad.

    * For zoom, I like Minolta MD 35-70/3.5, Minolta MD 50-135mm/3.5, Kiron 70-150/4, Nikon Series E 75-150/3.5, Tokina AT-X 100-300/4, they're all relatively inexpensive. But not many good zoom lenses I can recommend.

    * For wider than 24mm, I'd recommend stay with native lenses. Such as the Sigma 19mm/2.8, or the Sony 20mm/2.8.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. pbizarro

    pbizarro Guest

    It really depends... if you are looking for a "portrait" lens, I find that 50mm (75mm equivalent) is too short. I would look into lenses between 55mm and 75mm (equivalent to 82mm-102mm). There are numerous options in the MF world, legacy or current, SLR or RF mounts. It depends on how much you want to spend. Just as an example, Voigtlander currently makes a 58 f1.4 lens for Nikon SLR, and a 75 f1.8 lens for Leica M. Also, it takes some habit to MF for portraits where your subject is not static.

    For macro lenses, my advice is to get something in the range between 90-100mm, simply because you get more distance between the lens and subject. Very important if you do macro on nature subjects. Again, how much are you willing to spend? For example, the Leica 90mm macro lens for R mount is great. There are a lot of 90-100mm macro lenses, current, or discontinued, MF, or AF.
  5. SpaceManSpiff

    SpaceManSpiff TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Dec 13, 2013
    Tucson, AZ
    I would recommend starting off with a fast legacy 50. This will give you a 35mm equivalent FOV as a 75mm. a nice FL for half portraits. They are very inexpensive and common since they came with every SLR. Their big aperture is nice, right when the kit lens gets really SLOOOW.

    See if you like the manual focusing. The older lenses often have more 'character' in their rendering than the modern lenses --whether or not you like that is for you to decide. I really enjoy manual focusing, the feel of using the old lenses, and the look I get from them. I also like them for night photography as I can easily tell when the focus is set to infinity. Manual focusing at night (because the AF on my NEX6 sucks) doesn't feel great with the native lenses since they are focus-by-wire.

    Unless you have fond memories from a particular brand, I would be more concerned about the condition of the lens rather than who made it. I use inexpensive adapters and they generally work pretty well. Have you seen this thread? It might be helpful.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.