1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Moving from Minolta to Canon lenses for Lens Turbo II...good idea?

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by shaolin95, Jun 24, 2014.

  1. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Hi all!
    So I got only one Canon FD24mm 2.8 lens and just started getting interested in the Lens Turbo II for my NEX-6 (or maybe future A6000) after deciding to wait on FF for now.
    While I do have more Minolta lenses, the Canon impressed me so much that I am wondering if I should change completely to Canon from Minolta for the Turbo.
    Any comments are welcome!
     
  2. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    I had both the minolta and canon lens turbo. I dumped the minolta 3 days after I got it.


    Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    Would love for you to elaborate? Was there something you didn't like about it with the Minolta lenses you were using?

    As for me, I don't know what i'd do in your shoes. I have ONLY Minolta mount lenses at the moment and am planning on getting the Minolta Lens Turbo II. If I had a mixture, and was only get ONE Lens Turbo, i'd choose it based on whichever lens I wanted to use wide. You may want to get the full focal length out of the Canon 50mm and not have Minolta lenses that you want to get the same performance from. For example, I have a 28mm Minolta MD that I would love to actually use that wide. I also have a 35mm 1.8 Minolta. If I had a 50mm Canon FD that I loved, i'd probably just use it cropped rather than invest in two different lens turbos. I don't think i'll use the LT on my 135mm or 85mm and ESPECIALLY not my 28-80 zoom.

    If 50mm is the widest lens you have and you consider it your favorite, you might want to go ahead and get the Canon Lens Turbo.

    -James

    edit:
    Silly me - i skimmed real fast and reread. You have a 24mm Canon FD (I read 50mm the first time). If I were in that situation, I would DEFINITELY go with the Canon LT to get the most out of that lens!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    The canon lens turbo actually works better then the minolta. At least the first version did. I tested same focal lengths. 50mm and 28mm. My 28mm canon had a hard time fitting. The 50mm was no comparison. The canon fd 501.4 is an almost perfect lens.


    Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Dan Euritt

    Dan Euritt TalkEmount Regular

    191
    Jan 11, 2014
    i compared six 24mm primes, using ~f10 landscape shots, and the fdn 24mm 2.8 had the least amount of field curvature on the a7r... it's the only one of the six that i'll use on the a7r, because the others were mushy on the sides.

    the problem with the fdn 24mm is that it's notably lower in contrast than most of the competition.

    since turbo boosters weaken the sides anyway, you might be able to get another 24mm lens, in a minolta mount, get better contrast, and also be able to use the turbo booster on all your minolta glass.

    the sigma superwide II comes to mind... it was a 4.0 on the old photodo site, pretty sharp in the center, and cheaper than 24mm factory minolta lenses.

    something to think about, anyway! i'd just hate to see you part with known good minolta lenses.
     
  6. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Right now of the Minolta glass the one I use the most is the 135mm for Rodeo Events for example so I was looking at the Canon 135mm 2.5 to see how it compares. Of course, I have to take into consideration that the 135mm with the booster will not get me as close to the action as without the booster (unless I am missing something here) so then I should probably be looking at a 200mm instead.
     
  7. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    You are correct.


    Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
     
  8. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    I have the canon 100mm 2.8,135mm 2.5 and the 200mm 2.8. They are all really nice. The 100mm is the sharpest.


    Sent from my iPhone using TalkNEX mobile app
     
  9. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    This is true, optically speaking, but I don't look at it that way. Without the booster, you're just cropping the outside of the image. If you wanted to get a real 135mm focal length, look for an 85 or 90mm to use cropped. Decent ones can be had fairly inexpensively and (again, in my opinion) would be better than using a 135 with the Lens Turbo. Save the LT for your wider, more expensive glass.

    -James
     
  10. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Actually the reason I look at it this way is because I need the 135mm (x crop factor) range so I would need a 200mm to get the same range with the booster.
     
  11. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    Right! In that case, I would just use a 135 without the booster. Either your 135 2.8 (I have the 4/4 version as well - it's one of my favorites!) or the Canon 2.5 you mentioned. Both fine lenses!

    -J
     
  12. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    But wouldnt the 200mm 2.8 with a speed booster give me some extra speed vs the 135mm 2.8 without a booster or am I am wrong there?
     
  13. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    Ah - I see what you're going for. You're completely right. That's my fault as I generally only think of them for reducing focal length. It's true, they will increase light focusing on the sensor and effectively giver you a faster-acting lens. I guess at that point, if you need a faster lens, it would be a matter of preference. I have a bias against extra optics (even the $400 metabones) unless absolutely necessary.

    Thinking about your situation does raise a valid point that I had not thought of: Most lenses aren't at their sharpest when wide open. I would guess (assuming the optics of the Les Turbo weren't a factor) that would give you the benefit of more light and shallower depth of field with the sharper picture of the stopped down lens!

    -J
     
  14. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    Generally all of the Canon lenses were of high quality, wheras the Minolta brand had hit and misses, often being farmed out to lower quality makers.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    I am with you on that about extra optics, just like I always connect my display directly to the source and not via my receiver...just one of those things I cannot get over :D
     
  16. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    I wouldn't say often. Minolta didn't "farm out" any of their lenses until at least the 1980s with some their AF lenses and possibly a few of the last MD lenses they made. In fact, in the 1970s, Minolta was making a few lenses and other optical elements for Leitz (Leica). I have several Minolta lenses that are just rockstars and very few, if any, i'd classify as a "miss." A lot of times you'll find them "softer" (especially wide open) than something like a Nikon from the same time, but that's because Nikons were being made with one thing in mind - sharpness.

    All that said, the Canon FD lenses i've used have been top notch and I''ve often found them DIFFERENT than their closest Minolta counterpart. Sharpness is probably somewhere between most Minoltas and Nikons (generally speaking, of course), and the color rendition is almost always different (but pleasing) than the Minoltas.

    -J
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    I am somehow really getting pumped up about trying this turbo thing. Feeling very tempted to buy today :D
    Will likely keep at least the Minoltas for now until I am sure it was a wise choice :)
     
  18. mingus2112

    mingus2112 TalkEmount Regular

    142
    Jun 16, 2014
    As am I! For me, it's all about the wide lenses being able to be used WIDE! It looked like the original Lens Turbo (the one with the brand written in red on the side) had pretty soft edges - which would really kill it for me. All of the Lens Turbo II shots I've seen have been pretty damn sharp edge to edge. Every day I tell myself "it's coming from China so if you wait a week to order it you may not see it until next month!"

    PLEASE let us know what you end up doing and definitely post pics here!

    -J
     
  19. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Now I need to find a nice Zoom lens with 200 or even 300 max range and at least 4.5 I guess so that with the Turbo it is under F 4.0 for sports. :)
     
  20. jcdoss

    jcdoss TalkEmount Regular

    118
    Jul 6, 2013
    Here's one taken with the same Pentax M28 lens and LT v2 at the King Tut exhibit in KC.


    NEX-2033.jpg by jasoncdoss, on Flickr
     
    • Like Like x 3