Noob question: is the any value in older Minolta (circa ~1985) lenses with a Nex-7?

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Sabre36, Dec 1, 2012.

  1. Sabre36

    Sabre36 TalkEmount Regular

    Dec 1, 2012
    I recently purchased a Sony Nex-7 and a SEL10-18mm lens. Thus far, I have only a day of experience with Nex cameras having come from Pentax K5 and Nikon cameras. In a month or so, I intend to buy the Sony 35mm 1.8 lens and then will pretty much be tapped out.

    I have some older Minolta lenses sitting in a closet that were inherited from a relative's Minolta x-e370 camera kit:

    • Minolta 50mm f1.4
    • Gemini 28mm f2.8 macro
    • Nikura 75-250mm f3.5
    • Quantenary 35-80mm f4-5.6

    Do these lenses have any 'practical' value with a Nex-7? If so, which adapter would I buy? The local camera shop said flat out (without really looking at them), that these lenses weren't worth it in manual mode. I was kind hoping the 50mm might be a worthy lens. The build quality on most of these lenses is quite impressive, especially compared to my new 10-18mm.

    Any advice would be appreciated.

  2. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Real Name:
    If I were you I'd get a Minolta MC/MC to NEX adapter and try at least the Minolta 50mm f1.4. Get a cheap adapter from either or Amazon, or if you're patient, get one from eBay.
  3. nianys

    nianys TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 23, 2012
    The 50/1.4 happens to be one of the BEST nifties available, all brands considered !! Whoever hinted it had little value is either totally clueless, or not commercially honest enough...


    Typical sharpness/oof area contrast of this lens, at F2.
  4. dixeyk

    dixeyk TalkEmount All-Pro

    Jun 18, 2012
    Bellingham . WA
    Real Name:
    As a matter of fact YES...

    I am using several Minolta MC and MD lenses and I find them to be very VERY good. I am currently an MC 50/1.5, MC 50/1.4, MC 50/3.5 macro and MD 35-70/3.5 macro and was so impressed that I went out and found an MC 100/2.5 and MC 24/2.8 (and I'm picky about lenses). Are they better than other adapted lenses? That depends on what you like. I find that I like way they feel, handle and the images they produce.

    MD 35-70/3.5 macro
    White by dixeyk, on Flickr

    MC 50/3.5 macro
    Wither by dixeyk, on Flickr

    MC 50/1.4
    The Dancing Dead by dixeyk, on Flickr

    Sheltered by dixeyk, on Flickr
  5. freddytto

    freddytto TalkEmount All-Pro

    Dec 2, 2011
    Puebla, Mexico
  6. Chuck Lawson

    Chuck Lawson TalkEmount Regular

    Nov 23, 2012
    Dallas area
    Love that Fall Color shot!!
  7. Sabre36

    Sabre36 TalkEmount Regular

    Dec 1, 2012
    Thank you all for your answers and posted photos (which were terrific). I ordered the Rainbow Imaging adapter and will soon try it out on the 50mm 1.7. I am now wondering if I should cancel my order for the Sony 35mm 1.8 that will be (available at the end of the month) since I could buy a Rokkor 28mm for ~$50? I typically shoot landscapes and have been happy with the 10-18mm zoom, but with all the inexpensive l Rokkor lenses available, they might better suit me my need for an occasional portrait lens.

    My last question is whether an adapted lens is suitable for an everyday lens (aside from the obvious: AF & stabilization)?

    My camera store did me no favors and I can't tell if they were dishonest or incompetent? If anyone here wants to sell a low light 24mm, 28mm, or 50mm, I might be interested, so keep me in mind.

  8. ponyslaystation

    ponyslaystation TalkEmount Regular

    Oct 20, 2012
    Unless you shoot sports all the time MF lenses are great for everyday photos. You'll get faster with time too.