old school lenses on the sony NEX 6

[Nathan Wernette]

I'm looking at getting a Minolta 50mm f1.4 lens and adaptor to put on my sony nex.

I figure its a cheap way to learn manual modes on the camera AND get a 50mm fast lens for portraits and such.

Anyone have experience with old school lenses on new cameras?

this review praises the lens. my concern is learning how to use the lens lol.

http://sonyalphalab.com/2013/11/minolta-mc-rokkor-x-pg-50mm-f1-4-lens-review-sony-nex-6/

[Jacob D]

Nathan,

Yes, you can use legacy lenses ("oldschool" :) on the NEX bodies. You'll need to menu dive and find the "shoot without lens" setting for the camera since it doesn't register a lens that is non-microchipped.

After that, put it in manual and you can manually focus and manually adjust the aperture. The shutter speed is still controlled via the camera. There shouldn't be much of a learning process with the lens itself, just learning how to set the exposure you want by varying the aperture, shutter, and ISO.

I made a list of lenses which may be helpful to you.

The only time this can get tricky is when you move from SLR lenses to rangefinder lenses; they're smaller but some of them create issues with the images… so you need to know before you buy in those cases.

[Brendan Swihart]

The Minoltas are great. While not always the lightest or quickest route, I really enjoy being able to use old mf lenses. I haven't used them on a nex, but have on an Olympus ep5, Ricoh gxr, and for video.

I think I might have a 50 1.4 available to sell. Ill check out my stash. I'll shoot you a pm if I do.

[Walter Carrington]

Many of these older 50mm lenses are excellent optically and well worth using. With the popularity of digital, lots of older 35mm lenses are fairly inexpensive. Of course, with modern computerized optical design the new lenses on digital cameras are also outstanding optically, but usually those that are not really expensive are slow.

[Nathan Wernette]

Brendan that would be great if you had one!

[Ian]

I have that lens paired with an adapter for my A6000 and have been happy with it as a portrait lens. As an amateur/photog babe in the woods, I'm happy with the Bokeh. For less than $50 off of Ebay, for me, buying a $300 50mm lens quickly becomes a case of diminishing returns.

[Nathan Wernette]

Found a 50mm Minolta off keh.com for 25 dollars

It's not a rocker Minolta but I do not know the difference in a Minolta branded lens and a Minolta rokkor.

I'm excited about it.

[Ian]

Here's an example of the bokeh I get with this lens. Bear in mind the lack of experience of the photographer and the hostile 11 y/o who for some crazy reason would rather play with his cousins/sister at the zoo than pose for his dad, poor lighting choices, lack of filler flash, etc. I could get a better lens and I could spend more money.

.

[Jacob D]

Nice portrait Ian.

Nathan, a lot the legacy lenses out there are excellent and can be had for great prices when compared to modern counterparts. Minolta made a few non-Rokkor lenses but they're fairly uncommon. "Rokkor" is just the name they gave to their lenses. There is a site called Rokkor Files dedicated to breaking down the differences between the many Rokkors!

The Olympus OM lenses are also worth checking out… some of the smaller and lighter SLR lenses available.

The old Canon FD lenses are good too, and so on and so on :)

[Jordan Chapell]

Wanted to add my experience here – I have the A6000 and have been using a Minolta 50mm F2, 50mm F21.4, and 45mm F2 (along w a Minolta 80-200 telephoto). I also recently purchased the Sony SEL50F18 Lens as part of a package deal, and did a comparison…

– First, the manual focus of the legacy lenses isn't something to be scared off by. Put the camera in Aperture priority and experiment a little. I'm still a newbie in photography (only stopped shooting in auto about a year ago), and it's been awesome. With the Sony's (and I think most mirrorless), the focus peaking makes focusing a pretty easy job.

– I inherited the 50mm F2, and it's in excellent condition. The 45mm F2 is about 3/4 the size, and it's in good condition. The 50mm 1.4 has a decent amount of fungus, but I couldn't resist testing it out for $20 on Craigslist (F1.4 for $20!!!).

I did a sharpness comparison, and my copies show this (I only evaluated the center, because I would only really use these for portrait-ish lenses).

– The 50mm F2 is pretty decent at 2.0, but good at 2.8 and sharp at 4.
– The 50mm F1.4 is soft at 1.4, OK at 2.0, decent at 2.8, and sharp at 4
– The sony SEL50F18 is Good at 1.8, and Sharp at 2.0

For my money, I am going to keep the Sony lens for a few weeks (birth of a child), then selling it. The Minolta legacy lenses are absolutely serviceable for my needs, as long as they are modestly stopped down. My copy of the 50mm F2 is totally workable at F2.8, and really isn't bad at 2.0. The 50mmF1.4 isn't great wide open, but it's kind of fund to play with. It may be because of the fungus, but it definitely isn't as sharp as the F2.0 at 2.0.

Hopefully that's helpful!

[Franco Darioli]

Minolta was a name chosen by Chiyoda_Kōgaku_Seikō to market their cameras.
The name Rokkor is derived from a Japanese mountain, visible from the original factory. (Mt Rokko)
At the time most Japanese camera brand had a separate name for their lenses.
nikon had Nikkor, Pentax had Takumar, Konica had Hexanon and Olympus called theirs Zuiko.
Sometimes in the late 80s (from memory) the name was changed to Minolta possibly to avoid confusing them with non Minolta made lenses such as the Rokinon.
BTW, not all Minolta MD lenses were made by Minolta.

[Nathan Wernette]

Delete

[Ian]

That's some nice bokeh.

I feel your pain. Most of the pictures of my wife end up as a blur of hair as she dodges my attempt.

[Nathan Wernette]

is this the 3D pop people mention in characteristics with lenses? I've heard that term used to describe some ziess glass.

I also own a non rocker minolta 50mm f2. smaller and lighter than the f1.4 but not as great with the 'bokeh'

The 1.4 is very susceptible to flare at 1.4

[Jacob D]

No- the "3D" that you've heard associated with certain Zeiss lenses is not the same as shallow depth of field or subject isolation.

Although it's not strictly a Zeiss thing, many of their lenses are capable of "drawing" with a distinct 3D look, almost as if part of the image is coming off the page, or could be touched. It requires the shot to be composed correctly and certain lighting can help.

I'm going to guess you've been reading the Fred Miranda forum or PoTN where that subject has been discussed a lot :)

[Author]

Posts