QUOTE(lwliam @ Nov 1 2013, 05:46 PM)
I'd recommend this instead of the 50
http://r.ebay.com/TUjP3kQUOTE(redlyfs @ Nov 1 2013, 06:01 PM)
Most dumb adapters are more or less the same in construction. I've both a few and went along with Fotga most of the time.
Again, when people ask "what is recommended lenses" , it's best to support this question to what purpose you want it for?
For portrait go with Minolta 58mm 1.4 , sometimes when I want a more creative approach I go Helios 44.
Street I have a Minolta 28mm 2.8
Tele + tele macro - Minolta 135mm 3.5
Macro - Minolta 50mm 3.5 Macro with 1:1 tube
Among my other less used vintage lenses I also have a couple Industar 61, Minolta 50mm 1.7, Vivitar 75-205mm.
It's pretty fun and surprising to go full manual.
DSC00379 by
Redlyfs, on Flickr
Taken with Minolta 135mm 3.5 with 1:1
My usage is mainly for insect macro shots, maybe some animal(cat/dog type of size) and human portraits. Creamy bokeh is highly preferred too. So I think 50mm f/1.7 is more suitable for me, more of an all-rounder since I can use extension tubes for macro. Then for normal landscape shots I'll use my 16-50 kit lens. What do u think?
Also, a few more questions.
1) What do these Minolta MD / MC / FC mean?
2) How old are these manual lenses? No more in production edi?
3) How's the image quality? On par with modern basic prime lenses?
This post has been edited by danielcmugen: Nov 1 2013, 11:29 PM