lense/ body compatability issue

[DonSchap]

Hey Peter ... you might want to inbed a link to that ... just for the sake of it.

[Peekayoh]

Hey Peter ... you might want to inbed a link to that ... just for the sake of it.

Ah Ok!

http://eadpt.cn.webz.datasir.com/eadpen.htm

The MD-L1 and MD-L4 are the one for Minolta MC and MD lenses.

[bwflippo]

OK, so I've been shooting in full manual mode due to these lenses and totally fell in love with shooting in this manner. I'm SO glad that, through necessity, I started shooting this way. I'll post some of the macro stuff that I've captured with my bootleg, ebay lenses. I wish I knew what the lens was exactly but there is no make named on the lens.

[Peekayoh]

Wht does the writing say? Post some pictures of it; someone may recognise it.

[bwflippo]

Wht does the writing say? Post some pictures of it; someone may recognise it.

Here are the pictures of my mystery macro lens. I'm pretty positive that it's a Minolta, given that it is a md mount....

[DonSchap]

It is a "MC" ... the mount previous to "MD"

MC (1966-1977) meant "meter-coupled" which allowed full-aperture TTL measurement.

Just to be thorough (or just an @$$hole) the "MD" (1977-1983) added a lever to the interior of the lens, which when fitted to the camera, allowed the "MD"-mount camera body to read the smallest available aperture. MC lenses could be mounted on MD bodies ... and with a third-party adapter .. mounted on an AF-mount body, but still w/o the normal AF-mount's "control" of aperture or focus.

The "AF" or A-mount started in 1985 ... with the Minolta Maxxum series. It took manual aperture selection right out of the lens and put it directly under the control of the camera. "Manual focus" was available, but normally deferred in favor of the new autofocus capability.

Thus ends the history lesson.


Your lens is an older (probably circa 1980) manual focus CPC 28-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (ø62-filter) MACRO MC

CPC manufactured lenses in the 1980s. They were cheaper alternatives. Their quality rated somewhere in the mediocre range.

CCT is just one of their ratings or build types.

[DonSchap]

BTW ... one of the local shops has some older "AF" lenses for various prices. If you are interested in this "reduced" price glass ... private message me for the details.

Tokina AF 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210mm f/4
Quantaray 75-300mm f/4-5.6
Quantaray 70-210 f/4-5.6
SIGMA 70-210 f/4-5.6
TAMRON 28-200 3.8-5.6 w/ MACRO
Tokina 100-300 f/5.6-6.7

This stuff usually just sits on the shelf ... waiting for someone to walk in ... but I figured since people still seem to be interested in "older" glass and saving a buck or two, here some options.

[Peekayoh]

Yeah, Don pegged it.
CPC were a Korean Company manufacturing in the 70's/80's.
Glass was middle of the road rather than mediocre. Some of their glass was rebadged Pentax.
MD glass is better if you can find a good example.
Proof is in the pudding. Lets have some pics.
What else did you acquire.

[bwflippo]

Well it's certainly taken me long enough to post these images of what that ebay-special macro can do in concert with an a350. But here ya go. I've got some other stuff, but it's been and pain in the butt trying to convert file formats. I shot in RAW and my pc at work, which I'm having to use at the moment, isn't a big fan.







The second image I doctored just a little bit, some contrast adjustment is about it. and the other two are as shot. I'm pretty impressed with the images given my overall inexperience and the price of the glass. I think I could have done better if I were just a little more patient.

What else did you acquire.

"Minolta 135mm f3.5 MC, Minolta 135mm f3.5 MD, MC Pokkor 50mm f2, MD Minolta Celtic 28mm f2.8, Tamron 28-70mm f3.5-4.5, Soligor MC 70-150mm f3.5. and three 2x-s."

The other glass I've found to be pretty useless. I can't seem to find a focal point on them and I'm thinking that has a lot to do with the fact that I'm trying to use that converter with them. may just get an old body that will fit them. I like collected vintage gear. So, if nothing else it can just be a part of my collection. Who knows.

[Peekayoh]

Look, I have no wish to dampen your obvious enthusiasm, but that lens looks a bit soft to me.
Of course, you didn't post XIF data so I've no idea about the settings and Depth of Field.
Neither is it say that a soft focus image is bad. However it is if you wanted it sharp.
Neither is the lens a true Macro lens; it just has a near macro facility which is not the same thing.

If you want to see what a true macro lens can do, have a look in the POD thread, I've posted a lot using my 30 year old Minolta MD Macro 50mm f3.5 and dr4gon's posted a lot with his modern equivelent.

Of the others you mention the 4 Minolta lenses will be fine (providing, of course, they are free of fungus and mechanically sound). There is a lot of pleasure and good images to be had from these old lenses; it also helps that it's all at a fraction of the cost of new.

I nipped out and took a couple of shots with my MD 135mm f2.8 to show what's possible with yours.


ISO200,,1/320th,,-0.7EV,, f2.8 on the left
ISO200,,1/ 20th,,+0.7EV,, f11 on the right .. to point up DOF


and here's a big crop of the one on the left at f2.8


I guess I should have done one with a 50mm as well; maybe tomorrow.