AF lens & X-700

Is there any way to fit a Minolta AF lens on a Minolta X-700 ?

I know there is an adaptor to go from MD/MC lenses to AF, so it stands to reason that there is one that goes the other way.

 

Bob S.

Unless you're going to make the adapter yourself, or just use duct tape, the answer is no. A new or used Maxxum body would likely be cheaper than the adapter.

 

The aperture on AF lenses is also electronically/magnetically controlled. There's a stopdown lever, but no mechanical way to control how far it stops down (no practical way anyhow).

Vivitar made some lenses with a built-in autofocus system. I don't recall the model names, but if you do a web search, you should find reference to a few. That's the only way you'll be able to do autofocus with your X-700...

Yes!

 

With a lens reversing ring - makes GREAT macro shots!

 

Otherwise, as mentioned, Minolta AF cameras that are MORE sophisticated than the X-700 can be had for under $50 used, and under $100 new!

 

In fact, I challenge ANYONE to find a broader range of high quality 35mm interchangeable lens SLR camera systems available for UNDER $100 for a camera AND a lens than Minolta AF on the USED market! Great cameras and lenses - one and all!

 

Anyway, Jack, what's your situation? Can you tell us more?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

See the X-700 AND lens reversing rings AND info on UPgrading Minolta manual focus lenses to fit on Minolta auto focus cameras at many places on the web, including my own web site at

 

http://www.geocities.com/peterblaise/minoltamf/<div></div>

Thanks to all who responded.

 

Peter,

 

I've recently purchased a Minolta X-700 camera from Titterington, along with a 28mm/2.8 and a 50mm/F1.7, all Minolta MD. These two lens are about as sharp as any lens.

 

The reason I went with the X-700 is that I wanted a simple to operate manual focus and exposure camera. The only thing missing from this camera is a ML or even a mirror flip when using the self timer.

 

However, some Minolta MD lens (100mm, 135mm) are not as sharp as their AF counterpart (Minolta AF 100mm/F2, Minolta AF 135/F2.8) But, I'm not about to get yet another AF camera to use these lens or even get a zoom lens. Hence the post to this group.

 

I do natural landscape and cityscape with some street photography. All b&w, no color, digitally printed to 13"x19" (sometimes larger) on acid free cotton paper.

 

The Minolta X700 is uncomplicated (no manuals needed), a joy to operate and it gets the job done. I'm really starting to enjoy photography once again.

 

The 100mm to 135mm lens is for street photography. I usually work small and medium size streets shooting with a pre-focused lens to the other sidewalk. It's fast, unobtrusive and AF not needed. Camera noise goes unnoticed. When I want close, I use the 28mm lens and work same sidewalk.

If you try and use a reversing ring on a Minolta AF, you have one problem to overcome. The aperture shuts down when off the camera and the rear lens cap is off. I think someone did make an adapter that replaced the rear cap and it allowed the aperture to be controlled.

Hmm, zone focusing a 135mm lens is not going to get you sharp shots. Most people go with wides for this purpose.

 

I think the 135mm f/3.5 lens is quite sharp and high quality. I use it and the 50mm 1.7 for night shots on a tripod and it performs superbly.

 

I think you'd be better off with an AF body for what you're doing or shoot from the hip with a 35mm or wider lens.

Roger,

 

I don't use zone focusing. I usually pre-focus the lens on an object across the street. Then later on, when I take a picture only minute focusing may be required. Sometimes not.

.

 

Hello Minolta friends,

 

Minolta AF lenses have no aperture control on the outer body of the lens like Minolta manual focus lenses do.

 

So, when reversing a Minolta AF lens, in order to keep it's aperture open or to adjust it's aperture to any inbetween setting, I use a self-modified (mutilated?) rear AF lens cap that I have removed the central section (I used a soldering iron to cut away the center, then I used sandpaper to "clean up my mess"!!!). The outer section of the rear lens cap has a tab that opens the aperture for security during storage and shipping. Now I can use any Minolta AF lense reversed and also controll it's aperture on demand.

 

Got another challenge? ;-)

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - carrying a second camera body just for one lens is NO problem for me, and I find that it's cheaper and more reliable and maintains higher image qualities than any adapter one could invent - see http://www.keh.com/ for more than a few Minolta AF camera bodies for under ~$50US with a 60 day warranty and all are more sophisticated than the Minolta X-700.

 

However, regarding carrying two cameras - I routinely carry two Minolta X-700 cameras with different film in each and different lenses on each, and I often go through many rolls of film without interchanging lenses at all, so if the two camera bodies were different styles (one MF one AF), it would hardly matter to me in the long run!

 

We each have our preferences, and sone of us are happy containing our experiences, and some of us are happy expanding our experiences. For me, budget is often the limiter. Also, my mood can get me introverted and playing with the gear one day, and then later, I might grab ANY camera (even a non-Minolta camera - they DO exist, I've heard!) and go out and shoot EVRYTHING!

 

We're all different, some of us are different day to day!

 

Heck, why not slap that auto focus lens onto the manual focus camera body with duck-tape, and have fun?!?

.

 

... and another thing ... how do you know the 100mm to 135mm Minolta manual focus lenses are not as capable of capturing as sharp images as the 100mm to 135mm Minotla auto focus lenses?

 

(I disagree, by the way.)

 

Are you going by hearsay, or do you have personal experience?

 

If you have personal experience, then you have (or had?) a Minotla auto focus camera with the lenses in question, and you have (or had?) the Minotla manual focus lenses in question, also, right?

 

But you seem to imply that you do NOT have (or have not had?) these lenses.

 

I'm stimied.

 

Where'd you get your supposition that Minolta manual focul leses will either

 

(a) NOT please you or

 

(b) NOT equal the image forming qualities of Minolta auto focus lenses?!?

 

Please tell us more.

 

Additionally, there are TONS (literally) of 100mm to 135mm lenses that fit your camera from http://www.keh.com/ and http://www.cameta.com/ and http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ and http://www.adorama.com/ and ... there are more lenses for Minotla SR/MC/MD/X-600 fitting than even Contax/Practica (Pentax) screw mount or Pentax K-mount, I imagine, and the Minolta-fit lenses are certainly less expensive, and I find them to be of superlative image forming qualities, especially if you shoot landscapes on a tripod with the aperture closed down!

 

Also, auto focus is not usially important for such stationary subjects as a landscape, and auto focus lenses have no hyperfocal scale to assist in playing with field of focus depth experimentations (though there's something to be said for focusing on infinity and comparing from there!).

 

So, even if an auto focus lens were capable of testing to resolve a higher resolution, in the field (so to speak!), it may actually be easier to obtain better imaging sharpness from a totally easily manually controllable lens than from an auto focus lens with limited manual controls, eh?

 

I think you are really asking:

 

- "What's the sharpest 100mm to 135mm lens for landscapes for my Minolta X-700?"

 

Or perhaps:

 

- "What's a useful 100mm to 135mm lens for street imaging with my Minolta X-700?"

 

You may find many Minolta manual focus models, and I also enjoy Vivitar Series 1 lenses, and Tamron lenses, and any number of other lenses for such situations.

 

Also, for street, a nice, small, fully automatic auto focus, auto wind, auto exposure camera is unbeatable after all!

 

I think the AF question was probably NOT the main issue, and you really want some other final result, and that the AF lens was only one guess how to get there.

 

Is there more about your challenge?

 

How about a pinhole to get everything in focus - as pinhole's have nothing out of focus - and with extension tubes, can be any focal length you want!?!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

htt://www.peterblaisephotogrpahy.com/

Hi Peter,

 

"We each have our preferences, and sone of us are happy containing our experiences, and some of us are happy expanding our experiences."

 

I agree. For me "containing our experience" would be using an AF auto everything camera.

 

"Heck, why not slap that auto focus lens onto the manual focus camera body with duck-tape, and have fun?!?

Peter Blaise Monahon , jul 23, 2005; 11:57 a.m."

 

Not for me. I have an Holga for that sort of things.

 

 

"... and another thing ... how do you know the 100mm to 135mm Minolta manual focus lenses are not as capable of capturing as sharp images as the 100mm to 135mm Minotla auto focus lenses?"

 

I'm sure the're all fine lens and one would not see any difference in prints to 9x12" or possibly even 11x14" It's when prints are enlarged past 11x14" that the difference is apparent.

 

I go by tests done by Chasseur d'Images magazine. The Minolta AF 100mm and 135mm are a cut above their MD counterparts in imaging quality. But since you've mentionned that manual focusing is not possible with these lens, that settles the question for me.

 

(I disagree, by the way.)

You're welcome.

 

"If you have personal experience, then you have (or had?) a Minotla auto focus camera with the lenses in question, and you have (or had?) the Minotla manual focus lenses in question, also, right?

 

But you seem to imply that you do NOT have (or have not had?) these lenses."

 

This is my first Minolta kit. I have used several slr camera body over the last twenty years, from 35mm to 6x45 to 6x7. My favorite was a Nikon FM2 with Nikkor AF 35/f2, AF50/1.8 and MF 105/2.5 These lens were so sharp that I was able to pull prints to 16x20" with the right films.

 

"So, even if an auto focus lens were capable of testing to resolve a higher resolution, in the field (so to speak!), it may actually be easier to obtain better imaging sharpness from a totally easily manually controllable lens than from an auto focus lens with limited manual controls, eh?"

 

I don't quite follow you here. I have used AF lens before (see above) on a MF camera. But of course the AF Nikkor lens were easely manually focused. I just thought I would be the same with Minolta.

 

"I think you are really asking:

- "What's the sharpest 100mm to 135mm lens for landscapes for my Minolta X-700?"

Or perhaps:

- "What's a useful 100mm to 135mm lens for street imaging with my Minolta X-700?"

 

Nope. I was just asking is simple question. Can a Minolta AF lens be fitted to an X-700 camera body.

 

"Also, for street, a nice, small, fully automatic auto focus, auto wind, auto exposure camera is unbeatable after all!"

 

Maybe for small prints. But that not quite sharp AF really shows at above 11x14" They remind me of digital cameras that have all kinds of shooting modes for people who have no clues about photography.

 

"Is there more about your challenge?"

 

Ever tried street photography with an RB67 + 50mm lens on a monopod? That mirror slap makes people turn their heads from as far as 100 feet!

 

Thanks for all your answers.

.

 

Hi once again, Jack,

 

Yes, you got your supposedly simple answer to your supposedly simple question:

 

Q: Do Minolta AF lenses fit and work on Minolta MF cameras.

 

A: No, not as if they were fully functional "normal" lenses.

 

My experience tells me that there is no such thing as a "simple question", and this thread bears that out. In spite of your claim that that's all you wanted to know, you did expand your sharing in three posts in all - "three times the charm"!

 

In the end, it doesn't matter what I get from your sharing:

 

- that you read a magazine review that you think dictates what's appropriate for your photography even though you have no personal experience with the gear in question,

 

- that you abhor automation on a camera and even though you can use that camera manually, just the presence of automation on board bothers you,

 

- that you think auto focus systems cannot produce a satisfactory 11x14" print compared to a print from a manual focus system, for you.

 

Oh, no, what I get is not important.

 

What matters most, I think, is that you revisited your photography and perhaps raised your own awareness. I hope that brings you joy in your photography, even if it also increases your challenges and struggles. I hope that your experience of both the process and results of your photography are enhanced for you to be more successful and satisfying to your own criteria.

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

http://www.peterblaisephotogrpahy.com/

 

=======================

 

PS - For those who wish to keep exploring this thread beyond the reversion back to the "simple" Q: and A: ...

 

- "... I go by tests done by Chasseur d'Images magazine. The Minolta AF 100mm and 135mm are a cut above their MD counterparts in imaging quality ..."

 

So, if I've got it, by the third round in this discussion, we *finally* learn that the inquiry was based on remembering an old magazine review of lenses and they said yada, yada, yada, and therefore the readers should decide yada, yada, yada ... even though the readers have no personal experience with any of the gear in question. Hmm ...

 

- "... But since you've mentioned that manual focusing is not possible with these lens, that settles the question for me ..."

 

We CAN manually focus our auto focus lenses - I do it all the time, especially in low light where auto focus systems may hunt, for complex or macro subjects where auto focus may select a different distance than I would, and especially when I demand instant response from my camera, I use zone pre-focusing. However, when I want it, auto focus is right there for me, too.

 

I'm guessing that there is a lack of hands-on experience with auto focus systems somewhere in this thread, eh?

 

And auto focus is not just ONE system! Oh, no! I have a neat little vintage Vivitar/Cosina (Ricoh?) auto focus lens for my Minolta manual focus camera, so there are hybrids out there in the used marketplace.

 

I believe the history of auto focus goes like this:

 

- Ricoh had the first auto focus interchangeable lens for 35mm cameras.

 

- Konica had the first 35mm auto focus camera - an integrated "compact" point and shoot.

 

- Polaroid had the first auto focus SLR - the SX-70.

 

- Minolta had the first 35mm SLR with in-camera auto focus and interchangeable lenses.

 

- Sigma then created an adapter that permitted a manual focus lens to be fit to the Minolta (and other) auto focus cameras, and with the lens set on infinity focus, the Sigma adapter provided an auto focus function by moving an element within the Sigma adapter to convert infinity to closer focus using the camera body auto focus drive system.

 

- Contax later used this idea to move the entire film box back and forth to provide auto focus using manual focus lenses.

 

Have I got it the history of auto focus? Of course there's the history of active and passive auto focus systems, and contrast and distance measurement auto focus systems (the Polaroid used "sonar" sound waves!), and so on. A new thread?

 

- "... But that not quite sharp AF really shows at above 11x14" They remind me of digital cameras that have all kinds of shooting modes for people who have no clues about photography ..."

 

What are we talking about here? Sharpness and shooting modes are not only unrelated to each other, but are unrelated, exclusively, to digital. "Shooting modes" have been manifest in the "entry level" film camera market for years! And, if I ignore those modes and shoot manually, what's the difference between a $99 camera body and a $999 camera body with the same lens and film?

 

Does anyone have (or have experience with) the lenses in question or not? What 11x14" prints has anyone seen that were unsharp BECAUSE OF THE AUTO FOCUS SYSTEM ALONE and nothing else?

 

When have any of us ever looked at two corresponding pictures that sat there in front of us, side by side, one from a manual focus system, one from an auto focus system, all other things being equal - same subject, same time, same film, same processor, same enlargement system, and so on?

 

... and, of course, for THIS thread, using the inquired about Minolta 100mm/135mm auto focus and manual focus lenses making each picture so that experience directly relates to the inquiry in this thread?

 

I am familiar with the error/rumor on the Internet that because someone once tested auto focus systems against manual focus systems side by side in some supposedly meaningful scientific test (as if!), and found a sharpness difference in the resulting prints in favor of the manual focus system, therefore ... yada, yada, yada - all meaningless.

 

I think we may often be speculating in fear and have no specific experience of the gear we are denigrating as unsuitable for our needs. I'm sad that we are so often turned away from even trying and reporting back what we find when we try new gear offerings from the many, many minds of the manufacturers. Shame on Chasseur d'Images magazine for discouraging us from enjoying the potential photography that is awaiting us. PLEASE, everyone - climb on board fearlessly, play with the gear, and then re-sell any gear that does not meet our standards, and enjoy whatever gear does support us, and then come back here and tell everyone all about it!

 

Aside - what kind of car do we each drive? Have we ever test driven a car that we felt was "nicer" by our own standards, a car where we could tell the difference between it and the car we now own and drive? Did we immediately go home and sell our car and buy the other one JUST BECAUSE WE CAN TELL A DIFFERENCE? Did we refrain from buying any car at all because some magazine said there was always something better out there? I imagine that each of us has a car that pleases us, but also got less than perfect reviews, and may even be superscened by newer, improved offerings, right? Why do we think our photographic gear is any different?

 

True, some people MUST pursue and pay for any perceived differences regardless if those differences matter. If they can perceive a difference, it matters - to them! That is their blessing (they drive the industry to new heights, and the rest of us get some great used gear at wonderfully low prices!) and that is their curse (they miss many photo opportunities by having no gear while they are avoiding the so-called "lesser" gear that is in my hands, takin' pictures!). ;-)

 

- "... Ever tried street photography with an RB67 + 50mm lens on a monopod? That mirror slap makes people turn their heads from as far as 100 feet! ..."

 

By the way, I have a 1969 Yashica TL Electro X (the first in-camera exposure meter with no moving parts) that sounds like a shotgun going off - I get ONE and exactly ONE candid picture per city block before I must move on with people staring at me from all around, wondering who got shot, and when the blood will flow!

 

But what a picture!

 

And with a fast lens and fast film or well lit subjects, I don't need no monopod!

 

Jack, I wish there was more we could learn here from each other in this thread. You seem to think automation in a camera limits the photographer. I suggest finding a middle way - finding a camera system that works for you, and if there is also automation onboard, what the hey?

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

http://www.peterblaisephotogrpahy.com/

Jeez,

 

You are a regular psycho logist, aren't you!

.

 

Dear Jack and fellow photo.net friends,

 

You got your answer - Minotla 35mm auto focus lenses aren't made to fit Minolta 35mm manual focus cameras.

 

Okay, so you don't want to discuss it beyond your two additional posts.

 

However, you raised a few additional issues I enjoyed exploring, and I thank you for that, even though you opted out after your 1-2-3 cycle.

 

That's fine by me. As I wrote, I wish you happiness in your photogrpahic journey. I'm sure you'll be happy with whatver the magazines's say you should buy, and I'll be happy with your old used "crap" at bargain prices.

 

See? Win, win! We both can be happy here! ;-)

 

PS - Not that I'm looking, but I think some reviewer somewhere may have written that by now, 2005, the 1981-on Minotal X-700 has also been bested, but you may not want to read that! Again, fine by me - the camera does little for the final picture but recommend average exposure and operate the aperture and shutter and flash, and provide a convenient chassis for moving the film - but any "box" will do! It's the lens that matters, right? And the film, of course. And the processing ... and ... oh, never mind! We're done! Ooo, tripods? I forgot tripods. And filters! And ...

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs (really!),

Peter Blaise

peterblaise@yahoo.com

Minolta Photographer

http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - I may have some recommendations for Minolta and non-Minolta brand lenses that might suit your needs. Contact me off line ... or start a new thread:

 

"WTB Want To Buy - sharp 100mm to 135mm lens for Minolta manual focus"

 

... and we'll all help you out!