Canon vs Minolta Primes

[blazer003]

Ok, so i bought a few Rokkor Minolta lenses and an adapter because they are much cheaper than Canons and Nikons. I'm very impressed with a couple of the lenses (mainly the 50mm F1.4) quality.

I'm obviously much more into the video side of the GH-1, and have never really played with photography and photo lenses until this camera. I know the best lenses in the video world and what a difference they make, but as the GH-1 are for personal use so come out of my own budget at this point, I'm going cheap to start.

So, will there be any noticeable difference (even to a trained eye) in the video quality between a Canon, Nikon and Minolta lenses? Aren't Minolta lenses of pretty good quality? Should I start saving up for Nikon and Canon lenses?

Thanks for sharing your experiences.

-Matt

 

[Ivan Lee]

The Minolta Rokkors are great lenses, some are on the same level of Canon/Nikon, very few are worse, and some are better.

It all depends on the lenses...

The Rokkor 50 1.4 is great, but not the best on the line...

The 24mm MC 2.8 Rokkor is unmatched, to have an idea, The Leica R 24/2.8 is exactly the same lens for 3x the price

The 28 f/2 is amazing, as the 35/1.8

I have no experience with the 58/1.2, but some say it's one of the best lenses... and when Canon people discovered how to convert them to Canon, the prices went sky high...