BrendanLeahy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,068
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
I'm currently facing a decision of keeping my Minolta glass with their original MC mount vs. converting them to Canon EF.
There are some great manufacturers out there now for mounts, and RED even has their own Leica-M mount. I was fortunate enough to find a couple of guys that made a custom Minolta mount for the RED, so I've been using that and love it - the MC mount feels rock solid.
Minolta glass, when used with the existing cheap twist-on MC-to-EF converters, can have strange backfocusing issues or crop in on the lens image. Going all-in with a professional EF conversion would mean a permanent EF mount without those problems. It would also mean I could use the lenses on other bodies with a Canon mount in the future.
I'm curious about those that have had to weigh a similar decision, and why you went one way or the other? Are there great benefits to keeping the original mount with your lens that I may be overlooking?
There are some great manufacturers out there now for mounts, and RED even has their own Leica-M mount. I was fortunate enough to find a couple of guys that made a custom Minolta mount for the RED, so I've been using that and love it - the MC mount feels rock solid.
Minolta glass, when used with the existing cheap twist-on MC-to-EF converters, can have strange backfocusing issues or crop in on the lens image. Going all-in with a professional EF conversion would mean a permanent EF mount without those problems. It would also mean I could use the lenses on other bodies with a Canon mount in the future.
I'm curious about those that have had to weigh a similar decision, and why you went one way or the other? Are there great benefits to keeping the original mount with your lens that I may be overlooking?