Nikon lenses, I don't wonder why, have jumped up in price. But a minolta prime lens can still be had for twenty bucks on ebay. I'm thinking of buying a minolta adapter and jumping on that bandwagon before it leaves town but I was wondering if the glass experts out there can really spot the difference?

It's just basic economics that Nikons have rose up in price with all these 35mm adapters in the market. Not to mention I find that the older Nikons have really been a bargain overall since they made better glass in the 60's and 70's vs the DX models that tend to not be as dynamic in it's picture quality. My 2 cents.

I should have been more specific. Is there a major difference in glass quality between Nikons and minolta's etc. One that justifies 5x the price. Instead of using Nikon's I'm thinking of buying minolta's for a brevis.

As long as you have the proper lens mount you should be fine.
There is great glass out there from other manufactures as well that people are missing the boat on.
The Nikon craze is a little silly if you ask me. Someone reads an article in Studio Monthly, then a couple of people post on the internet, and bam! Everyone wants Nikon glass and the price climbs. The same thing happened with all those Russian Lomo lenses. It used to be you could pick one up for $30 bucks. Now if you can even find one the prices are sky high.
I will admit that I have a couple of Nikon lenses, but I have relegated them down to "C" status, as I only use them if I absolutely have to.
The thing I don't like about Nikon is... The controls are bassakwards from other lenses. So you have to try and remember to focus in the opposite direction.
For what it's worth, the sharpest glass out there for the money are the Contax Zeiss lenses.

Good Luck with your quest!

With the resolution even the best HDV cameras see on these adapters, it really doesn't matter what brand of lens you use. They all tend to produce fairly good images.

It's just basic economics that Nikons have rose up in price with all these 35mm adapters in the market. Not to mention I find that the older Nikons have really been a bargain overall since they made better glass in the 60's and 70's vs the DX models that tend to not be as dynamic in it's picture quality. My 2 cents.

Given your Nikon lens lineup, you certainly speak as a power user. Though, I'll have to speak up for DX. I own and use both the Nikon 28-70mm and 17-55mm DX, and I wouldn't say that the 28-70mm is obviously better. In fact, until f/4 or so, it's softer than the 17-55DX. Most of the people using these 35mm adapters will be drawn to the faster Nikon lenses, and as you know, there aren't any DX fixed focal length lenses. Any zoom of today is better than a zoom from the 60's and 70's , so DX zooms, "pro f/2.8" or not, are worthy of praise.

I've found that my Nikon lenses, such as the 28mm f/1.4 , with ridiculously short lens hoods deliver better performance with deeper hoods.

I love the 28 1.4. Really want one. The 105 2.0 is awsome too.

Nikons are great..., also, having a long Flange Focal Distance, they can be mounted in pretty much any other mount using adapters (ef-nikon, etc)

Useful for various brands of adapter.

Except for the smaller image area which is just big enough for 24mm wide and f4 widest available aperture and no manual aperture ring at all, the Nikon 12mm-24mm, which is a DX lens, is unexpectedly sharp for a zoom and even more surprisingly, seems to work better in artificial light rather than outdoors daylight.

The f4 widest aperture and no aperture control limits its usefulness but the available field-of-view is second only to the 8mm fisheye and it is a rectilinear lens meaning all strasight lines in the image stay straight. The corners get stretched a bit.