FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony vs Minolta 100mm F2.8 Macro?

Page  <12
Author
sdm9465 View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 29 February 2008
Country: Canada
Location: Nova Scotia
Status: Offline
Posts: 1180
Post Options Post Options   Quote sdm9465 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 August 2011 at 16:24
Originally posted by Dave_Anderson Dave_Anderson wrote:

The 1986 and 1993 versions are identical in all respects except for the circular aperture and the external styling, more plastic/rubber on the later version.

The 1993 version is also geared differently to achieve 40% faster focusing and it has a focus hold button.
 



Back to Top
FlyPenFly View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 02 May 2011
Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Post Options Post Options   Quote FlyPenFly Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 17 August 2011 at 17:18
Well it seems the Sigma 105 in EX DG with the digital coatings can be found for $250 or so, the Minolta for $350 and the Sony for $600...

In terms of bang per dollar, I can't imagine the Sony is worth more than double the Sigma?

However, I'm curious of Sigma vs Minolta, what would be a better choice considering the Sigma has the new digital friendly coatings.
Back to Top
eccles View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 August 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 998
Post Options Post Options   Quote eccles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 August 2011 at 00:38
Originally posted by FlyPenFly FlyPenFly wrote:

Well it seems the Sigma 105 in EX DG with the digital coatings can be found for $250 or so, the Minolta for $350 and the Sony for $600...

In terms of bang per dollar, I can't imagine the Sony is worth more than double the Sigma?

However, I'm curious of Sigma vs Minolta, what would be a better choice considering the Sigma has the new digital friendly coatings.


Between Minolta and Sigma there's not a lot in it with IQ. But as I've already said earlier in this thread, the Sigma 105mm macro has a weak ring gear prone to stripping in the same manner as their non-HSM 70-300mm APO zoom. Having already encountered this, I wouldn't take another chance on a second user Sigma 105mm whatever coatings it has.

I have a second user Minolta series 1 100mm that I bought from a Dyxum member a while ago to replace the Sigma that I repaired by purchasing a replacement ring gear then sold it on. While the Minolta isn't significantly sharper than the Sigma, I prefer the images from it. If you can get a clean copy then you won't be disappointed with it.

Edited by eccles - 18 August 2011 at 00:47
Back to Top
Tony Beach View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 30 December 2009
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 280
Post Options Post Options   Quote Tony Beach Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 August 2011 at 07:20
Originally posted by FlyPenFly FlyPenFly wrote:

How do you guys feel the Minolta compares to the Sigma 105mm DG EX Macro?

The latter is 33% less expensive and newer.

I have the Sigma, but I would consider swapping it along with some additional cash for the Minolta or Sony versions. While my Sigma is really sharp both at close focus and at infinity, and from corner to corner on my A850 at reasonably wide apertures; its bokeh is a little sketchy. From what I've seen, the Minolta and Sony lenses are comparable to the Sigma in terms of resolution, but they appear to have more pleasing bokeh which makes them more versatile choices.

Edited by Tony Beach - 18 August 2011 at 09:34
A850, Schneider 28/2.8 PC, Sony 50/1.4 & 85/2.8, Sigma 105/2.8 macro, Minolta 200/2.8 & 1.4x TC(D).
Back to Top
Minoltista View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 18 August 2008
Country: Italy
Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Post Options Post Options   Quote Minoltista Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 August 2011 at 08:51
I have the minolta rs version.
IQ is very very good such as the bokeh.
It just miss the adi, but actually the ttl works very well.
When I bought I was thinking also about the sigma but i noted the color more cold and the bokeh quite weak...


Ciao,
MP
I was, I'm, I'll be Minolta user!
------------------------------
Zenfolio Photos
Back to Top
Davethehiker View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 August 2011
Country: United States
Location: Eighty Four, PA
Status: Offline
Posts: 386
Post Options Post Options   Quote Davethehiker Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2014 at 02:42
DxO Optics Pro 9 thinks there is a difference between the Minolta and Sony versions of the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I just processed a RAW file using the Sony version. I was surprised when DxO asked me if I had the Minolta or Sony version of the lens. Apparently DxO can't tell from the meta data. When I answered I had the Sony version, DxO sharpened the image before my eyes.

I don't know which one is better, but there must be a difference.

Davethehiker
My name is Dave, and I'm an Alphaholic.
Sony:A99II,A900,A77M2,RX100M2|18~70f3.5~5.6 DT|11~18f4.5~5.6 DT|24-70 f2.8ZA SSM|50f1.4|100 f2.8 Macro|70-300 f4.5~5.6 G SSM|300f2.8 G|500f8 Reflex|Minolta600
 



Back to Top
dumbasadoorknob View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 August 2010
Country: United Kingdom
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 823
Post Options Post Options   Quote dumbasadoorknob Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2014 at 03:47
I have the last version of the Min100Mac, and the Sony version. They may share the same lens design and the same body controls. But the lens hood on the Sony is wider than that on the last Min and, many years ago when I compared the histograms on each on my A900, there appeared to be a slight difference in lacquers because the Sony is shifted one pixel (now I can't remember which way!) There are some minor changes in the rings, and I seem to recall a thread on this subject about four years ago.
David
More lenses than brain cells
Back to Top
momech View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2785
Post Options Post Options   Quote momech Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2014 at 04:13
The Minolta D is basically identical to the Sony, very minor differences as noted.

Originally posted by dumbasadoorknob dumbasadoorknob wrote:

There are some minor changes in the rings, and I seem to recall a thread on this subject about four years ago.


This is that thread; check the date
Back to Top
havoc315 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie

Joined: 16 April 2013
Country: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 58
Post Options Post Options   Quote havoc315 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 04 August 2014 at 12:04
Originally posted by Davethehiker Davethehiker wrote:

DxO Optics Pro 9 thinks there is a difference between the Minolta and Sony versions of the 100mm f/2.8 macro. I just processed a RAW file using the Sony version. I was surprised when DxO asked me if I had the Minolta or Sony version of the lens. Apparently DxO can't tell from the meta data. When I answered I had the Sony version, DxO sharpened the image before my eyes.

I don't know which one is better, but there must be a difference.

Davethehiker


Just means they each have their own entry in the DXO database.   They can still be identical.
Back to Top
Phil Wood View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: 24 March 2013
Country: United Kingdom
Location: England
Status: Offline
Posts: 61
Post Options Post Options   Quote Phil Wood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2018 at 13:32
Intrigued that the thread does not mention the fable Minolta colour factor - is this because the Minolta 100mm lacks the Minolta colour or because the Sony 100mm has maintained the colour?
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 13813
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 May 2018 at 15:35
Originally posted by Phil Wood Phil Wood wrote:

Intrigued that the thread does not mention the fable Minolta colour factor - is this because the Minolta 100mm lacks the Minolta colour or because the Sony 100mm has maintained the colour?

The fable is subject to interpretation.

We can be confident that the original 100 macro was color tuned to be consistent with the other lenses in the original series. We might be less confident that the color tuning remained consistent through the next two generations of Minolta lenses. We can be even less confident that Sony maintained the same color tuning later on, especially in cases where the coatings were changed.

Testing might answer your question, but I suspect there won't be a very significant difference among any of them.
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk > A-mount lenses Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.