Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 Macro RS A-mount lens review by TomekG
|TomekG#6506 date: Dec-2-2009|
flare control: 5
|ownership:||I own this lens|
|compared to:||* Sigma 50 macro old|
* Tamron 90 macro
+ distance from subject
|negative:||- sharpness at f16-f32 worse than competition|
|comment:||This is macro lens, so I tested mainly macro capabilities.|
Good . Uniform, but visible one side outlines at ~2.8, but very slight - not bad. Choosing the background you should be more careful than in the case of typical portrait lens. I think Tamron has better bokeh.
Great. A bit warm "minolta color", but saturation is high.
Better than warm and flat Tamron, and better than good sigma.
Sigma was more neutral but less saturated.
First - DISTANCE from front of lens (not from sensor - useless parameter) is huge - way better than Tamron 90 and ofc 50mm Sigma. Even using AF Novoflex bellows (max) with full set of rings (set of Soligor), distance from subject is about same as normal 1:1 with sigma.
So, for macro photographer most important thing is sharpness at high F-stops. It is not strong point of Minolta 100 macro. But DOF at f16 is not shallower than f22 in Sigma (here does matter huge distance from object).
Sharpness (and CA):
f2.8 1.minolta(CA+) 2.sigma 3.tamron (CA++)
f11 1.minolta 2.tamron 3.sigma
f16 1.sigma 2.tamron and minolta equal
f22 1.sigma 2.tamron 3.minolta
f32* 1.tamron 2.minolta
*(sigma max is f22)
Minolta 100 macro is great macro lens.
Is one of the best lens to insect shooting (regard distance and pleasing color retention).
Sorry for different subject for Minolta, but I don't have earlier subject (1-2 year time difference between pictures - but the same body).