Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 Macro RS A-mount lens review by Josiel
|Josiel#7161 date: Mar-26-2010|
flare control: 5
|ownership:||I own this lens|
|compared to:||Sigma 50mm macro (old)|
Tamron 90 macro 172E
|negative:||Noisy AF (compared to Tamron)|
|comment:||I didn't make direct comparison tests, but will endorse TomekG's observations.|
Sigma colors look more precise, but Minolta colors just look 'better', so to speak.
The working distance is way better than with Sigma 50mm (of course) or Tamron 90mm (surprise). That's a great advantage if you're shooting insects and/or using extension tubes and/or a TC.
Is it worth the price difference? well... compared to:
> Sigma 50mm: yes if you want to shoot insects. All macro lenses are sharp, and working distance is more important.
For coins or copy-work, 50mm may be a more reasonable option.
> Tamron 90mm: yes if you want better colors and working distance (not that Tammy is bad!). Otherwise, it depends on the price difference.
Also consider if you're going to double it for general use (50mm), portrait (90/100mm), or exclusively macro (subject?).