Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 Macro RS A-mount lens review by Josiel

reviewer#7161 date: Mar-26-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP; 61MP61 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 50mm macro (old)
Tamron 90 macro 172E
price paid:
positive:Working distance
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?).

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 43
  • sharpness: 4.94
  • color: 4.95
  • build: 4.67
  • distortion: 5.00
  • flare control: 4.84
  • overall: 4.88
Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania