Minolta AF 100mm F2 A-mount lens reviews
 QuietOC#46880 date: Aug-10-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Samyang AF 85 F1.4 FE Sony FE 85 F1.8 Tamron SP 85 F1.8 USD Canon EF 85 F1.8 USM Lensbaby Velvet 85 F1.8 Minolta MD 85 F2 Sony 85 F2.8 SAM Tamron SP 90 F2.5 Macro Canon EF 100 F2 USM Minolta MC 100 F2.5 Minotla AF 100 F2.8 Soft Focus Minolta AF 100 F2.8 Macro D Minolta AF 100 F2.8 Macro RS Cosina 100 F3.5 Macro Sony FE 100 T5.6 STF GM OSS Minolta AF 135 F2.8 Pocket Rocket Canon EF 135 F2.8 Soft Focus Vivitar 135 F2.8 Close Focusing Minolta MD 135 F3.5 Sony 135 T4.5 STF |
| price paid: | 400 USD (used) |
| positive: | Low purple fringing |
| negative: | Extending focus Chromatic aberration |
| comment: | I have been looking to try one of these for several years. I've have been using the Canon EF 100mm F2 USM, which is much easier to find and relatively inexpensive to buy. "JAPAN" |
| awa54#45743 date: Jul-10-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 85/1.4 100/2.8 macro RS 135/2.8 28-135/4-4.5 |
| price paid: | $325 USD |
| positive: | Sharp Expected Minolta color and rendering great early Maxxum build quality same hood as 100/2.8 macro |
| negative: | long MFD heavy uncommon at best |
| comment: | Another fantastic Maxxum era prime, with everything you could ask for in a portrait lens, except close minimum focus distance.... The 100mm f2 has an excellent balance of sharpness (but not so much that it spoils the look of portraiture), smooth bokeh and good ability to isolate a subject from background. It's already sharp wide open and only gets better up to F11 or so, making for images that are often less moody and more crisp than the 85/1.4, it also beats out the 85 in bokeh C/A and overall C/A. Not a replacement for the 85/1.4, but definitely a compliment that you'll occasionally be glad to have. It has replaced the 85/1.4 in my kit when I just want a short tele for walk around. In a match up against the 100mm macro, this lens comes off looking more crisp and contrasty than the macro at distances beyond close focus. While the 100/2.8 is no slouch outside the macro envelope, the 100/2 is the better lens in perceived sharpness and contrast. Compared to the 135/2.8, it has no overt PF and more ability to isolate a subject, also (obviously) allows closer working distances for portraiture. This lens won't force you to take care with lighting like the 135/2.8 does. As far as the match up between this lens and the 35-135 at 100mm, it pretty much exceeds the zoom in every parameter, though this isn't a knock against the 35-135, as it can certainly make excellent images as well. These are scarce and my "bargain" lens at $325 needed an additional $100 service to correct a loose rear element and thickened lubricant in the optical cam assemblies, but I consider that money well spent and would gladly do it again. |
| Snegren#44511 date: May-5-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Would not know what. |
| price paid: | 250 EUR |
| positive: | Everything. Great sharpness wide open and beautiful rendition of out-of-focus areas, which is the reason this lens has earned its legendary status. |
| negative: | Some CA wide open, but quite well controlled. |
| comment: | AF on LA-EA5 works very well with the usual noise from the lens gears and the sqeaky sounds from the LA-EA5. I was happy to find an original lens hood later, it deserves it. |
| transiently#36830 date: Apr-12-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 90/2.5 (I liked), Zuiko 100/2.8 (absolutely tiny, and surprisingly good, but avoid the early silvery-rimmed ones), Canon FD 100/2.8 (I thought it very good at the time), Samyang 85/1.4 (Horrible to focus and purple highlights at wide apertures, but very decent sharpness), Minolta MD 85/2 (I liked very much indeed), Nikon 105/2.5 (excellent but I never could stick with Nikon for long). The 100/2 beats them all except the MD 85/2...in my memory. If I ever get my hands on another 100/2, I will find out. |
| price paid: | £200 GBP well-used |
| positive: | Very sharp. I liked the bokeh. The lens handled well. I used to refer to it as the "dream lens", a moniker I think I copied from Canon marketing for their F0.95 rangefinder lens from the 1960's. It was interesting that Minolta did not just carry over their excellent 100/2.5 and 85/2 lenses for AF, and that they didn't probably reflects their professional user ambitions for the system. |
| negative: | I had no real criticism of it at the time, though looked at from today's perspective, flare was not really well-controlled. Reading other reviews just now, I am reminded that the minimum focus distance could sometimes be limiting. |
| comment: | I bought one of these secondhand around 1990 and used it on my 7000i. I was in my early 20's and remember trading a whole bunch of Minolta MD gear for it on a sunny Saturday afternoon. I think it had been pro-used as it was a bit physically worn. I liked it very much and only sold it later in the 90's because there was another piece of photographica I thought I wanted more at the time, but I now have no recollection of what it was. I hope it wasn't the very duff Panasonic camcorder or horrible Minolta 3xi I remember having from Jessops but fear it might have been. I was young and stupid...and didn't know that Minolta would discontinue this excellent lens long before going bust and being bought by Sony (which in a weird way has probably turned out to be a plus for Minolta fans, as we can still use these lenses, or the ones we were intelligent enough to hold onto :)). Anyway, if I ever see another at a reasonable price, I'll buy it. Maybe one day...The production run cannot have been very long, though...1987-c.1993 only. |
| Mark Sips#36821 date: Apr-5-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | tamron sp 90mm macro |
| price paid: | 200€ |
| positive: | Very sharp lens |
| negative: | a bit heavy |
| comment: | very sharp lens from wide open |
| arvind_s#36820 date: Apr-5-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Nikon 85MM 1.4 Nikon 135MM F2 Tamron 90Mm F2.5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness wide open Colors Compactness |
| negative: | Nothing I can think of. |
| comment: | WOW! One of my favorite lens, until I owned this lens always used to wonder why members are in awe but only after using the lens you find out the reason why. I have been testing very many lenses, in particular, I had tested this against Nikon 135mm f2, Nikon 85mm f1.4, Nikon 105 f2.5 etc and this lens stood out by miles. Amazing sharpness (tack sharp at F2), outstanding colors, very compact. The lens is so compact that it will always form part of the bag. Filter size is only 55mm. Ticks all boxes for me. I did a comparison between Nikon 135MM F2, Nikon 85MM F1.5 & Tamron 90MM F2.5. Mino 100 F2 out performed the other by a long margin. Mainly on colour, sharpness & compactness. Tamron 90MM F2.5 was the weakest link in this star studded line up. |
| ithinkso#24479 date: Jan-31-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta Maxxum 85 f1.4 AF (original version) Minolta 50mm f1.7 AF (original version) Minolta 100-200 f4.5 AF Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro |
| price paid: | £300GBP |
| positive: | almost everything |
| negative: | minimum focus distance |
| comment: | I did not buy this lens because I needed a portrait lens. I bought it because I'm a minolta fan and I had the money. Logically, I should have spent the money on something useful that does not compete with another lens I already have (I dunno, like maybe a ring flash perhaps?), but there you go. What does logic have to do with anything? Do I regret buying it? No. To give you an idea of why, I've cheated and taken some quotes from the previous reviewers below, that I can now say I'm in complete agreement with. "Everything what you can read about this lens is true. Get one if you can. " gsaronni "Worth every penny" overeema "I did not think I would find a lens I liked more for portraits than my Minolta 85 1.4 rs, but I may have." kozmo (I don't have the rs version myself, I have the original "maxxum" AF version, but I know exactly what kozmo is saying.) "It definitely lives up to the rating on this site" saxbike "this lens is rightly legendary" dinadan. 100 f2 vs 85 f1.4 The 100 f2 cost me almost exactly half what I paid for the 85 f1.4. In terms of bang for buck the 100 f2 wins hands down all day long. At f2 at similar subject distances I find it very difficult to tell images from these two lenses apart. Having said that, of course, it cannot compete at f1.7, f1.6, or f1.4 and that really should go without saying. I have not stopped using the 85 f1.4, but I have found the 100 f2 is much more forgiving and much easier to use. The 85mm f1.4 has better minimum focus distance and I find that useful. 100f2 vs 50 f1.7 There is just no contest. 100f2 vs 100-200 f4.5 This really ought to be no contest, like putting a welterweight in the ring with with a heavyweight, but the zoom is surprisingly good. However, the quality of the prime lens is subtle and not always immediately obvious. Out of focus areas and transitions from in focus to out of focus areas is one place where you will see the difference, and just that extra "nth" sharpness. The 100-200 f4.5 has bang for buck in spades. Is the 100 f2 worth the extra £260? Well, yes. It is. 100f2 vs 100mm f 2.8 macro This is really the most interesting contest in my view. Many would question the need for two lenses of the same focal length in ones arsenal. Again, in terms of bang for buck the 100f2 comes off second against the highly versatile macro which delivers great portraits at apertures of f3.5 or below. But wait a minute. People who have read this or my other reviews might realise my technical knowledge of optics is somewhat rudimentary. I cant pretend to know anything about "micro contrast" or circles of confusion. But I do know the f2 just has some extra finesse that the macro does not provide at portrait distances. In my opinion, the macro is pin sharp throughout the aperture range at macro distances (in the centre at least) but not as sharp as the f2 at f2.8 at portrait distances. Of course it cannot compete at f2, and I have tended to use the f2 wide open so far. Honestly, If i could only have one of these two I'd go for the macro as it is so much more versatile. Having said that, now I have the 100f2 I will not be doing portraits with the macro! The only issue I have with this lens is the minimum focus distance. These days it would not cut the mustard. I suspect there are modern lenses available for a similar outlay that could outperform the Minolta 100mm f2, but who cares? and to quote kozmo again, "Wow". |
| gsaronni#12043 date: Nov-29-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100/2.8 macro Tamron 90/2.8 macro 135/2.8 |
| price paid: | 300€ New Old stock |
| positive: | Focus to out of focus transitions. Bokeh Perfect Minolta colours Sharp at any aperture Pop up images Very good with extension tubes or 1,4X TC |
| negative: | Backfocus with every body except A77 (-14 MFA) Slow focus but enough for portraits CA at f2 if not perfectly focused MFD |
| comment: | Everything what you can read about this lens is true. Get one if you can, but better if you use a camera with MFA |
| TheEmrys#12024 date: Nov-7-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 55/1.8 Minolta 135/2.8 Minolta 80-200 HS G |
| price paid: | $650? USD |
| positive: | Small size and 55mm filter thread Stunningly sharp Lovely bokeh |
| negative: | Can have CA, mostly noticed in reflections in eyes for portraits Heavy - this is a stout lens |
| comment: | This lens is just about perfect. Images are great. This lens is surprisingly small. It is a perfect fit on an a7 with LA-EA4 adapter. Autofocus is just like everything else pre-1990. Same speed, and highly accurate. This is easily my favorite telephoto lens I have used, even over the (deservedly) vaunted Minolta 80-200 HS G. I just flat out love this lens. Sharpness, micro-contrast, even 3D look, it really can have it all. And its in a lens that is nearly exactly the size of my Sony Zeiss 55/1.8. A true marvel of design. The only thing I can think that would make it better is if it were re-made today with a bit lighter (even high grade plastic) with some modern coatings and some ED glass. This is a keeper. |
| maxfarphoto#12004 date: Oct-17-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 85/1,4 G (D) |
| price paid: | eur 480 2nd hand |
| positive: | Sharp wide open Excellent colors Light weight |
| negative: | nothing |
| comment: | I bought this lens to compare with 85/1,4 and decide what to use on A7R: 85 is one full stop faster but it is less usable wide open than 100/2 so I have decided to keep the latter. It has same size as 85 but it weights less which helps... I will keep it until a fast telephoto for FE mount won't be released than I will compare again... |
| overeema#11892 date: Jul-4-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 16-80 DT F3.5-4.5 Sony G 70-300 SSM F4.5-5.6 Tamron Di II 60 F2 Macro Sony 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS (E-mount) Minolta AF 28-135mm F4-4.5 Minolta AF 50 F1.7 Sony 18-105mm G F4 PZ OSS (E-mount) |
| price paid: | € 300 (used) |
| positive: | Great lens with absolutely superb sharpness and contrast even at full aperture. Works flawlessly with Alpha 350. Even after about 20 years of age no sign of wear. Good bokeh. Light weight compared to zooms despite metal barrel. |
| negative: | Drains battery by constant and noisy refocusing (can be prevented with a lens cap). No ADI-function. |
| comment: | Bought this lens from a friend who used to have it with Minolta 9000. No regret. Worth every penny. Update 2015: Excellent for portrait although the focal length at APS-C of my 50 and 60 mm are more convenient. |
| kozmo#11877 date: Jun-23-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 85 1.4 minolta tamron 70-200 2.8 |
| price paid: | 800 |
| positive: | Bokeh, size, build, sharpness wide open |
| negative: | mfd, really nothing worth noting |
| comment: | Almost bought from a dyxum member and had to pass and paid more than I would have liked elsewhere, but still can't complain about it after seeing results. I did not think I would find a lens I liked more for portraits than my Minolta 85 1.4 rs, but I may have. More testing is required, but so far all I can say is WOW! this lens is bliss for portraits and nice and compact as well. |
| saxbike#11327 date: Sep-4-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Nikkor 105mm f2.5 Sony 85mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 700 USD |
| positive: | Sharpness @ f2 Beautiful Bokeh Minolta color light weight |
| negative: | sometimes I wish it had closer focus distance |
| comment: | Back in my film days (ancient history), the Nikkor 105mm f2.5 was my favorite portrait lens, so I purchased the Minolta 100mm f2 as my portrait lens over the various permutations of the 85mm f1.4. I did have the Sony 85mm f2.8 for a short time and found it to be a good performer but not in the same league as the 100mm f2. I still love this focal length for portraits. It definitely lives up to the rating on this site. I also find that I reach for this lens when doing landscapes and creating images for stitching. I compared this lens to the Nikkor on my NEX 6 and they are very close, but I give the edge to the Minolta because of the color rendering. It may be pricey for a used lens, but it is very high quality and worth the price. |
| bcerrr#10687 date: Nov-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 135mm/F2.8 24-105mm/F3.5-3.5 |
| price paid: | 700 USD(used) |
| positive: | very sharp across all aperture smooth boken rich Minolta color good contrast compact but solid build distortion is small |
| negative: | AF a bit noisy and slow flare control highly priced as an old lens |
| comment: | This is a very good lens with a distinctive old Minolta style back in the 1980s. The image quality is superb, as well as the solid build with metal and glass. The only drawback is the slow and noisy AF. I wish that Sony will reproduce this lens with a SSM motor inside, then it will qualify a "G" mark on the front cap. |
| dinadan#10615 date: Oct-23-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS Minolta 50mm f2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | 850 EUR / 550 EUR |
| positive: | very sharp even wide open nice bokeh focal length on ff light and small perfect focus w/o micro adjust |
| negative: | some flare |
| comment: | i recently upgraded from my trusted old a700 to a a850. since 50mm is now too short for portrait shooting, i needed a new lens. after reading the reviews and looking at sample images, i decided to go for the 100mm f2. this lens is rightly legendary, the images are stunning! well worth the high price i paid. Update: I sold the lens two years ago and regreted it. Now i got a new mint copy from Ebay, the prices for used A-Mount lenses are considerably lower than they used to be. I now have the A7II+LA-EA4, the light lens is well balanced on the smaller body. |
| lifeispixels#9793 date: Jan-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 870 USD (mint) |
| positive: | Sweet, rich, true classic Minolta colors. Deep 3D contrast. Smooth and nice transition bokeh. Amazing sharpness at f2 to extremely sharp at f2.8. |
| negative: | CA can be a bit strong in high contrast scene at f2. Stopped down to f2.8 gets rid of most CA. Minimum focus distance is quite long. Not suitable for macro. |
| comment: | Tried with both A850 and A77, my copy back focuses a bit and requires -10 adjustment on the camera body. First impression with images taken with this lens is beyond expected sharpness at f2 and extremely sharp with micro details at f2.8. I can clearly see very fine thin hair and pores on the face of the model in natural light without flash and that photo is already downsized to 1024 pixels width!! If it's not sharp to you, it's more likely your copy back or front focuses, since DOF at f2 is very narrow, and back/front focus is very common for legacy glasses on newer camera bodies. Don't return this lens if you haven't checked this yet. Only A850 A900 and A77 can do focus adjustment so you should consider upgrading your body then selling this fine gems and regret later. The colors of this lens are very classic Minolta style which can be described as sweet, deep, and richly saturated. But this lens takes it further and produce the kind of uniquely rich, deep colors I haven't found in other classic Minolta lens I have. The first instance I tried this lens made me WOW. The contrast is brilliant and almost 3D like. The subject in focus just pops up from the background. No need for post processing at all. The other outstanding feature is the creamy and smooth transition of the out of focus background (bokeh). A lot of photographers asked me after seeing my photos if I used the lens with smooth focus feature. It's really just beautiful. I love the bokeh and sharpness at f2 and will not hesitate to shoot wide open. CA can be a bit strong so you should be careful in high contrast scenes and stop down to f2.8 to avoid the problem. I'd prefer this one over the 135mm f1.8za for street candid, photojournalism, and travels for its portable size and weight that's half of that ZA. I wouldn't want to lug around 1.8 kilo of camera + lens with me on my trips. This lens is very hard to find, especially in mint conditions, and expect the price to keep rising. If you come across one, just grab it while you can! You won't be disappointed. This is one of the best portrait/candid lens available in A mount. See my photos with 100mm f2 on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| gouldina#9299 date: Aug-4-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony Zeiss 85ZA, Minolta 135 f2.8 Minolta 100 macro CZJ Sonnar 135 f3.5 Sony 70-200G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp Contrasty Beautiful rendition and colour Not too big |
| negative: | mfd could be shorter |
| comment: | A pretty rare lens this and very high quality. Build is great and focussing is reasonably quick. Minimal focus could be shorter but it's not atypical for a lens of this length. I love its rendering of light and smooth bokeh. It's extremely contrasty which is a characteristic I like although the contrast is not so much at the micro-contrast level as the Zeiss 85 and it's not quite so sharp (although it is my sharpest lenses, ZA aside). Nonetheless, it renders texture, colour and light beautifully in a very Minolta way. Think of the 135 f2.8's rendering but with far less CA (at least in my experience) and you'll get the idea. Despite owning both the 85ZA and the 100f2 and despite their similar focal lengths, I intend to keep both. The 100 is much less bulky for one thing and has a different look. Update after more use: Initially I used the 85mm in preference (I bought them both around the same time) but lately it's the other way round or at least where people shots are concerned. I love the way it renders people and it has brilliant colour and I also prefer the slightly longer focal length. I'd say the Zeiss was a tad sharper and has better micro-contrast if you pixel peep but unless you do so, you won't notice and in practice in prints they are equally razor sharp. Definitely the best portrait/people lens I've ever used. |
| ibordas#8842 date: Mar-29-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | ZA 85/1.4 ZA 135/1.8 ZM 50/2 Sony 70-200/2.8 G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness Color Compact for this range and aperture |
| negative: | Not reproduced by Sony Noisy focus |
| comment: | I prefered this gem vs both of the ZA primes, for colors and rendition(sharpness is the same league). I use it mainly between f2 and f4 and when need sharpness all over the frame f5.6 to f8 (landscapes & other details). It's a shame that Sony don't have this lens on actual catalogue. Highly recommended lens. |
| N.Terrell#8577 date: Jan-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100 Can |
| positive: | Tack sharp Silky bokeh Majestic colours and everything else anyone has ever said. |
| negative: | nothing at all |
| comment: | This was a great steal for me. I bought this off of Kijiji with a Maxxum 7000 a 70-210 f4 a 35-70 and so on for $350. Anyways, this lens was the deal breaker a chance to own my second copy of this lens and it was in mint condition. Of all the pictures I have taken over the past 15 years those taken with this lens on my Maxxum 7 are some of my favorites. |
| Roadkill#8465 date: Dec-31-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28mm f2.8 minolta 50mm f1.7 minolta 35-70mm f4.0 minolta 100-200mm f4.5 minolta 75-300mm Big Beercan |
| price paid: | $811 mint shape |
| positive: | VERY sharp Contrast LOVE the color Overall OUTSTANDING! |
| negative: | Hunts a little in some low light suitations. |
| comment: | This is my first G-quality lens. Nothing eles I have comes close. Was going to get an 85 1.4 for portraits and happened to come across this and didn't blink an eye. Nice compact size, and weight is fine on my KM-5D. Hunts a little inside on low constrat subjects somtimes (sure my 5-D doesn't help there) but locks quicker than my 28 or 50. In good light this baby locks on FAST. Build is old school minolta. Solid, heavy, feels like it'll last forever. The colors just POP with this lens compared to my others. This lens on my 5-D is sharp wide open. I've been shooting mostly at f2.2 and loving it. It's what everyone of the other reviews say. I like my portraits a little sharper with nice bokeh to boot and I can't see it getting any better than this. This is one lens I can't ever see me selling. I can't hardley take it off even when I need something wider (35mm f2.0 here I come!). I can't recommend this lens highly enough, sharp, fast, compact, creamy bokeh and colors to die for! Get it if you can. |
| glina#8349 date: Dec-4-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-300G 100-200/4.5 70-200/4 80-200G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Good contrast Perfect sharpness Light and bright Tough build |
| negative: | none really, but AF speed could be better |
| comment: | The ultimate resolving machine. No zoom even comes close in sharpness. Color and contrast are great. Lens hood is adequate for avoiding flare. A good alternative for the heavy and much more expensive Zeiss primes. Highly recommended for both FF and APS-C. |
| tuanle#8284 date: Nov-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 90mm Minolta 100mm Tokina 100mm Minolta 135mm 2.8 Minolta 85mm GD |
| price paid: | 880 USD (caps, hood) |
| positive: | Sharp, very sharp Bokeh (f2 bokeh!) small size |
| negative: | A little bit back focus on my Sony A500 and A200. |
| comment: | Great for portrait! I used to own a Minolta 85 G D. The 85 G D is not very sharp at f1.4. Stop down to f2, it's wonderful. When I received this lens, I am very surprised how sharp it is at f2. I think this lens is sharper than the 85 GD at f2. The bokeh is very good. It does make the 3D look for the pictures. |
| lomitamike#8270 date: Nov-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100 f/2.8 D Macro Sony 50 f/1,4 Minolta 28 f/2 Sony 70-200 f/2.8 G |
| price paid: | $700 (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Color Build Size I got one |
| negative: | Price Availability focus speed (not too bad) CA |
| comment: | I bought this lens about two and a half years ago and I've used it with the Minolta 5D, Sony A700 and the Sony A550. I have not used it with a full frame camera yet. If I had to choose the one lens that was the closest lens to being perfect for my style of shooting this would be the lens. For starters it's f/2. Secondly it's tack sharp at f/2, it's rare that any lens can be so sharp wide open. Although 100mm is a bit longer then I normally shoot with, when I need something in the 100mm area other then macro this is the lens I go to. I recently did a photo shoot with a model and used both the Sony 70-200 G and the 100 f/2. I preferred the 100 f/2 photo's. You don't need as much correction in post processing if at all with this lens. The sharpness and color are as close to perfect as you can get. I also have used this lens to shoot indoor basketball and it works OK. It's focusing is a little slow for fast sports in dimly lit gyms. Fortunately the first gym I was shooting in was very well lit so the 100 f/2 focused decently. The second gym I shot in was terribly lit and focusing was very challenging, although that probably would have been the case for any lens to be honest. The great thing about this lens for indoor sports is of course the ability to use f/2 and double you shutter speeds in comparison to any f/2.8 lens. This is an incredible lens and a pleasure to work with and gets my highest recommendation. Unfortunately this lens is almost impossible to find, and if you do find one you better have a lot of money. UPDATE: On Full Frame, all the great points I wrote about are only better. UPDATE: I have sold this lens and replaced it with the Minolta 85G(D). There certain quality's of the 100 f/2 that the 85 misses, but I chose to go for the 1.4 option. |
| AlphaMan#8074 date: Oct-10-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100/2.8 Minolta 85/1.4 Minolta 135/2.8 Zeiss 135/1.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness Size Construction |
| negative: | price Availability |
| comment: | This is now an amended review based on a second sample of the lens. The first sample of this lens was very good but required careful handling to get the best from it. It was very sharp but mis-focused quite easily using the A700 but was much better on my A900. As this lens seemed to be problematic on my A700 which was the camera I had brought it for I decided to sell it. This was something I grew to regret and so I got another when the opportunity presented itself. I have subsequently learned how to calibrate the focus on an A700 (3 screw method) and now enjoy sharper pictures with all my lenses. My second 100/2 is actually better than the first, not just because of my calibrated A700 but also because it seems sharper - much more in line with some of the rave reviews you can read here. It is very sharp at f2 without micro-adjust on my A900, also on my A700 (where no micro-adjust is possible) and with a -8 micro adjust on my NEX7 via the LA-EA2 adapter. The lens is simply quite stunning; sharp, lovely Minolta colours and a pleasing 3D feel to the images. I just wish Sony would bring one out so that more people could enjoy this little Minolta gem is a delight! |
| pcarmalt#7888 date: Aug-28-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ135, CZ85, Minolta 135/2.8, Minolta 100 macro, Beercan, 70-300G, Minolta 200/2.8 HS. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Sharp - Compact |
| negative: | - Bokeh is good, but not fantastic. - Some colour fringing - Focus is a bit loud and not fast - Overpriced due to rarity |
| comment: | This is a very good lens. Nice and compact, with excellent sharpness. Good sharpness wide open though NOT as sharp as CZ85 at f/2 or C135 at f/2. Didn't quite have the "wow" factor for me, when compared to the CZ85, CZ135 or Minolta 200/2.8 HS. I think mainly due to the bokeh which is not as creamy. I feel it's a bit overpriced. If I didn't have enough money to get a CZ85, I would still take a Minolta 85/1.4 over this one. f/1.4 is a whole stop wider than f/2 and this can make a big difference for portraits and really shallow DOF effects. The 100/2 is also quite heavy for it's small size and doesn't balance that well (a bit front-heavy). It's not that much smaller or lighter than a 85/1.4. (Compare with 135/2.8 which is very noticeably lighter and smaller). |
| DaveJonT#7846 date: Aug-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Leica 90MM Summicron. |
| price paid: | 129.00 |
| positive: | Sharp at full aperture. Accurate dark interior focusing, especially with my Maxxum 9. |
| negative: | Rarity: while I got mine incredibly cheap, I doubt I will ever buy another one. The focusing ring: I just don't like the ring on any of the AF lenses. |
| comment: | This is a great lens, no doubt about it. The largest print I have ever made came from a negative shot with this lens. Neopan 1600 printed at 12X18. Grainy as all heck, but not too grainy for my tastes, with a nice amount of vignetting as well. Still very sharp, and likely could have withstood a greater enlargement. Yes, I actually paid 129 Canadian for it too. I cannot remember who it was, but there was someone who was collecting information for a website, prices paid, where you bought it, etc. I actually scanned my receipt and sent it to him. I bought it at a store that knew what it was and what it was worth, but felt that someone who knew would get a heck of a deal, but the thing was, they had to know. I knew. Too darn bad that I had to sell it. It was great. |
| Bahudda#7651 date: Jul-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 135mm f1.8 ZA 100mm f2.8 Macro Minolta 85mm f1.4 Minolta 50mm f1.4 Sony & Sigma 35mm f2.0 Minolta |
| price paid: | 850 USD |
| positive: | Good focal length for portraits Sharpness, color & contrast are outstanding |
| negative: | Hunts on occassion/ low light and low contrast targets |
| comment: | At first blush I was not sure that this lens was all that it was hyped to be. With better technique and patience I found that the problem was me and not the lens. It marries up well with the 35mm f2.0 in color, contrast and sharpness (with the 35f2 just a hint sharper wide open). It is almost as sharp as the Zeiss 135f1.8 but with a totally different color rendition; where the 100f2 has true Minolta color and the Zeiss is brighter and less contrasty. Compared to the 85mm f1.4 this lens is similar in color, more contrasty and equally sharp. The 100f2 might be considered the Yang to the 85f1.4's Yin, where the DOF from the 85f1.4 presents an ever so slightly lighter rendition. I would place the 100mm Macro slightly ahead of the 100f2 in resolving power and bokeh (this is to be expected). However, the 100f2 is much better for portraits and focuses faster. The 100f2, in my opinion, is a tele 50mm f1.4 as far as color, contrast and sharpness. I would use the 50f1.4, 35f2 and the 100f2 if I wanted all of the images from a shoot to look seamless one from the other. More to come as I get more opportunity to learn how to get the most this lens has to offer. |
| Mayhem#7345 date: Apr-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 500 USD (NEW) |
| positive: | Sharp !! |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | every thing I've heard about this lens is true and more !! it's sharp from f2 with beautiful bokeh it's a must have lens and make me wonder is the 135mm cz worth the upgrade .. |
| PeteMag#7209 date: Mar-31-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135 80-200G HS |
| price paid: | L400 |
| positive: | Bokeh Sharp Lightweight Cheap |
| negative: | nothing really but rare |
| comment: | This is a very nice lens. In 1987 a crack commando lens unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime it didn't commit. This lens promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government (and collectors), it survives as a soldier of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the 100mm f2. So yes, they are rare as hens teeth. But cheaper than a 135mm 1.8 by some margin, and there's not a great deal else. Worth finding one if you can because its SHARP all the way and produces lovely creamy bokeh. Perfect for portraits. I go to this lens more than any other I have owned. |
| Ovas#7169 date: Mar-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | NIKON 105 f2.5 + NIKON D700 it is clearly sharper wide open, stepped down they seems to be equally sharp and gives good colors. (On A900). |
| price paid: | 650US$ |
| positive: | High performance lens. Sharp wide open. Better than any zoom I have. |
| negative: | (Very expensive if found used. (Sony does not make them)) |
| comment: | This one was very expensive though it is a specially good performer. The vignetting is there at f2 but goes all away at f2.8, where it is as sharp as stepped further down. This is a gem. If you can find it buy it. Compared to my NIKON 105 f2.5 |
rating summary
- total reviews: 75
- sharpness: 4.93
- color: 4.97
- build: 4.87
- distortion: 4.99
- flare control: 4.59
- overall: 4.87
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login