Minolta AF 50mm F3.5 Macro A-mount lens reviews
 Aleksey463#6357 date: Nov-10-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Industar 61 (M42 lens) Fujinon 55 1.8 Minolta 35-70 F/4 Sony DT 50 1.8 |
| price paid: | 230 Usd |
| positive: | Sharp enough, absolutely from F5 and no CA or distortion color |
| negative: | Too sensitive focusing ring- small rotation gives too big effect. That is bad for manual focusing. |
| comment: | Good macro lens. But DT 50 1.8 is better: sharper at corners at aperture 3.5 and have better flare control. Because of that I use this lens only as macro lens. |
; 12MP| Wordfreak#6282 date: Oct-28-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm 1.7 Sony 50mm 1.8 SAM Beercan 70-210 f4 |
| price paid: | 300 CDN |
| positive: | Sharp! Compact Classic Minolta colours |
| negative: | Can't think of any |
| comment: | Astounded by the sharpness of this lens, even wide open. Took some formidable wildlife photos with this lens. Decent as a short portrait lens too. One of the most beautifully built lenses. Can't wait to try it on a full-frame body. |
| common#6186 date: Oct-6-2009 | |
|---|---|
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: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness, Bokeh, Colors, light |
| negative: | Nothing |
| comment: | Should get classic status in my opinion, super sharp with great colors - fab on an A900 |
| panyawong#5797 date: Aug-2-2009 | |
|---|---|
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: | missing |
| positive: | Superb sharpness and colour. Excellent 3D quality. Inexpensive. |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Surprisingly nice 3D quality at f3.5 and f4. Very high resolution thru out. |
| lordbyte#5788 date: Jul-30-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | M 50 f2.8 macro M 50 f1.4 M 100 f2.8 macro Sigma 50 f2.8 macro |
| price paid: | 17,000 YEN |
| positive: | Lightest lense,fast AF in normal light condition,superb color,razor sharp,image quality very good,no CA,PF. |
| negative: | No hood,can't support clipped hood,1:2 magnification only,plastic body,slippery rubber on focus ring (when ur finger sweat) |
| comment: | The 50mm f/3.5 macro actually should deserve more attention. At the beginning I lamented the 1:2 ratio, but it is not a problem at all the more I use it. Color rendition of this lens is excellent. Like other macros, this lens is very sharp. So, not much to complain. I think a 50/3.5 macro is a cheaper (and great) alternative to the 50/2.8, if one can find in the market. No purple fringing with this lens compared to my M100 f2.8 macro. If wanna more magnification,combined with Ext tubes / closed up lens filter / raynox to increase the magnification and of course,shorter focal distance u will get |
| scotartt#5775 date: Jul-29-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 kit |
| price paid: | 299 AUD |
| positive: | great colour sharp as a tack |
| negative: | 1:2 not 1:1 "only" f/3.5, i.e. could be faster, then I wouldn't need a fast lens either and this could do duty for that as well. |
| comment: | I've only had this lens for 24 hours but already it is showing its worth! It is very sharp and has excellent colour. So far I've really enjoyed using the lens and it is a huge improvement on the kit lenses. I paid $299 aussie dollars for the lens on ebay, it was well worth this money. |
| gnhock#5758 date: Jul-25-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ 24-70 50 f1.4 24 f2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness is amazing! |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Compact 1:2 macro and useful short portrait lens on A700. Quite an amazing lens and great value used. |
| saxbike#5204 date: Apr-9-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 f2.8 Minolta 35-105 N Minolta 100-200 f4.5 Minolta 28-135 kit 18-70 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp Flat field Sharp Excellent color Excellent contrast No need for hood |
| negative: | None Except the max f3.5 |
| comment: | Does a perfect lens exist? No, but this one is very close. Sharpness is outstanding, but may be equaled by a few other lens (at least on my A200 sensor). However, the IQ of this lens is always superior to the others , I think, because of its higher contrast. Images made with this lens are always better. They just LOOK better. I originally purchased this lens for a Minolta film camera when I was making slides of art works for art history classes. Its flat field was perfect for this purpose, but I never used it for day-to-day shooting until I bought the A200 last summer. Now I use it frequently for whatever I encounter. By the way...did I mention this lens is sharp? |
| Ayler#5131 date: Mar-31-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 50mm f1.4 |
| price paid: | Ł160 |
| positive: | As sharp as 50mm f1.4 at infinity. Not prone to chromatic aberration. Much better corrected than 50mm 1.4. Slow, but flexible lens. Fast focusing under normal light. Small and light. Decently built. |
| negative: | Focus ring is too narrow. Too much shiny plastic (although it doesn't seem worst than the Sony f1.4). No focus hold button. Manual focusing is not dampened enough (if at all) and could be smoother. |
| comment: | So far so good. At least as good as the 50mm f1.4 at infinity stopped down to f8. No internal reflections, ghosting or CAs so far. Fast focusing in normal situations. The flexibility of macro, mid-range and infinity in one single lens. Following a few more comparative tests, I should be selling the Sony 50mm f1.4. Wonderful lens (a true Minolta star). Light, fast focusing, almost perfectly corrected, great for portraits too available light permitting. The only two complaints so far are a tiny bit of lack of definition around borders and corners (at least near infinity) and the narrow focus ring and unrefined focus motion. Borders and corners are probably its major fault and seem to be better on the Minolta/Sony 50mm Macro f2.8 (from what I've seen), but, and it's a huge but, the f3.5 is almost perfect in terms of suppression of CAs and reflections. |
| wahgongzai#5115 date: Mar-29-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | US$210 |
| positive: | Sharp (very) fast AF |
| negative: | build... plastic F3.5 (can be good in some ways) |
| comment: | This is my second macro lens, bought out of curiosity cause a lot people said that "the sharpness that this lens offer is amazing". After I tried on my DSLR, I totally agree with the statement. Now its in my collection |
| surfsup#4897 date: Feb-22-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm F1.7 28mm F2.8 35-70mm F4 |
| price paid: | Ł195 |
| positive: | Razor sharp Excellent color Build quality Weight |
| negative: | Rare |
| comment: | What a fantastic lens. It's incredibly sharp from edge to edge. VERY fast AF in macro mode. No flaring. Wonderful color. Highly recommeded for close-up work as well as general use. You will not be disappointed!! |
| Jojakim#4704 date: Jan-18-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 100/2.8 (old) - Minolta 50/1.7 (old) - Minolta 28-135/4-4.5 |
| price paid: | 150 EU (2nd hand) |
| positive: | - Super sharp from corner to corner - Good af speed - No noticable distortion |
| negative: | - Only f3.5, but I don't really care |
| comment: | It seems like a simple lens construction as the lens elements are quite small and most of the construction is a built in lens hood. The lens also does not extrude as much as the 100/2.8, wich might be logical due to 1:2 macro factor. Sharpness is excellent on the A900, from corner to corner. I did not try a scientifically correct test yet, but I think the 100/2.8 might be slightly better, but only when pixel peeping in extreme corners. I use it for reproduction photography and am very happy with the results. I think it gets all out the A900 in terms of resolution. |
| Capetown#4664 date: Jan-10-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | In the same Range: Minolta 50 F1,4 Sony 50 Macro F2,8 Sigma 50 Macro EX F2,8 Sony CZ 16-80 F3,5-4,5 Tokina AT-X 270 28-70 F2,6-2,8 Minolta 24-50 F4 Minolta 28-85 F3,5 VS.I. Minolta 35-105 F3,5-4,5 VS.I. Minolta 58 F1,2 First Version Out the range: Minolta 100 F2,8 Macro D Minolta 20 F2,8 |
| price paid: | 150 Euro |
| positive: | Image quality and sharpness! Good contrast Quick AF Lightwight Everything you like... |
| negative: | Rare |
| comment: | Minolta 50 AF F3,5 Macro tested on APS-C (Sony Alpha 350)and Alpha 850 Image quality full open is great. Image quality one step down is the best that I have ever seen. No Flare. No Distortion. I`am not a professional but I have 20 years experience with SLR cameras and lenses. My lens review is subjective and not based on laboratory conditions. The Minolta 50 Macro F3,5 is defently the sharpest lense that I have ever used. No lens of my collection (in the 50mm range) come close. Only at 5-10m distance and more the Minolta 50 F1,4 or the Sony 50 Macro 2,8 has the same image quality. Under 5-10 m the Minolta 50 F3,5 is my best performer. Ok: The 50 F3,5 has only 1:2 magifaktion and F3,5 but the AF is very quick for a macro. And the sharpness is ... , if you have the chance get it! |
| dogears#4659 date: Jan-9-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 90/2.8 (172E) |
| price paid: | ~USD160 |
| positive: | Sharpness, bokeh and color. |
| negative: | Only 1:2 |
| comment: | Outperforms Tam90/2.8(172E) in sharpness, bokeh and color. Hope I can acquire some ETs very soon. Haven't really tried flare control. My copy has some minor issue in focusing (already there when I bought it) so giving it a 4. |
| petesidewalk#4573 date: Dec-21-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | K/M 75-300 Big Beercan K/M 35-70 4 Sony 18-70 Kit Lens K/M 50 1.7 K/M 70-210 4.5-5.6 K/M 70-210 4 Beercan K/M 28 2.8 K/M 28-80xi K/M 28-135 4-4.5 K/M 35-70 3.5-4.5 Tamron 200-400 5.6 LD NEW Sigma 75-200 2.8-3.5 Deitz 28-200 Tamron 20-35 3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 150 USD |
| positive: | razor sharp light IQ price portraits bokeh |
| negative: | none |
| comment: | I bought this lens needing a close up for work projects. I also bought a 25mm extension ring to use with it. It is a lens which, like the KM 50 1.7 gives amazing performance for the price. Ubersharp with decent light, lightweight but nice build and handles well. It takes good portraits as well. I am thouroughly impressed with it's color and speed of focus. The front element is well protected too. |
| tobyjay#4414 date: Nov-20-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | tamkumar 50/4 macro tamron 90/2.8 sony 50/1.4 minolta 100/2 |
| price paid: | Ł120 |
| positive: | razor sharp crystal clear no flare fast AF *perfect* colour/contrast |
| negative: | AF not great in low light |
| comment: | Sharpest lens I have used - including tam 90 & min 100/2. Colours are beautiful. Pictures are beautiful. Contrast great at all apertures. No distortion. Good for product and food pictures on full-frame - with nice specular highlights and bokeh at widest apertures. Good walkaround outdoor prime as it is small and light. you can crop and crop and still get a sharp photo. Light,strong build. No weird reflections or flares - just crystal clear, sharp pictures, like Takumar with AF. not 1:1 or 2.8 but then I knew that when bought it. VERY fast focusing for a macro, given enough light. VERY highly recommended !!! |
| Turerkan#3901 date: Jul-30-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 28/2 !!! minolta 28/2.8 minolta 50/1.7 sigma 50/2.8 macro sigma 90/2.8 macro cosina 100/3.5 macro |
| price paid: | 220 EUR |
| positive: | - image quality that words cannot describe straight from wide open. no lens can perform better than this, and i'm very sure about that. - front element is soo0 recessed that you dont even need the lens cap. forget about a hood! |
| negative: | - aperture? i dont care much.. - 1:2 magnifaction? no not really. 1:1 isn't really useful on 50mm lenses anyway - rare - RS styled build, i think original series lenses look better and tougher. - bokeh is mediocre, i would expect better.. |
| comment: | i have to admit its even better than 28/2, and totally blows all other lenses in the compared field. get it if you can! |
| mrggt#3728 date: Jun-17-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | min 200mm f2.8 hs min 50mm f1.7 min 135mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | Ł150 [used] |
| positive: | sharpness,size,autofocus, colours,contrast,bokeh is beautiful |
| negative: | no hood |
| comment: | by all accounts possibly paid over the odds for this lens. but i will say looking at the quality images it produces i would pay double for it again if i had too. this is the sharpest lens i have used. buy one if you can find one |
| MartinM#3565 date: May-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KoMi 50mm f2,8 Macro KoMi 50mm f1,7RS |
| price paid: | 330 |
| positive: | Sharpness Bokeh Autofocus Weight |
| negative: | No Hood |
| comment: | I consider it as an underrated lense. Maybe because of the FL of f3,5 and only 1:2 Macro. I have tested several lenses prime and zooms in the past weeks. This one here, was interesting in several ways. Excellent sharpness, quick AF and its weight. Since i have it, it is always with me. My SAL-18250 can't do macro that way. Neither it is so sharp. I haven't found anything that i really don't like. I'd wish is could be f1,4. I have added some pictures Cheers Martin |
| jakke#3398 date: Mar-25-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm 1.7 Sigma 50mm 2.8 macro Min O 50mm 2.8 macro |
| price paid: | 45€ used |
| positive: | sharp quick AF cheap no sensor reflexion |
| negative: | not 1:1 difficult to find f3.5 |
| comment: | Much quicker AF, not so fragile lens, no sensor reflexion, sharpness compared to Min O 2.8 Macro 9/10. I sold the Min O and Sigma. |
| wilkovanbeek#3088 date: Dec-18-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -minolta 50mm f1.7 -tamron sp AF90mm f2.8 macro -minolta AF28mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | €60,- 2hand |
| positive: | -sharp as a razor -cheap -good color |
| negative: | macro 1:2 |
| comment: | http://picasaweb.google.nl/wilkovanbeek/JacquesMaurits/photo#5137193333193115938 http://picasaweb.google.nl/wilkovanbeek/Glas/photo#5145423189769900930 |
| HotDuck#2987 date: Nov-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50/1.4 (original), Tamron 90/2.8 SP DI |
| price paid: | 200 USD (LNIB) |
| positive: | Sharpness, color, bokeh, flare resistence, AF speed |
| negative: | f/3.5, 1:2 macro |
| comment: | I had owned the 50/1.4 (original) for several years but it never got much use. I always thought that I just didn't care for the fov with the 7D's crop but after I bought the 50/3.5, I realized that I was never too happy with the 50/1.4 optically. It's sharp when stepped down but I didn't like the bokeh nor the color when compared with other Minolta lenses and focusing beyond 6ft. at > f/2 is a real hit or miss unless one of the diagonal sensors is used. I don't shoot macros much so I use the 50/3.5 as a general all around/portrait lens and couldn't be more pleased. At f/3.5, it quite a bit slower than the 50/1.4 but that doesn't trouble me too much. It's already very sharp at 3.5 and the bokeh and colors are just beautiful. For dedicated macro shooters, the 1:2 ratio may dissapoint but again, it's not an issue when used as a standard 50mm lens. Focusing speed is quite quick for a macro lens but still lags a bit behind the 50/1.4. |
| redmalloc#2986 date: Nov-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50/2.8 Old and RS Sigma 50/2.8 Macro (oldest AF version) |
| price paid: | US$150 LN (Used) |
| positive: | Small and light Sharp Fast focus Cheap |
| negative: | None. |
| comment: | I have had this lens for a while but never used it much since I have always favored the 50/2.8. But honestly now I don't know why I have neglected it. It is much faster focusing than the 50/2.8. It is at least as sharp. Some say sharper and I cannot argue. I can't tell that it is meaningfully sharper though. Other characteristics seems the same between the Minolta 50mm macros. I thought that 1:1 would be a lot more of an advantage than it is. Honestly for my use, 1:2 is absolutely fine. Maybe the comparison is more meaningful at longer focal length i.e. 100mm 1:2 vs 1:1? Most importantly, it doesn't seem to suffer from the sensor reflection that shows up in certain pictures with the 50/2.8. |
| Stendhal#2733 date: Sep-15-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100/2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Colour, sharpness |
| negative: | 1:2 only; f/3.5 |
| comment: | It is probably not fair to compare a 50mm macro with the legendary 100mm f/2.8 macro. I did use them both at different periods of time. 100 is great, but simply too long for me. The 50mm f/3.5 macro actually should deserve more attention. At the beginning I lamented the 1:2 ratio, but it is not a problem at all the more I use it. Colour rendition of this lens is excellent. Like other macros, this lens is very sharp. So, not much to complain. I think a 50/3.5 macro is a cheaper (and great) alternative to the 50/2.8, if one can find in the market. |
| vsldk#2421 date: Jun-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm 1.7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | very sharp |
| negative: | macro only 1:2 |
| comment: | I love this lens for me it's near to "the perfect lens" |
| Frenske#2205 date: Apr-24-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - KM 50 f1.7 - Sigma 70-300 APO Macro |
| price paid: | Ł75 |
| positive: | - Fast focus - Nice minolta colors - Nice focus ring - Very sharp |
| negative: | - Only 50mm - Only 1:2 |
| comment: | This is a nice little lens. Although, it is only 1:2 but this can be easily changed to 1:1 or even 2:1 using close-up filters and teleconverter. Although there is a little drop in the sharpness using the latter one. Probably extension tubes are a better option to increase the magnification and to keep a distance with the object. Compared to the Sigma, the colors are vivid and pleasant. However, whereas the Sigma is a bit too long to be used in low to medium light conditions (without tripod), this lens is a bit too short for Macro - large possibility of creating shadows and bumping in the object. Good for flowers but for insects go for 105mm and higher macro lenses. The lens is very sharp, even wide open and is on par with the 50mm f1.7 (seriously). It focuses very fast which other macro lenses don't do. No distortion or flare noticed so far. Built quality is good - don't know why people are commenting on it. Better focus rings than KM135 or KM50. http://i.pbase.com/o6/82/732582/1/77864014.VoXmtEr5.modPICT2075.JPG |
| gian#1919 date: Mar-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 20/1.8 Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 200/2.8 Minolta 28-75/2.8 |
| price paid: | 120 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Colors, Sharpness, Out of Focus, Image quality. |
| negative: | f/3.5 , 1:2 |
| comment: | The only negative points of this lens is that it's not metal and only 1:2, f/3.5 Anyway it's solid enough even if not made with metal, with extension tubes it's easy to reach 1:1 and f/3.5 is not a big problem either, because macro lenses are usually stopped down to get more DOF. Image quality is superb, and I consider this lesn a little gem, with a great value/price ratio. Something rare, indeed it's hard to find. In my opinion it is not an alternative to the 50/1.7 or 50/1.4, because it's not fast enough with low light without a tripod. It is just a superb macro lens. With extension tubes it's easy to go too close to the subject, not ideal if shooting at insects. In this case 90+ mm would be better. |
| gipsy#1270 date: Oct-5-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | KM 50 1.7 (RS) KM 50 1.7 Beercan Sigma 10-20 |
| price paid: | 120 Euro |
| positive: | Razor sharp, nice colors, cheap |
| negative: | For this price nothing |
| comment: | I've tested this lense against 2 diferent KM 50 1.7 and it turns out that 50 3.5 is sharper wide open on f3.5 than 1.7 on f2.2 or f5.6 or f8 and it gives litle bit more details if you look realy cearfully. |
| aostling#1122 date: Aug-27-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | all other macro lenses |
| price paid: | 175 USD |
| positive: | The German Fotomagazin gives this an optical rating of 9.8 out of 10.0, compared to 9.6 for the f2.8 version. Only two other macro lenses tested as high as 9.8: Tamron SP 180mm Di LD IF, and Voigtlander Macro Apo Lanthar 125mm SL. This lens is in the top tier. |
| negative: | The build quality is as good as any autofocus lens, but not QUITE as perfect as a manual focus Takumar or Steinheil Auto-Quinon. |
| comment: | According to the Michael Hohner Maxxum lens database at http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e#macros the f3.5 version was introduced in 1995. It is ten years NEWER than the design of the f2.8 version, which was introduced in 1985 and which remains unchanged, even in the latest Sony incarnation. So, it is reasonable to expect the f3.5 to outperform the f2.8. It focuses to 1:2 instead of 1:1 -- that's the trade-off I'm willing to accept for getting this close to optical perfection. |
| 800si#791 date: May-15-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Nikon Nikkor 55mm f2.8 micro AIS |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp, sharp, sharp! |
| negative: | A bit slow, but that's what the 50mm f2.8 is for, right? I wish it were 1:1. Crappy bokeh compared to my Nikon Nikkor 55mm f2.8 micro AIS. |
| comment: | I just love this lens. I use this lens regularly. I think this lens is just as sharp as my Nikon 55mm micro mentioned above. However, the Nikkor has a much smoother quality bokeh. When I go out shooting flowers, I will have this lens on my 7D and the 55mm Nikkor on my F4s. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 63
- sharpness: 4.93
- color: 4.95
- build: 4.60
- distortion: 4.94
- flare control: 4.68
- overall: 4.82
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login