View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
caspert79 wrote: |
Another one to consider: Minolta MD 100mm f/2.5. I just bought one myself. Quite affordable, and apparently a very good performer with very good bokeh, although I still have to test it myself. |
Thanks! Another option within my budget seems to be the later Minolta 100mm f/2.8 Macro - it seems to have excellent sharpness, contrast and colors. It is an AF lens but as a Macro lens it is easily operated with MF too. |
Used that lens as well. Very good indeed. |
In your experience would you say that it is optically better than the earlier Minolta MD 100mm f/2.5? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
I haven’t tried the 100/2.5 yet, but the macro is a steal. Probably about the best you could get for the money in terms of IQ. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
I haven’t tried the 100/2.5 yet, but the macro is a steal. Probably about the best you could get for the money in terms of IQ. |
Thank you for your reply! Sounds like a great value lens.
Would you recommend going after the latest 3rd generation which is 50-60% more expensive than the 1st and the 2nd just because of the updated coatings? From what I have read the improvements in the 3rd gen. are in the AF which I don't use and in the coatings. If you had the 1st or the 2nd can you comment how do they perform in terms of coatings, contrast, micro contrast and color?
Cheers! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 7:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
caspert79 wrote: |
I haven’t tried the 100/2.5 yet, but the macro is a steal. Probably about the best you could get for the money in terms of IQ. |
Thank you for your reply! Sounds like a great value lens.
Would you recommend going after the latest 3rd generation which is 50-60% more expensive than the 1st and the 2nd just because of the updated coatings? From what I have read the improvements in the 3rd gen. are in the AF which I don't use and in the coatings. If you had the 1st or the 2nd can you comment how do they perform in terms of coatings, contrast, micro contrast and color?
Cheers! |
I have no clue what gen. I had, but I would expect differences to be minimal. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Mon Oct 18, 2021 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
Understanding your project could be useful.
If you plan for video or argentinc work definitly favor colors and contrast.
If you will post process these two items are easily tweeked and I would focus on balancing microcontrast sharpness and bokeh where post processing is quite useless.
I would recommend in no particular order :
Minolta MDIII 100 2,5
minolta MD 85 2,0
Tamron 90 2,5
Bokina
Jupiter 9 but starting f4
I think it is hard for any of the major manufacturers to mess with this focal length.
Your existing lenses are probably as good as the ones listed above. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
Understanding your project could be useful.
If you plan for video or argentinc work definitly favor colors and contrast.
If you will post process these two items are easily tweeked and I would focus on balancing microcontrast sharpness and bokeh where post processing is quite useless.
I would recommend in no particular order :
Minolta MDIII 100 2,5
minolta MD 85 2,0
Tamron 90 2,5
Bokina
Jupiter 9 but starting f4
I think it is hard for any of the major manufacturers to mess with this focal length.
Your existing lenses are probably as good as the ones listed above. |
Thank you! Most of these are on my watch list! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Once again, thank you all for your valuable input! Here is what I came up with so far, based on your great ideas:
1) Lenses that match my budget and what I am looking for:
- G Sonnar 90/2.8
- SMC Pentax M 100/2.8
- Olympus OM 100/2.8 Zuiko
- Minolta AF 100/2.8 Macro
I will appreciate any feedback on the G Sonnar 90/2.8.
All 100mm lenses look excellent as expected but the Minolta Macro seems to be the best 100mm lens for my needs judging by the examples I see online.
2) Lenses a bit above my budget and match what I am looking for:
- Tokina 90/2.5
- Tamron 90/2.5
- Minolta MD 85/2
In this group the Bokina seems to be the best lens for my needs judging by the examples I see online. I am following the market for good bargains on the Bokina.
Any sample images from these lenses or your other suggestions are very welcome! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
The Tokina is excellent but quite heavy. If this is relevant to you chose another lens. If you still want a macro lens the Tamron is quite lighter. On the Tamron watch for the decementation issue of the front doublet. _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
lumens pixel wrote: |
The Tokina is excellent but quite heavy. If this is relevant to you chose another lens. If you still want a macro lens the Tamron is quite lighter. On the Tamron watch for the decementation issue of the front doublet. |
Thanks! I will note to watch for decementation! Do you have an idea or any links how do the Bokina and 52B compare? Thanks again! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
lumens pixel wrote: |
The Tokina is excellent but quite heavy. If this is relevant to you chose another lens. If you still want a macro lens the Tamron is quite lighter. On the Tamron watch for the decementation issue of the front doublet. |
Thanks! I will note to watch for decementation! Do you have an idea or any links how do the Bokina and 52B compare? Thanks again! |
I’ve had both. The 52B is a good lens, but the Bokina is clearly superior. It really is one of the best classics IMO. The Minolta 100/2.8 macro is more in the Tokina league. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Here a link to some of my Bokina images:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/55691955@N05/4250Yk
I don’t have a link to the Tamron’s images. I didn’t hold on to it too long frankly because I already had the Tokina. The Tokina is significantly better, you already know it when you look through the viewfinder.
Here a portrait with the Tokina:
https://www.flickr.com/gp/55691955@N05/J73CX4 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
This is my Tamron album: https://www.flickr.com/photos/randomdump/albums/72157712086667073
don't have the Vivitar/Tokina Bokina to compare
You can find the 52B quite cheap if you look around Yahoo auctions Japan via Buyee.jp or Zenmarket.jp (intermediaries since you cannot register to Yahoo Japan). _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
lumens pixel wrote: |
The Tokina is excellent but quite heavy. If this is relevant to you chose another lens. If you still want a macro lens the Tamron is quite lighter. On the Tamron watch for the decementation issue of the front doublet. |
Thanks! I will note to watch for decementation! Do you have an idea or any links how do the Bokina and 52B compare? Thanks again! |
I’ve had both. The 52B is a good lens, but the Bokina is clearly superior. It really is one of the best classics IMO. The Minolta 100/2.8 macro is more in the Tokina league. |
My top 2 choices are exactly the Minolta 100/2.8 Macro and the T(B)okina. The Tokina is about 2x more expensive than the non D version of the Minolta which doesn't seem reasonable. I have no direct experience with these but from what I see the Minolta doesn't look inferior. The contrast and colors from the Minota actually seem stronger than those from the Tokina - I might be wrong of course - online examples might be misleading.
How does the Minolta do compared to the Tokina given your experience with both?
Last edited by Dusty-Lens on Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:56 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Beautiful images thanks! The portrait is tack sharp and yet gentle with good 3d pop - great job and lens!
Last edited by Dusty-Lens on Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:52 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Excellent images and use of this lens! Actually I have seen several of these yesterday looking for examples from the Tamron!
And thanks for the suggested sites - eBay prices from Japan are outrageous lately.
Last edited by Dusty-Lens on Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:11 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
caspert79 wrote: |
Dusty-Lens wrote: |
lumens pixel wrote: |
The Tokina is excellent but quite heavy. If this is relevant to you chose another lens. If you still want a macro lens the Tamron is quite lighter. On the Tamron watch for the decementation issue of the front doublet. |
Thanks! I will note to watch for decementation! Do you have an idea or any links how do the Bokina and 52B compare? Thanks again! |
I’ve had both. The 52B is a good lens, but the Bokina is clearly superior. It really is one of the best classics IMO. The Minolta 100/2.8 macro is more in the Tokina league. |
My top 2 choices are exactly the Minolta 100/2.8 Macro and the T(B)okina. The Tokina is about 2x more expensive than the non D version of the Minolta which doesn't seem reasonable. I have no direct experience with these but from what I see the Minolta doesn't look inferior. The contrast and colors from the Minota actually seem stronger than those from the Tokina from what I see- I might be wrong of course.
How does the Minolta do compared to the Tokina given your experience with both? |
I didn’t compare them one to one. The Minolta is probably better corrected for CA’s and stuff than the Tokina, being a more modern lens. It probably deals better with direct sunlight as well.
Contrast, colors and sharpness are very good with both lenses. I prefer the Tokina because of its handling as a manual focus lens. But on a limited budget I would definitely go for the Minolta if IQ is what you need. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Tue Oct 19, 2021 7:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
caspert79 wrote: |
I didn’t compare them one to one. The Minolta is probably better corrected for CA’s and stuff than the Tokina, being a more modern lens. It probably deals better with direct sunlight as well.
Contrast, colors and sharpness are very good with both lenses. I prefer the Tokina because of its handling as a manual focus lens. But on a limited budget I would definitely go for the Minolta if IQ is what you need. |
That is very helpful, thank you again! Now I just have to find a mint Minolta for a decent price, hopefully the later D series or even the last Sony version with larger focusing ring and newer coatings. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ZoneV
Joined: 09 Nov 2009 Posts: 1633 Location: Germany
Expire: 2011-12-02
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
ZoneV wrote:
Perhaps a bit too late for your search:
The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 was mentioned. I would say it is quite sharp. From my understanding it does not get much sharper when stopped down, but due to the high quality wide open this may be still good enough.
It uses an aspherical lens element to minimize the spherical aberration, du to this is does not improve sop much when stopped down.
Warning: Some few ot those lensees have a bad formed aspheric lens surface which makes larger blur balls unattractive, Mechanical build quality is not as good as most classic lenses, _________________ Camera modification, repair and DIY - some links to look through: http://www.4photos.de/camera-diy/index-en.html
I AM A LENS NERD!
Epis, Elmaron, Emerald, Ernostar, Helioplan and Heidosmat.
Epiotar, Kameraobjektiv, Anastigmat, Epis, Meganast, Magnagon, Quinar, Culmigon, Novotrinast, Novflexar, Colorplan, Sekor, Kinon, Talon, Telemegor, Xenon, Xenar, Ultra, Ultra Star. Tessar, Janar, Visionar, Kiptar, Kipronar and Rotelar.
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
ZoneV wrote: |
Perhaps a bit too late for your search:
The Samyang 85mm f/1.4 was mentioned. I would say it is quite sharp. From my understanding it does not get much sharper when stopped down, but due to the high quality wide open this may be still good enough.
It uses an aspherical lens element to minimize the spherical aberration, du to this is does not improve sop much when stopped down.
Warning: Some few ot those lensees have a bad formed aspheric lens surface which makes larger blur balls unattractive, Mechanical build quality is not as good as most classic lenses, |
Yes, this is also a good lens I have experience with. The MK1 can be obtained quite cheap second hand. I sold mine because I found it to big. Optically a nice lens! I've read also good things about the Viltrox 85/1.8; it's better build too.
@Dusty-Lens: what is exactly the purpose you're going to use the lens for? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
lumens pixel
Joined: 27 Feb 2019 Posts: 821
Expire: 2021-06-25
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 12:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
lumens pixel wrote:
I do not have direct comparisons of the Tokina and the Tamron despite the fact I own both.
But I do not expect a lens to be better than this. (Tamron inside)
[img]La gloire du printemps | The glory of spring by lumens pixel, sur Flickr[/img] _________________ Lumens Pixel
-------------
Minolta SR mount: 16 2,8; Sigma SuperWide 24 2,8; 28 2,5; 28 2,8; 28 3,5; 35 2,8; 45 2,0; 50 1,4; 50 1,7; 50 2,0; 58 1,4; 85 2,0; 100 2,5; 100 4 Macro; 135 3,5; 135 2,8; 200 4; RF 250 5,6; 24-35 3,5; 35-70 3,5; 75-150 4; 70-210 4
Canon FD mount: Tokina RMC 17 3,5; 28 2,8; 35 2,8; 50 1,8; 50 3,5 Macro; 55 1,2; 135 3,5; 135 2,5; 200 4,0; 300 5,6; 28-55 3,5 4,5; Tokina SZ-X SD 270; 70-150 4,5; 70-210 f4; 80-200 4L; Tokina SZ-X 845
Tamron Adaptall: 28-80 3,5-4,2 (27A); 70-210 3,8-4 (46A); 60-300 (23A); 90 2,5 (52B); 35-135 3,5-4,5 (40A)
Tamron SP: 20-40 2,7-3,5 (266D) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
Thank you everyone! I have decided to go for the Sony 100mm f/2.8 Macro which is basically the same as the Minolta D 100mm f/2.8 Macro but with updated multi coatings and less bluish color rendering.
All the advices I received were excellent - really good lenses and I really liked the posted examples! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 2483
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 10:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
That don't excite me much. Then again, I don't have to use it. _________________ pentaxian |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Dusty-Lens
Joined: 23 Feb 2020 Posts: 76
|
Posted: Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dusty-Lens wrote:
D1N0 wrote: |
That don't excite me much. Then again, I don't have to use it. |
To me any new lens is exciting. Getting to know its character at various settings, conditions and apertures. Learning how to make the most out of its utility. Actually I could live with one single amateur superzoom lens or one single cheap, old prime lens and still make great photos but then I would miss exactly this excitement of trying new optics. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Blazer0ne
Joined: 12 Sep 2018 Posts: 836
Expire: 2024-12-07
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Blazer0ne wrote:
...
Last edited by Blazer0ne on Tue Feb 22, 2022 6:32 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010 Posts: 2893 Location: The Netherlands
|
Posted: Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
If you paid only about 150 dollars for it I guess you did a good deal. I'm not sure what camera you're using, but you may need an adapter with a built in aperture ring. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|