| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2917
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2022 3:06 pm Post subject: Minolta AF 100mm f/2.8 vs Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 |
 |
|
caspert79 wrote:
Comparison center (100% crops):
 CenterComparison by devoscasper, on Flickr
I initially included the Canon EF 100/2 as well, but something happened with the focus from f/2.8 to f/8, so I took them out. Minolta has somewhat better image wide open, but this is at a smaller opening (f/2.8 vs f/2.5). At f/4, f/5.6 and f/8 the performance is comparable.
Then, comparison of far corners. In this case, the Canon is included. Note: I'm not testing flatness of field, because I focused to get the corners as sharp as possible. I don't have the right setup to reliably test flatness of field.
 Cornercomparison by devoscasper, on Flickr
Both macro lenses are sharper in the far corners than the Canon EF 100/2. Quite impressive actually. Again, the Tokina is a bit softer wide open, but this is at a larger opening.
Other tests such as bokeh, may follow later, but I can confidently say that both macro lenses perform very good in this regard.
The Minolta could be a very good alternative for the Tokina if you're on a tighter budget. I use mine with an MF adapter. The Tokina is more pleasant to work with in manual focus, but the Minolta goes to 1:1 without the use of an adapter. Build quality of both lenses is excellent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Crazy Leica Fox
Joined: 29 Apr 2017
Posts: 59
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2022 5:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Crazy Leica Fox wrote:
  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
55
Joined: 13 May 2013
Posts: 708
Location: U.S.
Expire: 2022-06-15
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 6:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
55 wrote:
Thanks for taking the time, caspert79. Such comparisons are always of interest to me.
And I don't have much love for autofocus lenses, but that Minolta is really impressive wide open. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2917
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 8:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| 55 wrote: |
Thanks for taking the time, caspert79. Such comparisons are always of interest to me.
And I don't have much love for autofocus lenses, but that Minolta is really impressive wide open. |
Yeah, I understand. I prefer to use the Tokina because of the smooth focusing experience, but the Minolta is great bang for the buck (less than 100€). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pabeu
Joined: 25 Apr 2018
Posts: 55
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
pabeu wrote:
Does anyone know how the tokina 100mm 2.8 atx pro D peformes against these two?
Thank you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
caspert79
Joined: 31 Oct 2010
Posts: 2917
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 20, 2022 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
caspert79 wrote:
| pabeu wrote: |
Does anyone know how the tokina 100mm 2.8 atx pro D peformes against these two?
Thank you. |
It’s supposedly really good. However, these 2 macro’s are among the best lenses I tried on my A7R2. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011
Posts: 3754
Location: Switzerland
|
| Posted: Tue Nov 22, 2022 7:13 pm Post subject: Re: Minolta AF 100mm f/2.8 vs Tokina AT-X 90mm f/2.5 |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
| caspert79 wrote: |
The Minolta could be a very good alternative for the Tokina if you're on a tighter budget. |
Not only if you're on a thighter budget ...! The Tokina is smaller of course, and easier to focus manually at longer ranges - but the Minolta goes to 1:1 (as you said) and has double floating focusing system (i. e. three lens groups moving independently).
| caspert79 wrote: |
| The Tokina is more pleasant to work with in manual focus |
At longer distances (e. g. portrits): yes.
But if you want to use it mainly for macro purposes, you usually first set the desired ratio (e. g. 1:3 or 1:1.5) on the lens; then you can focus your image by varying the distance between lens/camera and object. Much easier than trying to focus the lens via its distance ring ...
S
EDIT
BTW the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro at infinity is quite a bit better than the contemporary AF Nikkor 2.8/105mm (not talking about the current AF Nikkor here)!
_________________
www.artaphot.ch |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sarah01
Joined: 24 Nov 2022
Posts: 1
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2022 8:55 am Post subject: Gaming |
|
|
Sarah01 wrote:
Both are 90mm lenses, and using them on crop-factor cameras is hardly a bad thing. You can follow 메이저놀이터 to learn more new tips about sports. They're great for landscape and portrait photography, but they each have very different strengths and weaknesses that you should know about before deciding to buy one. We'll examine both equally objectively so you can make an informed decision. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
D1N0
Joined: 07 Aug 2012
Posts: 2491
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 24, 2022 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
D1N0 wrote:
I guess spamming is done with AI's these days, trying to stay on subject but failing miserably.
_________________
pentaxian |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
