Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Minolta 100mm macro's
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 3:22 pm    Post subject: Minolta 100mm macro's Reply with quote
In the past I had the 100/4 and I thought it was pretty good IQ wise. Does anybody have experience with the AF 100/2.8? I wonder how both lenses compare.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 5:57 pm    Post subject: Re: Minolta 100mm macro's Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
In the past I had the 100/4 and I thought it was pretty good IQ wise. Does anybody have experience with the AF 100/2.8? I wonder how both lenses compare.


The MD 4/100mm Macro certainly is the best of the three Minolta 100mm close-up lenses for the SR bayonet (early 4/100mm Bellows vs 3.5/100mm Macro vs 4/100mm Macro and late 4/100mm Bellows). I reasonably can only say something about the perfomance of the MD 4/100mm vs AF 2.8/100mm in the infinity range, because I don't have the equipment to guarantee a perfect parallellism between test chart and sensor.

The Minolta AF 2.8/100mm is a quite complicated construction with a double-floating system. While in theory this makes the lens prone to wear and tear, i've not seen any wobbling on the several Minolta AF 2.8/100mm lenses I've had in my hands up to now. At least in the infinity range, the Nikkor AF 2.8/100mm (I), a lens with an excellent reputation, is inferior to the Minolta. As far as I remember - but I'm not completely sure - the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm Macro was as good at f2.8 as the MD 4/100 Macro at f4. Both lenses are free from lateral CAs. I recently have used the Minolta AF 2.8/100mm on the A7RII (43MP) in parallel with Mamiya Sekor A 4/120mm Macro on the Fuji GFX for critical motives (ancient gold objects, ancient [Roman] textiles. Pixel peeping gives the GFX / Mamiya combination a very small advantage, but much less than I would have expected. In these real world shootings depth of field vs diffraction was much more of an issue than the lens performance itself.

The AF 2.8/100mm has two distinct advantages compared to the MD 4/100:

1) range from infinity to 1:1 without adapter
2) less depth-of-field if required (at f2.8 it works well as a portrait lens wide open)

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 6:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for your info Stephan, very helpful. The reason I'm asking is because I've read mixed reviews about the lens. According to Ken Rockwell the lens is razor sharp, in another test I read (the Sony version) that the lens would lack resolution. However, that would really surprise me from a relatively modern Minolta macro lens.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 8:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
2.8 is AF lens, no manual aperture control, short focus throw ?


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I had one of the AF. It is super sharp, but using it on the A7ii via LA-EA4 adapter was frustrating. AF was slow and manual focus was nigh impossible. I would get super sharp photos of the wrong part of the insect. It was slow to focus and shoot. It did not suit my shooting style. I also have the bellows lens (not sure which version) is very sharp, but IMHO not in the same league with the apochromatically corrected enlarger lenses by rodenstock or Schneider. If you want a really good lens in that mount and also the versatility of a portrait lens I would recommend the "Bokina" Tokina 90mm 2.5 AKA viivtar series 1. Just my 2 cents.


PostPosted: Tue Oct 13, 2020 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for your info Stephan, very helpful. The reason I'm asking is because I've read mixed reviews about the lens. According to Ken Rockwell the lens is razor sharp, in another test I read (the Sony version) that the lens would lack resolution. However, that would really surprise me from a relatively modern Minolta macro lens.

That probably depends on the test method. If you compare modern 100 macro lenses and the MinAF 2.8/100 Macro on a 24 MP FF camera, there will be no real difference. On a optical bench, measuring high-res MTFs, the differences may be noteworthy.

visualopsins wrote:
2.8 is AF lens, no manual aperture control, short focus throw ?

There are three versions of the MinAF 2.8/100mm Macro, and one of the Sony AF 2.8/100mm Macro. Even though the first two versions have a quite slim MF focusing ring, i prefer them over the later Minolta/Sony versions with their broad ring. The first two version have no play at all in manual mode, the later two versions have considerable play. Same problem also with the Zeiss ZA 1.8/135mm (and the main reason why I never bought the ZA 1.8/135mm) and ZA 1.4/85mm, btw.

Focus throw is steep, but focusing manually and precisely is no problem at all if you work on a tripod and with live view (my preferred method for macro). For living creatures I usually pre-focus to a desired scale (e. g. 1:2 or 1:1.5) and then I focus by moving my entire body. No need to turn the focus ring while shooting! No issue at all, compared to "real" MF 100mm macro lenses.

No manual aperture control? As long as you use the lens on Minolta/Sony (D)SLRs, yes. As soon as you use them with an adapter on the A7/A9 cameras, there's a fully manual, mechanical aperture ring on the adapter. Some are clickless, some have 1 EV clickstops. Whatever you want ... and if you prefer direct electronic aperture control, you just have to get one of the Sony A to E adapters ...!

S


PostPosted: Wed Oct 14, 2020 6:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Thanks for all the comments. I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2024 1:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.


Hello, have got chance to try that af100mm macro Minolta? I already have the Tamron 90mm macro, but wonder if this lens would be a better one to use on A7II, as I already have the dummy adapter Sony A ,that I'm using with the Min200 AF lens. I wonder if the focusing ring is easy enough to use it as the 200mm lens
Otoh I can buy the MC 3.5 macro version for 40€ but I'm not sure how well would that lens do for landscape, as I'm planning to use the 100mm focal length for macro, portraits and landscape


PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2024 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.


Hello, have got chance to try that af100mm macro Minolta? I already have the Tamron 90mm macro, but wonder if this lens would be a better one to use on A7II, as I already have the dummy adapter Sony A ,that I'm using with the Min200 AF lens. I wonder if the focusing ring is easy enough to use it as the 200mm lens
Otoh I can buy the MC 3.5 macro version for 40€ but I'm not sure how well would that lens do for landscape, as I'm planning to use the 100mm focal length for macro, portraits and landscape


I have both the MD 100/4 and the AF 100/2.8. The 100/2.8 is best for portraits IMO because of small DOF. But user experience of the MD 100/4 is better because it’s a dedicated MF lens.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2024 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.


Hello, have got chance to try that af100mm macro Minolta? I already have the Tamron 90mm macro, but wonder if this lens would be a better one to use on A7II, as I already have the dummy adapter Sony A ,that I'm using with the Min200 AF lens. I wonder if the focusing ring is easy enough to use it as the 200mm lens
Otoh I can buy the MC 3.5 macro version for 40€ but I'm not sure how well would that lens do for landscape, as I'm planning to use the 100mm focal length for macro, portraits and landscape


I have both the MD 100/4 and the AF 100/2.8. The 100/2.8 is best for portraits IMO because of small DOF. But user experience of the MD 100/4 is better because it’s a dedicated MF lens.


thank you, that was is main concern, being able to focus properly


PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2024 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
kiddo wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Thanks for all the comments. I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.


Hello, have got chance to try that af100mm macro Minolta? I already have the Tamron 90mm macro, but wonder if this lens would be a better one to use on A7II, as I already have the dummy adapter Sony A ,that I'm using with the Min200 AF lens. I wonder if the focusing ring is easy enough to use it as the 200mm lens
Otoh I can buy the MC 3.5 macro version for 40€ but I'm not sure how well would that lens do for landscape, as I'm planning to use the 100mm focal length for macro, portraits and landscape


I have both the MD 100/4 and the AF 100/2.8. The 100/2.8 is best for portraits IMO because of small DOF. But user experience of the MD 100/4 is better because it’s a dedicated MF lens.


thank you, that was is main concern, being able to focus properly


The MD 100/4 is one of the best macros of its time and very affordable.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 11, 2024 11:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Hallo,
caspert79 wrote:
I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.
...
already have the Tamron 90mm macro

I too own the MD Rokkor 4 100mm, the Minolta AF 2.8 100mm first Generation, the Tamron SP 2.8 90mm and a modern Sigma Macro 2.8 70mm ART. For the Minolta AF and the Tamron SP I now exlcusively use my 60MP A7R IVA with the LA-EA5 Adapter.
What can I say - the Minolta delivers AF precision never seen before and shows wonderful rendering and top sharpness too. The technical best lens is the Sigma but the pictures often look in some way clinical. The Tamron ist a very good lens too, but shows some CAs and purple fringing wide open and therefore needs a little stopping down. Also the Tamron with the LA-EA5 focuses on point.

Summary:
The AF lenses benefit more from the 60MP Sensor and the precise focusing than every thing else. You get pictures you have never seen on 24MP full frame cameras. The only point questionable is wether one ever needs this quality Wink but be sure I really enjoy it.

BG

PS: A very important point today also is a modern RAW conversion software (I use DxO Photolab 8.1 with filmpack7). I nowadays again convert many of my shots beginning from 2000 up and they come out like new... especially my A900 shots with ISO 3200-6400 show a complete new quality never seen before.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
that would really surprise me from a relatively modern Minolta macro lens.


Not so long ago obtained Minolta AF 50 mm f2.8 Macro for Sony A-Mount to use it rather as the portrait lens for my Sony A290 (it was relatively cheap - $65)

Before obtaining of it I explored the review from Ken Rockwell page:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/50mm-f28.htm

And later discovered, that it really was quite correct description.

It is quite decent lens, but nothing really prominent.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 5:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
that would really surprise me from a relatively modern Minolta macro lens.


Not so long ago obtained Minolta AF 50 mm f2.8 Macro for Sony A-Mount to use it rather as the portrait lens for my Sony A290 (it was relatively cheap - $65)

Before obtaining of it I explored the review from Ken Rockwell page:

https://www.kenrockwell.com/minolta/maxxum/50mm-f28.htm

And later discovered, that it really was quite correct description.

It is quite decent lens, but nothing really prominent.


I had one as well, then sold it for the same reason. Then later, on my computer., I ran into a picture made with the Minolta that was so incredibly sharp, that I decided to buy it back. I will try to find the image later today to show it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 11:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
Hallo,
caspert79 wrote:
I think I will give it a try, because I found one for a good price. I have an adapter with aperture control, so that's also no problem. I can always resell it.
...
already have the Tamron 90mm macro

I too own the MD Rokkor 4 100mm, the Minolta AF 2.8 100mm first Generation, the Tamron SP 2.8 90mm and a modern Sigma Macro 2.8 70mm ART. For the Minolta AF and the Tamron SP I now exlcusively use my 60MP A7R IVA with the LA-EA5 Adapter.
What can I say - the Minolta delivers AF precision never seen before and shows wonderful rendering and top sharpness too. The technical best lens is the Sigma but the pictures often look in some way clinical. The Tamron ist a very good lens too, but shows some CAs and purple fringing wide open and therefore needs a little stopping down. Also the Tamron with the LA-EA5 focuses on point.

Summary:
The AF lenses benefit more from the 60MP Sensor and the precise focusing than every thing else. You get pictures you have never seen on 24MP full frame cameras. The only point questionable is wether one ever needs this quality Wink but be sure I really enjoy it.


Thank you , meantime I've lost the opportunity to buy that af 100lens but I'll keep an eye to get one if it comes out at a good price . By the way, 60mp files means a lot of resolution, how do you guys manage to watch it properly? 8k screens or printing large sizes? I'm using a Full hd for 24mp but I guess a good 4k would definitely look better
BG

PS: A very important point today also is a modern RAW conversion software (I use DxO Photolab 8.1 with filmpack7). I nowadays again convert many of my shots beginning from 2000 up and they come out like new... especially my A900 shots with ISO 3200-6400 show a complete new quality never seen before.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 3:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
caspert79 wrote:
Then later, on my computer., I ran into a picture made with the Minolta that was so incredibly sharp, that I decided to buy it back. I will try to find the image later today to show it.


As it was formulated by Ken Rockwell: "Yes, it's very sharp if you stop down"

However he claims that "the Nikon 55mm AF is far superior".

Will I not need it for my Sony A cameras, I would stay away from it. However it is not generally so bad, but I already have a lot of alternatives in macro 50mm from the other systems


PostPosted: Thu Dec 12, 2024 9:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Then later, on my computer., I ran into a picture made with the Minolta that was so incredibly sharp, that I decided to buy it back. I will try to find the image later today to show it.


As it was formulated by Ken Rockwell: "Yes, it's very sharp if you stop down"

However he claims that "the Nikon 55mm AF is far superior".

Will I not need it for my Sony A cameras, I would stay away from it. However it is not generally so bad, but I already have a lot of alternatives in macro 50mm from the other systems


Yeah, I’ve read that as well. However, the picture in the following link was taken with the Minolta at wide open aperture. I would say the Minolta is not only sharp stopped down, as Rockwell suggests.

https://www.flickr.com/gp/55691955@N05/E91x34861M

I doubt that the Nikkor is gonna top this. I haven’t directly compared the Minolta to the Nikkor unfortunately, but i’ve tested the Nikkor against a few other short macro’s including the Canon EF 50/2.5 macro, Vivitar 55mm f/2.8 macro and Yashica ML 55mm f/2.8 macro. At 1:5 magnification, centrally, the lenses performed quite similarly. Some subtle differences in contrast. Corner performance of the Vivitar and Yashica were best, by quite a margin, and even a bit @ f/8. The Minolta was not included in this test, but my point is: yes, the Nikkor 55/2.8 macro is a sharp lens, but not necessarily better than the competition.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 13, 2024 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:
caspert79 wrote:
Then later, on my computer., I ran into a picture made with the Minolta that was so incredibly sharp, that I decided to buy it back. I will try to find the image later today to show it.


As it was formulated by Ken Rockwell: "Yes, it's very sharp if you stop down"

However he claims that "the Nikon 55mm AF is far superior".

Will I not need it for my Sony A cameras, I would stay away from it.


Ken Rockwell certainly is a Nikon fanboy. in 2022 I have compared a few (actually quite a few) "normal macro lenses" here on mflenses, at a 1:5 ratio which is probably were these lenses are best:
https://forum.mflenses.com/4-short-macro-lenses-compared-surprising-results-t84178,start,31.html
(scroll down for the actual test images)

Nikkor AiS 2.8/55mm as well as Minolta AF2.8/50mm are on par at the 1:5 ratio, and Minolta is slightly better at infinity (not shown here).

S


PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
LittleAlex wrote:

As it was formulated by Ken Rockwell: "Yes, it's very sharp if you stop down"

However he claims that "the Nikon 55mm AF is far superior".

Sorry I have to say this: In my opinion Ken Rockwell simply is click clown, never trust his expressions.
Already 20 Years ago he cheated in comparisons by showing the better quality of A compared to B by simply different sharpening and post processing of the same raw file. The leaves in the picture have not moved a single pixel between the allegedly shots.
So this is his reputation. Every Idiot on the Internet can post what he wants, it is our responsibility to value this out.

Concerning the topic: Many years ago photodo has exact MTF meterings including the
Minolta AF 1:2.8 50mm Macro and I for sure remember it to be one of the best lenses this times.
I in my head think to remember a rating of 4.6 out of 5 but I do not have the numbers any more.

To tell the "Nikon 55mm AF is far superior" is simply complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.

BG


PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
LittleAlex wrote:

As it was formulated by Ken Rockwell: "Yes, it's very sharp if you stop down"

However he claims that "the Nikon 55mm AF is far superior".

Sorry I have to say this: In my opinion Ken Rockwell simply is click clown, never trust his expressions.
Already 20 Years ago he cheated in comparisons by showing the better quality of A compared to B by simply different sharpening and post processing of the same raw file. The leaves in the picture have not moved a single pixel between the allegedly shots.
So this is his reputation. Every Idiot on the Internet can post what he wants, it is our responsibility to value this out.

Concerning the topic: Many years ago photodo has exact MTF meterings including the
Minolta AF 1:2.8 50mm Macro and I for sure remember it to be one of the best lenses this times.
I in my head think to remember a rating of 4.6 out of 5 but I do not have the numbers any more.

To tell the "Nikon 55mm AF is far superior" is simply complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.

BG


There’s a copy of all the old photodo mtf scores somewhere on the Internet, and the Minolta scored high indeed I remember. It’s almost too sharp, it shows any normally invisible flaw when I make my Ebay listings.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 4:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:

Sorry I have to say this: In my opinion Ken Rockwell simply is click clown, never trust his expressions.
Already 20 Years ago he cheated in comparisons by showing the better quality of A compared to B by simply different sharpening and post processing of the same raw file. The leaves in the picture have not moved a single pixel between the allegedly shots.

Thank you for that information - I never did rely on his statements since pretty early on they often didn't line up with what I was seeing in my own tests ...

lightdreamer wrote:

Concerning the topic: Many years ago photodo has exact MTF meterings including the
Minolta AF 1:2.8 50mm Macro and I for sure remember it to be one of the best lenses this times.
I in my head think to remember a rating of 4.6 out of 5 but I do not have the numbers any more.

To tell the "Nikon 55mm AF is far superior" is simply complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.

BG


Interestingly, the corresponding Sony SAL 2.8/50mm Macro (which looks like a clone of the last Minolta version) is quite a bit better at f2.8 (tested with three MinAF 2.8/50mm Macro vs two Sony AL 2.8/50mm Macro). I know from internal documents I have seen at Sony Switzerland in 2010 that lenses such as the SAL 2.8/20mm, the SAL 1.4/35mm G, the SAL 1.4/50mm and the SAL 2.8/50mm Macro were re-designed for Sony, to incorporate "environmentally-friendly" glass. It seems that at the same time also their performance was increased to some extent - similar improvements were seen also with the SAL 2.8/20mm and the SAL 1.4/50mm.

BTW The MinAF / SAL 1.4/35mm didn't really improve; it's certainly a "character lens" (as were all 1.4/35mm retrofocus lenses before the first Sigma 1.4/35mm ...)

S


PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are other, more reliable sources for Nikon/Nikkor reviews.
I still maintain that guy's a paid Nikon shill, though he denies it on his site, and this is coming from a life-long Nikon user.

Personally, I've always liked the 100mm or so focal length.
I don't have a dedicated Macro/Micro lens in that range, but manage to get by with my various and sundry extension tubes on my 105's currently...
Ergonomically fast, no, and I lose up to a full stop depending on the length of the tube- but I have enough fun with it that I don't *need* to go looking for a dedicated macro (yet).

-D.S.


PostPosted: Sun Dec 15, 2024 6:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Curiously, Rockwell’s review of the Minolta AF 100mm f/2.8 is remarkably positive.

I will definitely not get rid of it, because it’s a great lens, also suitable for portraits. MF is not such a great experience but I have the LA-EA4 adapter as well.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:

Concerning the topic: Many years ago photodo has exact MTF meterings including the
Minolta AF 1:2.8 50mm Macro and I for sure remember it to be one of the best lenses...

To tell the "Nikon 55mm AF is far superior" is simply complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.


Hallo,

I now found time to look through my archieves and found the photodo MTF values again.
They were taken on a Zeiss MTF measuring device.

Minolta AF 50 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro 55 2.8

f2.8:
0.79/0.8

f4:
0.85/0.83

f8:
0.87/0.86


Minolta AF 100 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro AF 105 2.8

f2.8
0.79/0.74

f4:
0.85/0.81

f8:
0.86/0.84

This really corresponds with my experience in practice.

BG


PostPosted: Mon Dec 16, 2024 8:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
lightdreamer wrote:
lightdreamer wrote:

Concerning the topic: Many years ago photodo has exact MTF meterings including the
Minolta AF 1:2.8 50mm Macro and I for sure remember it to be one of the best lenses...

To tell the "Nikon 55mm AF is far superior" is simply complete K.R. bull shit IMHO.


Hallo,

I now found time to look through my archieves and found the photodo MTF values again.
They were taken on a Zeiss MTF measuring device.

Minolta AF 50 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro 55 2.8

f2.8:
0.79/0.8

f4:
0.85/0.83

f8:
0.87/0.86


Minolta AF 100 2.8 Macro/Nikkor Micro AF 105 2.8

f2.8
0.79/0.74

f4:
0.85/0.81

f8:
0.86/0.84

This really corresponds with my experience in practice.

BG


Thank you!
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3