Sigma 105mm macro vs. Minolta 100mm macro

I want to pick up either a Sigma 105 macro or the Minolta 100 macro.

I've done lots of reading about these lenses and reviews and it seems

that as far as image quality goes, they are neck and neck. But for

more than a $100 dollars less, the Sigma looks to cross the finish

line first. Any thoughts from users out there - especially if you've

used both.

I've handled both. I ended up buying the Minolta. Here's why:

1. build quality was better.

2. "D" flash metering compatibility. I use it as a portrait lens as well.

3. Preferred the non turning af ring over the slide back and forth ring on the Sigma

4. Reputedly better optics...although I'm sure my amatuer eyes would have a tough time telling.

5. The Minolta handled a little better in my hands.

6. It also seemed to focus slightly faster...but not much.

7. Black is sexier...OK just kidding on that. :-)

 

Almost all macro lenses are on par with each other. The only difference is going to be future compatibility with future bodies and build quality. There were some reports that the Sigma macro didn't do well with the newer Maxxum 7 and post Maxxum 7 bodies. I tested both lenses on a Maxxum 7 in store at B&H Photo and they were both fine. I guess the newer Sigma 105 macros have had their chip upgraded.

 

For what it's worth, I love the Minolta mount. You probably can't go wrong with either choice. Also check out the Tamron version. It's supposedly better than the Sigma. Again, I'm sure the differences aren't that noticeable.

 

If you don't have a camera that is "D" compatible or don't need it, then check out www.keh.com. There are tons of non-D Minolta macros for sale there. Used, they're about the same price as the Sigma and I can say that their "excellent" condition lenses are great.

The Minolta 100 Macro tests out at photodo as one of the sharpest lenses ever made (sharper than the legendary 105 Nikkor). Its by far the sharpest 35mm lens I own. I couldn't imagine a Sigma lens of any type coming close.

Steve Allen said "I couldn't imagine a Sigma lens of any type coming close."

 

Unless Minolta contracted with Sigma to make a lens for them, of course. By the way who does make glass for Minolta?

 

Can someone remind me of the differences with the D-series?

Minolta makes its own glass; one of the few makers that still does.

Sir Blur:

 

As stated above, Minolta does indeed make their own glass -- they are one of the

very few who still do so.

 

The D lenses have a distance-encoder chip built into them. They have an additioal 3

gold contacts, and provide much improved flash results when used on a body that

takes this into account. I have the Maxxum 7, 24-105 D, and 5600HSD flash -- they

work together very, very well. Also, at least on the 7, after I've autofocused, if I hold

down the Depth of Field Preview button, the camera's display on the back will show

me my depth of field -- IE, it will say .23m behind and .28m in front of the focal

point will be in focus. It really is quite useful, especially to find at which aperture you

hit infinity.