Minolta 100mm Macro or Tamron SP 90mm Di Macro

[aaron meyer]

Does anyone have experience with either of these lenses? These both seem like a

good choice for a first true macro lens and a lens that can double as a portrait

lens. Both have very good ratings for optics on Dyxum.com, with the Minolta

leading in build quality. I'm leaning towards the Tamron as it's less expensive

but apparently optically equal and since I tend to be very lucky with my

equipment, the build quality difference should not be a factor.

 

Of course, if someone can convince me that what I really need is the Zeiss 85mm

F/1.4, I would be grateful. I don't really need the macro focusing, but I have

a hard time justifying the price. After-effects of the now-ex girlfriend who

complained that I spent too much on cameras and stuff. =P

[carbon_dragon]

Both the 50 and the 100 were always considered excellent lenses with good reviews by pretty much everyone. They're a little larger and heavier than the equivalent non macro lens, but the build quality is very good.

[ilkka]

I have the Minolta 100 macro and it is a very good lens. I did consider the Tamron as well but the price difference was not that much and I preferred the slightly longer focal length. I also thought that Minolta lens is likely to eventually work better with a new Sony digital camera.

[emaxxman]

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ztz

 

In the link above, another poster had the same question as you. I got my Maxxum D macro lens. I also had to make a choice between the Tamron, Sigma, or Maxxum. My reasoning is in that thread.

 

The other thing you could explore is a used Maxxum "D" macro lens. It will be close to the price of a new Tamron. Go for the D version as it has the wider focusing ring. To me, that makes a huge difference in ergonomics and is the reason why I went with the Maxxum version.

 

I think the Tamron Di version is the same that was available back when I bought my Maxxum so my comments in the thread should still apply.

[ricardovaste]

One thing you might want to consider is that the tamron lens is very sharp wide open and peaks at around f/5.6. Drops off at f/8 and then reduces greatly in sharpness. In this sence the minolta lens will be sharper. And you tend to stop down more so in macro photography. But it will still give you good results obvsiouly. May not be an issue at all. Thought id mention it though. Let us know what you do.

[jiun_der_chung]

I think that as Aaron, said, he really isn't interested in the macro capabilities of the Minolta 100mm and Tamron 90mm, he is after a portrait lens.

 

Having said that, I own the Tamron and my brother owns the Minolta and they are both fantastic lenses. I think practically, any difference in sharpness is negligible (as least from what I have found anyway) as technique in macro photography will make a bigger difference. The build quality of the Minolta is far better as the Tamron is all plastic (but light).

 

Now to answer Aaron's real question about whether they can be used as portrait lenses. Yes they both make pretty good portrait lenses. There are 2 factors that you should consider. Firstly macro lenses have a far longer focus range which means you end up zooming in and out a lot more in order to find the correct focal plane. You can use the focus limit switch to help with this.

 

Secondly, the Minolta 85mm F1.4 G is an amazing piece of glass. the F1.4 apertue allows you to use it without a flash in reasonably dim light. It also reduces your depth of field a lot more to help isolate your subject.

 

Therefore my opinion is if you have the money, get the Minolta 85mm if you really want to do portraits. No idea about the Zeiss, is it even available yet and would it justify the price. Probably not given that the Minolta 85mm is already so good.

 

There are a number of different versions. The G and D versions are the expensive ones. There is actually an older non-G and non-D version which apparently is still extremely good. You might be able to pick that up second-hand for a reasonable price.

 

Otherwise, either the Minolta 100mm or the Tamron 90mm will still serve you well.

[aaron meyer]

I've decided that I'm simply going to save for a few months and splurge on the Zeiss. I loved the ones on my old Contax and every time I see a photo from the Zeiss 85 F/1.4 I just drool over it. In the meantime, I may pick up a used Minolta 28-75 F/2.8 as a walk-around.