The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony 100mm f/2.8 macro

edwardkaraa

New member
Just got this lens today. I had sworn not to buy any non-Zeiss lens from Sony, but I have a macro shoot next week (jewelry) and need 1:1 ratio. Even though the lens seems sharp enough, it is nothing compared to my good old Contax 100 Makro-Planar that I've recently sold. I have to say that I'm not impressed. Can't wait until Sony releases a Zeiss macro.
 

Braeside

New member
Very strange, the Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro (old version) that is supposed to be the same as the new Sony version, is absolutely superb.
 

dhsimmonds

New member
Yes I know what you mean, as I used the Leica R100mm F2.8 macro with my R9/DMR. The Sony feels like a toy by comparison. It doesn't even come with a lens pouch either! I haven't used mine yet, but I will within the next two weeks. However I have seen results from this lens used with the A900 that are quite simply beautiful and let's face it, it is the results that matter most.

Obviously the DOF is very shallow with FF, so I expect to stop down far more than with my R100 used on a 1.37 crop camera. but this obviously can be a great advantage in accentuating the product or subject matter. So I am looking forward to using it.
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I guess I'm spoiled by many years of Zeiss. As I said, the Sony seems quite sharp especially at f/5.6 and above. It does show PF below f/5.6 but I usually use it at f/16-22. It's a good lens but nothing near the Makro-Planar, which is an outstanding lens, even by Zeiss standards. Anyway, I will post more about it after I use for the jewelry shoot :)
 

fotografz

Well-known member
Jewelry is the acid test of all this gear. I've never used a 35mm DSLR that could cut it even using Zeiss Macros ... just can't handle the specular highlights ... but those were all with Canon 1Ds cameras (II & III).

I'll be interested in hearing your opinion of how this gear does.
 

robmac

Well-known member
Not familiar with Sony/Minolta mount, but did the CV 125/2.5 APO macro not come in a mount compatible with the A900?
 

surfotog

New member
The CV 125/2.5 APO was indeed made in Alpha mount, but in extremely small quantities. I have been unable to find one, and given the astronomical prices they have been fetching, probably wouldn't want to pay the asking price if I did.
On another note, those wanting to use Mamiya APO glass on the A900 have two options for adapters. Zoerk makes one, as does Cirrus adapters. I'm unsure of the quality of the Cirrus as I bought one of their Pentax 67 to Alpha adapters to use my 400/4 EDIF on the A900, and it mounted rather roughly, the lens release knob doesn't look too sturdy, and when I mounted the 100/4 macro the lens was facing to the right.
I sent it back asking for a replacement, but I would probably be better served to pay the extra money and get a Zoerk.
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Its odd how one becomes inclined to mince one's words. I am as prone to do so as anyone.

Actually my personal view is that the Sony 100mm macro is - given the pedigree - a rubbish lens. Its poorly made and optically dubious. Independent manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron make better lenses for less money. Sony or Zeiss need to do better. My apologies for being less than 100% candid before

Quentin
 

jonoslack

Active member
Its odd how one becomes inclined to mince one's words. I am as prone to do so as anyone.

Actually my personal view is that the Sony 100mm macro is - given the pedigree - a rubbish lens. Its poorly made and optically dubious. Independent manufacturers like Sigma and Tamron make better lenses for less money. Sony or Zeiss need to do better. My apologies for being less than 100% candid before

Quentin
Hrummph. Well, I'm not sure that I agree (and I actually bought it after your first impressions). I actually like the bokeh, colour and sharpness for natural stuff. . . . . as for the focusing and build quality . . I agree, rubbish.

Still, I like the feel of the results.

Mind you, I haven't taken pictures of jewelry, and I'm not sure that moss is very challenging!
 

Braeside

New member
I revisited my Minolta 100m/2.8 Macro (original version not the D version) today.
I have uploaded a few full-size JPGs at different apertures (processed from CRAW in Aperture and unsharpened). All shot with natural light on tripod with SSS off and 2 sec timer.

I'm sorry no bling to photograph, but a few shiny bits of metal for highlights and a 3 D object to show in and out of focus areas. It resolves all the dust in my shop.

Here is a large size of one which is scaled down by Pbase, if you visit
http://www.pbase.com/braeside/image/109923400/large you can change to original size and compare all the different photos.



Another scaled down (therefore looks softer than it is at fullsize)

 
Last edited:

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
Hrummph. Well, I'm not sure that I agree (and I actually bought it after your first impressions). I actually like the bokeh, colour and sharpness for natural stuff. . . . . as for the focusing and build quality . . I agree, rubbish.

Still, I like the feel of the results.

Mind you, I haven't taken pictures of jewelry, and I'm not sure that moss is very challenging!
Hi Jono,

My understanding has evolved, shall we say. It does a workmanlike job, but I can't think of any area where its not just a little short of other macro lenses I have used, including Sigma and Tamron macros on the Kodak 14nx. The lens hood is flimsy. General build quality is low end. If it cost less I'd not mind, but I now think I should have purchased a Tamron 90mm macro instead.

To be honest, the A900 deserves better than good enough. I confess I am somewhat spoilt by the superb build quality and results from the Mamiya 120mm macro on the Mamiya ZD - another league entirely compared to the Sony macro. Hopefully Zeiss will oblige at some stage with new Macro. In the meantime I'll carry on using it, but I may buy a Tamron as well.

Cheers

Quentin
 
Last edited:

fotografz

Well-known member
I think we just have to be patient. Hell, they just now delivered a camera that perked up people's ears ... and a bunch of us rushed to get it. But the aging re-badged Minolta stuff is just a stop gap ... some are okay, others are not. The 50/1.4 is pretty good from the limited use I had with it.

In the meantime, I'm going to try a Heliopan Schott Glass, coated two sides +3 Close up lens on the Zeiss 135 and 24-70 and see what that looks like.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart&A=details&Q=&sku=21705&is=REG

Or maybe one of the these:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/10117-REG/B_W_65076279_77mm_Close_up_NL_3.html

Actually, the Canon 500D Close-Up lens is pretty damned good ... has 2 achromatic elements

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/87503-REG/Canon_2824A002_77mm_500D_Close_up_Lens.html#features

Or maybe the famous Leica Elpro 2 which at 55mm with fit the Sony 50/1.4

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/30082-USA/Leica_16542_Elpro_2.html

Or just use the 100/2.8VR Macro on the Nikon ... and leave it at that. If I need big, I'll use the H3D/31 and 120 macro.:)
 

Braeside

New member
So, can you tell me what is wrong with the results from the Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro RS I showed above? - Even viewing at 100% they are sharp at f2.8 given the extreme shallow depth of field at 1:1. They do get very sharp stopped down a fraction but later get diffraction as expected. Maybe the new Sony is not as good, but I would be surprised as it is basically the same lens with different rubber grips. (OK it is now a D lens).

When you get some of these exotic lenses, I'd love to see the difference.
 
Last edited:
N

nautilus

Guest
So, can you tell me what is wrong with the results from the Minolta 100mm/2.8 macro RS I showed above? - Even viewing at 100% they are sharp at f2.8 given the extreme shallow depth of field at 1:1. They do get very sharp stopped down a fraction but later get diffraction as expected. Maybe the new Sony is not as good, but I would be surprised as it is basically the same lens with different rubber grips. (OK it is now a D lens).

When you get some of these exotic lenses, I'd love to see the difference.
Don't get nervous. :D
The Minolta 100 macro is still the best of the current macros if you don't consider Leica. Don't know how the mentioned Zeiss is. Probably on a higher level.
Too funny the comment about the built quality as well. Like rubbish? :ROTFL:
 

picman

Member
I am waiting for a good solution to use my Carl Zeiss C/Y AE S-Planar 60 mm f 2.8 macro lens on my A900. That was a spectacular lens on my RTS. It will be manual and stopdown of course, but for macro that is OK for me.
 

jonoslack

Active member
I took mine out for a little walk around today, looking back at my shots with the Nikon 100 f2.8 VR, I think the Minolta is sharper, has better bokeh (much) and I find the focusing more accurate.
On the downside it feels plasticky, and the focusing is slow and screwdriver. On the upside it's about half the weight!

here are some shots at different apertures with 100% crops, all done in aperture without sharpening.

f5.6





f4.5




f2.8




f2.8




f2.8




I'd love a Zeiss one, but in the meantime this seems to do the job okay
 

robmac

Well-known member
Why not just convert an older 2-3 cam 100 APO R (see related thread here) or 60 Macro to MA? Add a custom-encoded eprom to the MA mount (or use one from a donor 100 macro) adapter if you like to get focus confirm and SSS at 100mm (vs. 50mm default)? At least until a Zeiss one comes along that fills the need...

Or use a Hassy (fotodiox) or Mamiya 120/4 (cheap and ED glass) or 80/4 Macro with an off the shelf adapter ?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Mamiya-645-adap...photoQQcmdZViewItemQQ_trksidZp1742.m153.l1262
 

edwardkaraa

New member
I took mine out for a little walk around today, looking back at my shots with the Nikon 100 f2.8 VR, I think the Minolta is sharper, has better bokeh (much) and I find the focusing more accurate.
On the downside it feels plasticky, and the focusing is slow and screwdriver. On the upside it's about half the weight!

I'd love a Zeiss one, but in the meantime this seems to do the job okay
I certainly believe this lens is quite sharp and does have a nice bokeh. What I think it lacks is micro-contrast and 3D effect, which are Zeiss signature. I am not going to throw it away after all :D Just use it until Sony decides it's time for a Zeiss Makro.
 

Braeside

New member
Edward, I agree the Sony appears to have more in common with the Minolta lens contrasts than the Zeiss that is for sure. It also has 'bokeh' CA when wide open.
 
Top