Minolta 100mm f2.8 Macro vs Minolta 70-210mm f4 Macro Beer Can: Has anyone used either of these wonderful lenses? I have a mint copy of the original Minolta 100mm on my Sony A77 ii and...

markwilliam1

Has anyone used either of these wonderful lenses? I have a mint copy of the original Minolta 100mm on my Sony A77 ii and cannot believe the image quality of this old (1986?) lens! I also use the Beer Can for macro work which also produces amazing images. I read that Minolta made their own glass for these lenses. Can’t decide which lens is better for Macro photography. Thoughts?

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

Yes, great old glass, I let a copy of the 100 2.8 get away (big dummy!), but still have the Beer Can, and a bunch of other old Minolta glass. I haven't parted with even the duplicates because I can't decide!!!!! Use them often on my Sony (A300, A37 and A58) cams and they never disappoint me. As to whether one (of the two) is better, I think the 100 (2.8) was better for its intent, but the Beer Can always does a good job, and is quite versatile (even if a little slower). I have plans to watch for another 100, maybe this year.

Minolta made some fabulous glass and many fine examples are floating around out there. Since the Sony's have stabilization in the camera, there are so many great bargains in all the re-seller used listings and E-bay always has some gems..... I'm working on a Nikon (similar) set-up now, but if you decide to let that old nasty decrepit 100 2.8 go, PM me, I might be a buyer/trader. BTW, my Sony cams are a little lower level than your A77, but they definitely hold their own against the Nikons! Cheers and have fun!!!

bnsf

This is one of the reasons why Sony purchased Minolta. Sony needed a cheap way to complete with Nikon and Canon, so they thought if they would purchase Minolta it would give them a step ahead in the camera market which it has done. Nikon and Canon are still trying to caught up to this day. Wonder what the camera world would have been like if Minolta would have still be around and how good Sony would have been today without the help from Minolta?

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

markwilliam1 wrote:

Has anyone used either of these wonderful lenses? I have a mint copy of the original Minolta 100mm on my Sony A77 ii and cannot believe the image quality of this old (1986?) lens! I also use the Beer Can for macro work which also produces amazing images. I read that Minolta made their own glass for these lenses. Can’t decide which lens is better for Macro photography. Thoughts?

I have both lenses. And I own both the 50 and 100 Minolta Macro lenses. The 100 in my opinion is one of the sharpest lenses ever manufactured. I love the color those old Minolta AF lenses produce. If it were me, and it is, I would definitely go with the Minolta 100 mm Macro, it is much sharper for macro, because it was made for close up. The beer can is great but the macro was an add on and images using that cannot and do not compare to the 100 macro. One thing to keep in mind is that these lenses, when mounted on your camera only use one focus spot and sometimes the lens HUNTS for focus, so I sometimes use manual focus to get me close and then switch to AF.
I will be selling all of my Minolta lenses probably next month. I will list them first on this site for about a week and then go to Ebay to finish anything off that does not sell. I do not know yet exactly which of the over 12 Minolta AF lenses I am going to sell and don't anyone private message me about them because I will not reply. I just haven't made up my mind exactly how much I am willing to sell.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

billnikon wrote:

I have both lenses. And I own both the 50 and 100 ... (show quote)

I'll be watching!!

markwilliam1

No desire to sell these gems they are both Mint! I’ve taken wonderful Macro shots with the beer can and it’s seems as sharp as the 100 even blown up! The bokeh of both is Amazing. Although the beer can is slower I can zoom in and not scare butterflies, etc. I never use AF when shooting Macro always MF. I think MF let’s you get a sharper picture! Thanks!

wmurnahan Loc: Bloomington IN

olemikey wrote:

Yes, great old glass, I let a copy of the 100 2.8 ... (show quote)

They are still getting over between $1000 and $2000 for the Minolta AF 200 f4 macro. I just picked up an old FD Canon 200 macro manual focus for less than $300, but I'm usually focusing my macro on a rail anyway.

markwilliam1

I’m referring to the Minolta 70-210mm f4 lens. Didn’t know they made a fixed 200mm f4!

chapjohn Loc: Tigard, Oregon

Did Sony rebrand the Minolta 100mm Macro? If they did, I have the Sony 100mm macro A-mount and love what that lens does. I also have the Minolta "mini-beer can" lens and like what it does. I may not use them as much as I did when I had the A77ii.

markwilliam1

I believe they did. Added a couple of buttons and raised the price Significantly! The “new” Sony lens isn’t any better from the reviews I’ve read. The Minolta is a Must Have lens in my opinion!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

markwilliam1 wrote:

Has anyone used either of these wonderful lenses? I have a mint copy of the original Minolta 100mm on my Sony A77 ii and cannot believe the image quality of this old (1986?) lens! I also use the Beer Can for macro work which also produces amazing images. I read that Minolta made their own glass for these lenses. Can’t decide which lens is better for Macro photography. Thoughts?

Thoughts?
Can't wait to get a Canon mirrorless for Christmas and try these lenses if they are available at reasonable cost. Thanks for the post.

markwilliam1

Why Cannon and not Sony? I think Sony makes the best mirrorless cameras on the planet! I own 3. Will never look back!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

markwilliam1 wrote:

Why Cannon and not Sony? I think Sony makes the best mirrorless cameras on the planet! I own 3. Will never look back!

Because the Canon system is more comprehensive, much more intuitive and easy to use, their mirrorless is fantastic and outsells Sony by a wide margin, Canon color is better with no banding, and finally far superior and smoother video AF with the DPAF that Sony is not even close to.
That is why Canon.

markwilliam1

I don’t believe so! Look @ the A9 or the A7iii. Very advanced compared to Cannon which has to play catch up to Sony in regards to mirrorless Canon! I definitely dispute that Cannon has better color and Sony’s AF video is vastly superior! Read the specs and reviews. I can tell your a Cannon guy which is fine but don’t bash Sony as they have the most choices and the most advanced mirrorless camera systems available!

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

markwilliam1 wrote:

I don’t believe so! Look @ the A9 or the A7iii. Very advanced compared to Cannon which has to play catch up to Sony in regards to mirrorless Canon! I definitely dispute that Cannon has better color and Sony’s AF video is vastly superior! Read the specs and reviews. I can tell your a Cannon guy which is fine but don’t bash Sony as they have the most choices and the most advanced mirrorless camera systems available!

You bashed Canon and yes I read reviews as well and all I wrote is accurate especially about the DPAF Canon has.