Just picked up a Sony A6000

jalywol wrote:

Wilu wrote:

i like the 50mm macro. unfortunately, the f2.8 isn't well suited for flash work. it tends to show some light blobs in the center, especially when stopped down. this is probably due to the rear element being concave and reflecting the light (that has itself been reflected from the sensor). other than that it's a very fine lens. the original version doesn't have a focus hold button. the RS and Sony versions do. for flash work i suggest the f3.5. it goes only down to 1:2 and the bokeh isn't great. but its very sharp from wide open.

Have you used the Minolta 100mm macro? I'm looking at a couple of those also. How does it compare in terms of overall IQ to the 50mm f2.8? It's definitely a more convenient focal length for what I like to shoot....

-J

yes, i still do. i had the Sony version (same as Minoltas D version) and bought the RS version for a very reasonable price. it has rounded blades like the Sony and the D but lacks the clutch mechanism in the focus ring that both the Sony and the D have. this is in my book a good thing since the clutch induces some play - and i prefer a focus ring that rotates when in AF to a focus ring with play when in MF. and unlike the original Minolta (no focus hold button, no rounded aperture blades) the focus ring is made of rubber and large enough to be comfortly used in MF. so i sold the Sony version (one of few lenses i bought new) soon after getting the RS. i have no complaints at all when it comes to IQ, except maybe a small amount of purple fringing (but nowhere as bad as other legacy glass i've used). oh, and the build quality of the 100 RS is a notch above that of the 50 RS. the original 100 and original 50 are about the same, if i'm not mistaken.