Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/09/08
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]In my opinion too the 100 2.8 macro from Minolta is excellent, although its contrast seems to me a little bit harsh. Mickey Rosenthal "Joe B." wrote: > At 13:52 22/08/00 -0400, you wrote: > >Which ones don't? It is true that Minolta makes a slew of budget minded > >consumer oriented lenses (as do Nikon and Canon etc.), but their "serious" > >lenses (such as the 100/2.8 macro, the 200/2.8 APO, all their 50s, their > >85/1.4 etc., etc.) are excellent lenses, and if they are less than Leica > >equivalents, it will only be apparent under the most exacting test > >conditions. For instance, part from it propensity to flare (but manageble > >with my 100% viewfinder in my 9), I can't distinguish my Minolta 50 from > >my 50 Summilux-M. > > > >In fact, I have some test pics taklen with my minolta 50, my Summilux 50 > >and my DR 50. I will rescan them using Vuescan to try and get identical > >scans, and post them.. you pick out the Minolta, if you can. Give me a day > >or two to find the negatives. > > > >Dan C > > That will be interesting to look at. Can you say which Minolta 50 you are > talking about- if the AF 50/1.4, is it the old or new version? > > Joe B.