Sony 30mm f/2.8

[David Kilpatrick]

As some here may know, I decided to change to 30mm + 70mm (Sony and Sigma) in place of my old 1986ish 50mm and 100mm Minolta macros. I offered them for sale here, but no takers. Then again, I did not need to sell them, so I kept them round.

On Friday I had to photograph the new Nikon 300mm f/2.8 ED VRII lens, all the general shots of lenses that day were taken on the 30mm Sony (pix of Nikon 16-35mm and 24mm f/1.4). But to get the huge 300mm properly on my perspex scoop, I needed a longer lens, so used the 100mm.

After loading up the pix and processing my raws, I put the 50mm and 100mm straight on eBay, and they sold within 2 minutes at buy it now prices - fair prices, but only £10 below typical retail s/h offers. They both had nice leather Minolta cases which cost me nothing to speak of, and I guess that made them a better buy.

Reason - the 100mm shots were like old mush compared to the new 30mm. It was like the difference between 6 and 12 megapixels. With the 30mm, the A550 captures more detail than the A900 with the 50mm or 100mm. It's not that the 50mm and 100mm were bad - they beat the Canon and Nikon lenses when I tested 100/105mm macros, and the 50mm was better in some ways than the 100mm.

It's just that the two lenses I got to replace them, the 30mm Sony and 70mm Sigma, are SO much better - especially the 30mm, which has ultra-high contrast, like a Zeiss lens.

NB: the Nikon 16-35mm has soft corners at f/4 - just like the CZ 16-35mm.

David

[peterottaway]

David on the subject of macro lenses sometimes the Minolta x 3 - x 1 comes up for sale. What are its strengths and weaknesses and as they age have there been any problems reported ?

[rogprov]

I had a 70mm Sigma macro and whilst it was very good I honestly didn't think it was better than the Sony 100mm macro on my a900. The extra 30mm on the Sony is useful and not being a lover of Sigma's furry finish I sold the 70mm. The Sony 30mm would unfortunately not be too much use on FF so I've never tried one but good to know it's so good on APS-C. How do you get on without MLU on the 550?

Roger

[Dr. Harout]

If everything goes as planned, Armen will be in the US for a short while. I'll ask him to buy one for me.
But I think I need an extra adapter (FA-MA1AM) to use the macro twin flash on the 30/2.8 (that's what they say on Sony site), so i guess the front element/part rotates while focusing.

[KevinBarrett]

That adapter (FA-MA1AM) actually gobbles up most, if not all, of your working distance with the little 30/2.8 Macro.

[David Kilpatrick]

Ref the 1-3X - it is rostrum lens, and has to be used more like a microscope (it has a stand/feet assembly). The 1-3X was created by taking an optical unit similar to the 35-70mm and changing the mechanism so that it could zoom when focused close. Like the 30mm, it involves very short distances but unlike the 30mm it's very hard to use in the field.

The difference with the Sigma 70mm is contrast. The 50mm and 100mm flare like crazy in my studio situations, the Sigma does not. Also, the Minolta lenses suffer a very noticeable diffraction loss at f/16. The 30mm and the Sigma 70mm do not have the same degree of diffraction loss, possible because of the shape of the iris blades. Of course a current Sony 100mm macro has different coatings, probably different internal baffles, improved coating and circular iris blades - not the same lens as a 1986 Minolta.

The front element of the 30mm does not rotate, but I suspect you would be overloading the very light SAM motor if you try to hang a twin flash rig on the filter thread. I doubt if the components moved by the focus motor weigh over 75g. And the extending tubes, though short, are definitely not made to support more than a filter or a lens shade. I use the original lens hood from the 45mm f/2 Rokkor on my 30mm. It's a perfect match for the lens.

David

[WaltKnapp]

Ref the 1-3X - it is rostrum lens, and has to be used more like a microscope (it has a stand/feet assembly). The 1-3X was created by taking an optical unit similar to the 35-70mm and changing the mechanism so that it could zoom when focused close. Like the 30mm, it involves very short distances but unlike the 30mm it's very hard to use in the field.

The difference with the Sigma 70mm is contrast. The 50mm and 100mm flare like crazy in my studio situations, the Sigma does not. Also, the Minolta lenses suffer a very noticeable diffraction loss at f/16. The 30mm and the Sigma 70mm do not have the same degree of diffraction loss, possible because of the shape of the iris blades. Of course a current Sony 100mm macro has different coatings, probably different internal baffles, improved coating and circular iris blades - not the same lens as a 1986 Minolta.

The front element of the 30mm does not rotate, but I suspect you would be overloading the very light SAM motor if you try to hang a twin flash rig on the filter thread. I doubt if the components moved by the focus motor weigh over 75g. And the extending tubes, though short, are definitely not made to support more than a filter or a lens shade.

David

I've used a series of the Minolta 100mm macros since the early ones in MC mount. While even the original was very good, there have been minor improvements along. The 1986 version is way back there now. I don't recommend earlier than the Minolta D version or the Sony. Very significant improvement in the focus system with that.

I currently use the Minolta 100mm and 50mm D macros, the last ones Minolta made. I've not noticed any flare problems and I notice less "diffraction" problems because most of my macro is done with high speed macroflash. It's been found in the last few years a lot of what was thought to be diffraction was actually fine motion blur and very short duration flash gets around that.

I've not tried the 30mm yet, but from what I've read and seen in photos I'd doubt it would be better than the current 50 or 100mm. Sony does indeed have a custom adapter for using the twin macro on it. So they must think the lens and motor are ok with that. The twin macro parts that mount on the lens are pretty light. I'd think the 1200 macro ringflash should work on it fine too, and without loosing much working distance.

I have the 1x-3x. It can be used in the field but it's awkward, everything is adjusted with very slow motors. I'd agree it's really designed for studio use on a table. What I'd like to see from Sony is the equivalent of Canon's MPE 65 1x-5x. That's a excellent macro lens with a wider range. I keep thinking of trying to convert one to A mount use, but that electronic aperture is a real stumbling block requiring serious internal modification of the lens. So I keep using the single focal length bellows lenses from Minolta, Olympus, Zeiss, Canon and so on for my greater than 1:1 macro. An area where Crippled A Mode is a real problem and the a700 is not due to it's fully functional A mode.

Walt

[youpii]

I've used a series of the Minolta 100mm macros since the early ones in MC mount. While even the original was very good, there have been minor improvements along. The 1986 version is way back there now. I don't recommend earlier than the Minolta D version or the Sony. Very significant improvement in the focus system with that.
Walt

I'm very happy with my Minolta 100/2.8 RS. Could you please be more specific when you say "Very significant improvement in the focus system"?

[WaltKnapp]

I'm very happy with my Minolta 100/2.8 RS. Could you please be more specific when you say "Very significant improvement in the focus system"?

D series added a very wide focus ring instead of the narrow one before. Of obvious value since so much of macro is MF.

And it added a clutch in the AF so that the focus ring does not spin when AF is running. This was essential to make that larger ring possible.

It also added the focus distance transmitted to the camera for flash and so on. Though that's probably less important. I did see a slight improvement in flash control with the 1200 ringflash vs the previous 100mm I had. But did not bother to investigate that.

Walt

[Birma]

Useful comments on the available macro lens. At £145 the 30mm is looking very tempting .

[David Kilpatrick]

I think the point about the 30mm is that it's great fun, but especially when combined with an articulating rear screen and live view focus - A300, A350, A500, A550, A330, A380.

It is one of those lenses which inspires experiments, and gives an unfamiliar view of the world. For me, it has restored the 'macro at 28mm' setting of the Dimage A2 but translated that to a professionally acceptable DSLR format.

David

[Dr. Harout]

Again sleepless nights till I get my hands on the 30/2.8

[Lonnie Utah]

Dave, for clarity, you are using this on APS-C cameras, not FF? So the 30 goes to 45 mm and the 70 goes to 105mm?

[Dr. Harout]

Dave, for clarity, you are using this on APS-C cameras, not FF? So the 30 goes to 45 mm and the 70 goes to 105mm?

Since the 30mm is a DT lens, using it on a FF gives you a cropped image, and yes field of view would be 45mm on APS-C.

[David Kilpatrick]

Dave, for clarity, you are using this on APS-C cameras, not FF? So the 30 goes to 45 mm and the 70 goes to 105mm?

Basically, yes. I have various reasons for making the change. One is that I used to work a lot with my copy stand/s (a Minolta and a Meopta) but when APS-C arrived, my 50mm could no longer copy typical sizes of original. The 30mm has really excellent geometry and sharpness when used on a copy stand. I have not had any work to do so far, but when I do, it will be ideal.

The 70mm is a compromise for full frame, really the 50mm and 100mm together were a better choice, but I do not want to have four macro lenses around and when travelling I could never decide which macro to take. 70mm kind of solves the problem!

David