Which 50mm 2.8 macro?

[motor]

My wife would like to dabble in some macro'n. I have the 50 1.4 prime and I was looking on e-bay and there are 3 different minolta 50mm 2.8 macro models that come up. What is the difference in them? They all basically look the same. I think they are labeled differently but in all the pictures they look the same accept the writing on the side is different. I know minolta did make different versions like the 135 prime that was soft and STF I believe. Is this the same with the 50 macro? I am new to the macro stage. I shoot landscapes but It might be a nice present for her birthday since it is close to christmas.

Here is what I see

Minolta Af Macro 50mm 1:2.8 (32)55mm

Minolta Maxxum RS 50mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro

Konica Minolta 50mm AF 1:1 Macro Lens f2.8

I think the RS means the restyle newest version but when looking at the picture what is the difference between minolta, maxxum and konica when it is written on the side of the lens? Which is your experience/preference or are they all the same?


I am Macro illiterate!

Motor

[Andy B]

You can find photos and users reviews of all three variations plus the newer Sony version at dyxum.com.

In a nutshell, the original version has a narrow metal focus ring. The RS version has a rubber focus ring and circular aperture blades for better bokeh. The later D version has an even larger focus ring and 8 contacts for use with ADI flash.

All variations are quite sharp. I recently picked up a near-mint copy of the RS version on ebay for under $230 U.S.

What type of macro photography is your wife interested in doing? If she is interested in photographing insects, a longer macro lens such as the Minolta 100/2.8 or the Tamron 90mm/2.8 would be a better option. The 50/2.8 is good for flowers, still life objects, and shots where you want less distance compression. It can also be used for portraits, but your 50/1.4 would be better for that purpose in terms of bokeh and not being overly sharp (especially for portraits of women where too much sharpness can be objectionable).

Andy

My wife would like to dabble in some macro'n. I have the 50 1.4 prime and I was looking on e-bay and there are 3 different minolta 50mm 2.8 macro models that come up. What is the difference in them? They all basically look the same. I think they are labeled differently but in all the pictures they look the same accept the writing on the side is different. I know minolta did make different versions like the 135 prime that was soft and STF I believe. Is this the same with the 50 macro? I am new to the macro stage. I shoot landscapes but It might be a nice present for her birthday since it is close to christmas.

Here is what I see

Minolta Af Macro 50mm 1:2.8 (32)55mm

Minolta Maxxum RS 50mm f/2.8 1:1 Macro

Konica Minolta 50mm AF 1:1 Macro Lens f2.8

I think the RS means the restyle newest version but when looking at the picture what is the difference between minolta, maxxum and konica when it is written on the side of the lens? Which is your experience/preference or are they all the same?

I am Macro illiterate!

Motor

[Eiffel]

The original Minolta 50F2.8 did not have a focus limiter, which means that when the AF is hunting it can take a while for it to stop. This is not an issue for macro usage, as MF is the way to go, but it limits convenience for general photography.

[Greg Beetham]

I would also be inclined to recommend a macro in the 90mm or 100mm range, being probably more useful to someone starting out in macro, but OTOH a 50mm macro AND a 2X auto extender could even be more useful, and the price might even end up similar by searching/shopping around.
Include a set of Kenko tubes and that would by quite a versatile macro set.....
Greg

[Dr. Harout]

How about the new 30mm Macro? It should be great, though only for APS-C format.

[InTheSky]

For my experience with the 50mm 2.8 original and the RS version is less CA and better resistance to flare. The same story for the 100mm 2.8 and the D version.

But, with good light and good condition, there is no perceptible difference between them (on image quality).

The original version 50mm 2.8 was really feeling unbreakable and very tight made, the RS version feel very plastic.

But I will go with the last comment, If you have a 200$ more in your budget, I will recommend to go with the 100mm 2.8 instead of the 50mm 2.8 if you are targeting to capture insects. Also the 100mm 2.8 can be a good lens for portrait too.

I have the 50mm 2.8 RS version in my macro bag, but it is only for extra macro with extender ring where it is easy to get 2:1 and more (most difficult with 100mm).

Hope this will help you,

Regards,

Frank

[motor]

Sorry I have been out of touch but I am back. I like the one comment about using the 50, extension tubes and 2x. and using extension tubes. I have limited knowledge on extension tubes. Here is a couple questions to throw out there. I think in most cases she will shoot flowers, leaves, and close-up inside no insects. She does really like the 50 1.4 and uses it. If I was to pick up a kenko extension tube set 12/20/36 I believe to my understanding she could use them on both the 50 macro and 50 1.4 along with her tamron 17-50 2.8 correct? Do extension tubes effect the F value like teleconverters?

I already asked a question about kenko teleconverters and David said wait till March for the new chip versions to work on the KM 28-75, 70-200G and 70-400G. Is the kenko 2x teleconverter the same 2x you are referring to use on the macro? If that is the case she would have a 85mm F2.8 with a 1.4x and 100mm F4 with a 2x correct using the 50 1.4 and it would be 85 macro F4 and 100 macro F5.6 using the 50 macro? That doesn't sound to good to me if that is correct on the macro side. Again sorry to ask such dumb questions but I really am macro illiterate.

I am really interested in the extension tube set idea though I just don't totally understand them. If she can use them on her 50 1.4 then that may be the way to start and then look at a 50 or 100mm macro later!

I know that there is alot of question here but do your best.

Please be patient with me
Motor