p.1 #1 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
I've read the dyxum reviews (all 7 or 8 of them) and still can't ascertain if:
1) The 50mm D Macro is on a par with the 100mm Macro (shorter distance to subject doesn't bother me) for macro work
2) It's better or worse than the Sony and Minolta 50mm 1.4s as a general purpose lens (I'd happily live with the fact that it's slower, if it was as good as a standard 1.4 stopped down)
On paper, it seems like the perfect carry-everywhere that will double well for true macro, but I'm yet to find a comparative review alongside some fast 50mm and the 100mm Macro.
p.1 #2 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
When I shot Minolta (film), I preferred the 50/2.8 macro to the 50/1.4. I found the 50/2.8 macro to be a super macro lens, that doubled as a great 50mm landscape lens.
p.1 #3 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
I have not used the 50 1.4 yet but have found the 50 2.8 Macro(I have an earlier version, non D) to be extremely sharp and contrasty. I use at as a normal lens as the 50 1.7 I also have is nowhere close as brilliant(sharp and contrasty) as the Macro. Performance wise, the center is sharpest by F4 on my copy but if your looking for corner sharpness at normal distances(meaning non macro), the lens will need stopping down to F8. That is on an a900. I have read reports of sensor reflection from this lens when stopped down past F11 but I have not noticed that yet. Bokeh is nothing special with this lens and in that respect its possible the 50 1.4 might be better. I can't compare the 50 Macro to the 100 Macro but I have compared it to the Minolta 100 F2. The 100 has much better Bokeh, as would be expected, and reaches optimum sharpness over the entire frame way before the 50 Macro. In the center, both are probably the sharpest lenses I have used.
p.1 #4 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
ayler,
In my research on A-mount primes, I have gathered that the 100/2.8 macro is very slightly better than the 50/2.8 macro, but there isn't a big difference there. It also seems that both of them are generally slightly better performers than the 50/1.4, especially wide-open. I am of the opinion that the 50 macro would be a better choice for an all-purpose lens than the 50/1.4, and would be going that way myself as I build my collection of primes.
Did more research on fast primes, and it looks like the 35/1.4G is a pretty poor performer in the corners unless stopped down significantly. Basically, looks like the next two primes I add are the two macros.
p.1 #6 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
senna4ever wrote:
Try looking for the much more rare Maxxum 50mm f3.5 macro. It's stunning.
Do you shoot with the 3.5 Macro? I have read conflicting reports on it. Some say is great, while others state its as good as the 2.8. Have you shot with both versions and compared? I have passed a few up but if its better than the 2.8, I will have to give one a try.
p.1 #7 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
I've always preferred the working distance of the 100m Macros, but the Sony 50 f2.8 D macro is quite a nice lens, also nice and small. Didn't blow me away, but it was good. I posted some 100% jpgs (straight out of camera, no processing) HERE
p.1 #8 · How good is the Sony 50mm D Macro as a general purpose lens and for 1:1 macro
One thing about the 50 and 100 macros is that being macro, they are pretty slow AF. I carry the 50 macro as the standard lens but sometimes it hunts (especially in low light) I wish I had brought the 50 1.4 or 1.7.
