[laukent]

小弟用左A700半年左右,主要影人像同風景!手頭兩支鏡50F14 & 1680Z,兩支都用得好滿意,在budget有限嘅情况下發揮最大性價比!越用越開心...
所以想擴阔攝影範圍,最近對花草昆蟲露水好有興趣,顺便學習一下!一支Marco鏡實在少不免!
所以想請教一下各大師兄有冇好見議!第一目標當然係原廠100M28,因为有d對副廠鏡有懷疑,由於之前用A16黎做kit鏡,最後用左3个月換左支1680Z,完全技術性擊倒,當然價錢也相對差一半!所以不可正面比較!為左彌補大光圈的不足,配埋支50F14成为性價比最佳组合!(纯属個人意見,哈哈)
其實Marco鏡影人像如何?有朋友話對焦慢d,亦有朋友話会仲sharp(因為對焦精準度會更高)
請各大師兄给些意見!!!!萬分感激....

[lokism3]

It can be a portrait lens, and why not.

You cencern about the focusing speed, you have to know that there are 2 reasons make a marco lens focusing slow:
1. long running distance of the focuing range; and
2. "small" maxium aperture.

The solution is:
1. use the foucing range selector on the lens to cut the close-up range. You use a medium telephone lens for portrait because you want a good "communication distance" right? the close-up range is no use for the reason. Cut down the range, and keep the running distance short; and
2. this is not your case, except you think f/2.8 is "small", or you would like to buy a 135 f/1.8? In my opinion, 1.8 is too small, and 135 is too close to 100.

When you take flowers, insects, etc. please just simply switch the selector again! done.

The following would be a bit advance, hope that you would like it.

Your friend(s) is (are) 1/2 right, a marco lens should be sharper than a normal lens; especially with a traditional design lens as Minolta / Sony. A trad. marco lens should be with a "flat" focus plane, it is different from a "curve" focus plane on conventional lens. Imagine to draw parallel lines; one on the subject you are taking, and the other on your camera. If you find that the distance is 1 M, all the subject in line with your subject should be in-focus with a marco lens. On the other hand, draw a 1 M circle with your camera as centre of it, all subject on the circumference of 1 M should be in-focus with a conventional lens.

Therefore, when you use a marco lens for protrait, flowers, insects...in the way on a specific subject, you will find that the things not in focus are all extremely "out-of-focus"; so the subject is comparatively sharp. By its special design, you will find that the lens is very sharp when you doing flat copy task, and other normal lens are never reach the standard.

[laukent]

感謝lokism3師兄詳盡分析,特別系深入技術原理,又學到野啦!!
但究景有冇人用緊哩支鏡,可以比d用家心得呢!
差唔多價錢又可以買到副廠70-200F2.8仲有marco添!所以有d争札!!

[lokism3]

http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-aps-c-lens-tests/378-sony_100_28

For your reference.
It is a good lens, "差唔多價錢又可以買到副廠70-200F2.8仲有marco添!" seems not right to compare. The enlargment ratio of a zoom should be far smaller than a marco, including this one. Hence, a zoom is not really capable to take "花草昆蟲露水".

So:
1. if you want portrait in major -> 70-200, but I never suggest a 副廠;
2. if you want marco in major -> 100; and
3. if you are an amateur -> Sony, for future 2nd hand value.

[laukent]

感謝lokism3師兄的建議!其實小弟也心中有數了,得到師兄的reconfirm已經有了決定呢?
奇怪的是好似好少人擁有哩支鏡?連用家心得都冇!我個人認為哩支系非常好嘅一支鏡呢!!

[lokism3]

I have a Minolta 50mm f/2.8 marco in-hand since 1994, the major usages are flat copy and flowers shooting. A 100mm is having a 1:1 life size and the 50mm only have a 1:2, but the 100 should on tripod when doing marco photography. 1:1 is not good to flat copy, the angle of view is not right. If taking portrait, both lens are suitable and I something some my marco to take at outdoor too (when a very narrow depth-of-field is needed, and I have explained why on above).