Two macros compared.

[Ron Evers]

I have two 50mm, f3.5 1:2 macro lenses, a Canon & a Minolta Celtic. The Minolta is quite a bit heavier than the Canon. This morning I took the same shot with each to see if there was any significant difference in image quality. They were taken next to a window, camera left & I used a hand mirror to reflect light onto the shaded side, so that explains the variance in lighting. Both were shot at minimum focus distance using focusing rails on a tripod.


1. Canon, ISO 200, f16, 1/5s

2. Minolta Celtic, ISO 200, f16, 1/10s

 

[tygr1]

I like the shot taken with the Minolta better, but it may just be the lighting. Which one do you like?

 

[Ron Evers]

I like the shot taken with the Minolta better, but it may just be the lighting. Which one do you like?

I go back & forth. I was focusing on the tip of the onion (manual) & I think it is better with the Minolta but that difference may be due to me, not the lens. So, I think either lens is as good as the other. The Canon being lighter (plastic) makes it more desirable to hang on my M4/3 cameras.