I made a post recently about a vintage Minolta Albinar 80-200 macro lens that I found at the thrift store for $7.  It’s super weird to use because it’s a push/pull zoom and manual focus only.  It’s also hazy whenever it feels like and not sharp…ever.  So why bother? Mostly I’m home sick from work and slightly bored.  But also, why not?

So here we have a shootout?  My other lens is the exquisite Sony 90mm F2.8 Macro.  Shouldn’t be much of a challenge really? right? Lets find out!

First up are the photos from the Albinar:

So now for the shots with the $1100 Sony 90mm. Lets start with the same hydrangea for a more direct comparison:

So am I advocating that serious photographers just shop at thrift stores for their gear? Obviously not, that would be stupid.  Can you get good results with thrift store lenses? Obviously you can, but you have to work at it.  I haven’t tried the Albinar for portraits yet, but I really want to. It has a dreamy, quirky look that I really really like for some types of photos.  It reminds me of a Lensbaby, which is literally just a toy lens used for effects, but it’s still hella fun.  The Sony 90mm is pretty much a perfect lens when I’m not hampering it with depth of field that’s too shallow due to me choosing improper settings.  It’s a true macro, unlike the Albinar, so I can get photos with it that the Albinar cannot replicate.  It’s also a great portrait lens and a super sharp, super speedy, autofocus-capable all around excellent lens.  However I’m really enjoying the look I can get with vintage lenses.  They do have “character”.  It’s the difference between a modern BMW that’s an excellent performer in every way and an original mini cooper… a slow pain in the ass, but it’ll put a smile on your face anyway.

So that’s where my review ends.  I ended up taking a few more photos with my 90mm because it stopped raining. They’re included below.