Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 New  reviews

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: November-11-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300s (APO and non APO)
Sigma 75-200 f3.8
Tamron 70-300 Di

price paid:

70 GBP

positive:

Very sharp
Typical Minolta colour
Comparatively lightweight

negative:

PF at larger apertures beyond 200/

comment:

If you can't afford the 70-300 G (like me) buy this.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Biffobear   review date: October-13-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sigma 70-300 OS
Minolta 70-210 f/4
Tamron 70-300 USD

price paid:

£170 Used

positive:

Sharp
Colour
portability

negative:

none

comment:

Maybe I just got a good copy but this thing is the business.Sharp as a tack at all focal lengths,Colour is perfect and it is so portable...It easily beat my Tamron 70-300 USD..

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: vooyeck   review date: March-21-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta - AF 70-210 F4
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 II
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D
Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 Big Beercan

price paid:

140 USD (used)

positive:

Sharpness, color, bokeh, inexpensive price, build

negative:

little soft and CA at 300, but still acceptable

comment:

Great jar! This lens gave me much joy and it's my favorite glass. I would recommend it for everyone, amateur or professional. Thanks Minolta!

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: Prabu   review date: January-28-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan 75-300, 75-300 D

price paid:

88 used

positive:

size
weight
price

negative:

flare
slow AF

comment:

If u r looking for a 100$ zoom range with good IQ this could be your lens..but there are a few compromises. The Autofocus is on the slow side and does not hold focus very well. The colors are good, infact better than the less expensive 75-300 D. But the 'beercan' 75-300 blows both the lenses away. If u can spend an extra 100, go ahead and get the beercan version. That being said, this lens is not bad. Its good. It has good color reprodcution. Sharpeness is good. COntrast is OK. A bang for the buck at 100$....just that after being hooked to the beercan version, this version feels inferior in al ways. The size and weight are comfortable.....much lighter than the beercan version.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: daniel   review date: January-17-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

not one really in specific

price paid:

50€ used

positive:

Considerably smaller and lighter than the "big beercan", sharp when stopped down, nice colours, feels decent

negative:

Not very good wide open, photos need a 'boost'

comment:

I bought this one for 50€ with some other stuff (teleconverter, filters). So I got it practically for free.

I decided to get this one, instead of the 'big beercan' when traveling through Africa. It has been a pleasure to shoot with this lens. It is definitely for daylight shooting, since you have to stop it down to get good results.

When I loaded the pictures on my computer, at first I was a bit disappointed. The colours and the contrast were not what I expected (based on my other (older) Minolta lenses). However, after some little adjustments in contrast, I was very happy with the result. It could be partly due to the fact that I was shooting RAW for the first time as well. However, I didn't have this (initial) disappointment with the pictures I shot with the Tamron 17-50.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Columbus B   review date: June-17-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Tamron 70-200 2.8

price paid:

145 USD (used)

positive:

Light weight (compared to Sony G and Tam USD)
Affordable
Minolta Colors

negative:

Not aspheric/APO glass
Some zoom creep (but it doesn't bother me)

comment:

I wanted a 70/75-300mm to use outdoors/in good light as a long zoom that would be lighter to carry than my Tam 70-200 2.8. I waited, and waited, and waited for the Tam 70-300 Di VC USD to be released, and finally decided that something was better than nothing. As fate would have it, I got an email notifying me that a camera vendor was accepting pre-orders for the Tamron lens less than a week after the Minolta "New" arrived...

My copy was on an auction website and I was able to get it for what I thought was a fair price. I considered the Big Beercan only briefly, (I turned in my very good copy of the Beercan due to its weight, and I felt that it balanced poorly on my a350). Reviews of other lenses in this zoom range all seemed to be tragically flawed, and many were noted to become "soft" approaching 300mm.

Regarding CA- it is there in high contrast scenes. It is tamed moderately by stopping down to f11 or so. I'm getting better at correcting this defect in PP, and it isn't so bad that I would get rid of it over this right now.

Zoom creep can happen if you are holding the lens in either vertical orientation, but hasn't been an issue in normal use and in walking around with it.

I have noticed that the lens seems to over expose a bit at 300mm. I'm not sure if this is flare that I'm seeing, but setting my a580 to underexpose by 2/3 stops seems to bring the image back to where it needs to be.

Overall, I am very satisfied with this lens, and I have no plans to use it as a trade in for either the Sony G or the Tam USD. My bias in liking my having at least one Minolta legacy lens in my bag should be acknowledged. But I will follow that admission with a strong assertion that I would not hang onto any lens if it didn't assist me in making pleasant images (translation: "I'm not going to keep a stinker.") I would say that the summation of its cost balanced against what it can do makes it a solid value. I view it as a very good lens for image quality, with its only significant shortcoming being issues with CA/PF.

Overall a great budget zoom.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: CYiSon   review date: June-01-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 / 3.5-4.5
Minolta 70-210 / 4
Minolta 75-300 / 4.5-5.6 (Big Beer)
Minolta 75-300 / 4.5-5.6 D
Sigma - 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro
Minolta - AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 APO (D)

price paid:

HKD1000 = USD128

positive:

1. Light Weight compare to Big Beer ( 865g vs 500g)
2. High C/P
3. Sharp after F/8
4. Nice Bokeh
5. High AF speed (Using it on A55/A850)
6. Nice Color

negative:

1. Have purple fringing (not too much, within acceptable range), but you can use software remove it easily
2. Not sharp when wide open (I don’t mean soft)
3. The hood is not easy to install and remove it
4. No IF, the front element will rotate when focusing, not to easy to use CPL
5. Max. magnification: just only 1:4 , but Sigma - 70-300 F4-5.6 DG APO Macro have 1:2
6. Not circular aperture

comment:

Light weight; easy to carry; cheap are the reasons I buy this lens. I always use it for taking wildlife: birds, butterfly, dragonfly ; and concert.
I think this lens is better than other Minolta / Sony 70(75)-300 lenses (apart from Sony 70-300G, but it is quite expensive, at least 5 times of this lens) in performance.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: ACMCRaindog   review date: May-20-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f4
100-200 f4.5
75-300 (Sony)
75-300 (KM last re-issue)
75-300 (Big Beercan)

positive:

Lighter than the Big Beercan
Seems to focus faster than the BBC
Has focus hold switch
Sharp and reasonably sharp at 300mm
Rubber grips wider (specially on the focus ring)

negative:

Has some CA specially at the 300mm
Rubber grips remind me too much of rubber erasers
Like any old zoom, it hunts in low light

comment:

I feel compelled to say that this is as or even possibly sharper than the BBC mostly cause its easier to handle and hold than the BBC, less prone to tired arms that seek to stabilize a shot.

The CA isnt as harsh or obvious as with the Beercan (70-210) or 100-200 but its there just so you know.

I'd choose this over the BBC specially on trips when I have to pack light and still need a zoom lens my usual compliment is the 35-70 f/4 and this 75-300.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: d-sniper   review date: January-03-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- kit 18-70
- minolta 28-85

price paid:

130 USD (2nd hand)

positive:

- Cheap
- light weight
- sharp (reasonably sharp at 300)
- contrast, color

negative:

- little strong CA at 300
- apperture quickly fall down to 5,6

comment:

Like this lens so much. Best as big beercan successor and other Sony or minolta lens with same focal range don't have enough good image quality (especially in sharpness).
Sony kit n 28-85 were not in same class, but i think this lens is much better than both. I take so much good picture with this lens. Only serious problem is much PF in long end. But it could be avoided by stopping down to f/8.
I wanna buy 80-200 or 70-200 f2.8 someday, but eventough i own professional telelens, i wouldnt sell this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: EmlD   review date: November-06-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-250mm f3,5-6,3
Sony 70-300G SSM f/4,5-5,6
Minolta 28-135mm f4-4,5
Minolta 70-210mm f4
Minolta 50mm f1,7

price paid:

76 EUR

positive:

sharp, light, full-frame, color, metal mount, focus-hold button

negative:

slow AF, CA(PF)

comment:

Bought it before I bought the Sony 70-300G. After some tests on a700 noticed almost the same sharpness. Minolta has PF wide open, less if stoped down.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: November-05-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 75-300 (Big Beercan)

price paid:

67 GBP

positive:

Cost - Value for money
Stunning IQ

negative:

Nothing apart from some PF at larger apertures in very bright contrasty situations

comment:

Super lens, lightweight alternative to Big Beercan.

I did some quick test shots with this and the Big Beercan:

Sharpness:-

Big Beercan sharper below f7.1, above F7.1 'New' sharper.

Big Beercan has slightly better bokeh.

Colour rendition - identical.

Flare - identical (Both need hood)

Distortion - Not noticeable in either.

Of course, these observations relate to the sample copies in my possession and other samples may produce different results.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: rockrom   review date: September-03-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-300 d
70-210 f4

positive:

Not too heavy, quite sharp, nice colour.

negative:

None yet.

comment:

What a find, love the lens it not only takes great shots as a tele but it takes great flower shots from a metre from my feet.

Find i am reaching to take this out over the beercan, more reach and lighter.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Matt Fairview   review date: August-12-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 70-300mm LD
Sigma 100-300mm EX DG
Beercan
KM 18-70 kit lens

price paid:

80 GBP

positive:

- sharp
- light weight
- compact
- inexpensive
- focus hold

negative:

- slow AF
- frequently hunts
- CA prone
- not very fast
- poor focus ring

comment:

For the money, I don’t think that I could fault this lens and it served me very well with my KM 5D. Colour, contrast have always pleased me, and bokeh is ok too. Getting a copy of this lens made me realise how awfully soft my 18-70 kit lens and Tamron 70-300 LD were. Great as a travel zoom due to its compactness and light weight; I only replaced it when my photography started to demand a lens that would focus more quickly and accurately and give better results in low light.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: paso144   review date: May-26-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan
big beercan

price paid:

85 euro

positive:

Sharp.
Build quality.
Weight.
Price.

negative:

None for the price

comment:

Just like the 70-210 F/3.5 - F/4.5 a worthy successor to it's beercan range predecessor. The lens is sharp stopped down a bit and it's build is quite good for it's weight. If you're not a sucker for the beercan range like me, I would certainly prefer this over the big beercan. Saves you half the money and your back.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: awa54   review date: May-06-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 100-200 f4.5
Sigma 90 f2.8 macro
Min 35-70 f4

price paid:

75 USD

positive:

Sharp
Great color
Excellent build quality (light but solid)
Nice range
Almost C/A free
Nice smooth boke
No zoom creep

negative:

Slow-ish max aperture (what do you expect for the weight/cost though?)
Focus frequently hunts at the long end with busy subjects
If there is an area with a sharp contrast division in the image, there WILL be PF!!

comment:

The 3 given for distortion is due to the PF issues this lens suffers from, actual linear distortion is only moderate with slight but detectable pincushion throughout the range **(revision; pincushion distortion is noticeable in most shots with straight lines...definitely *not* a lens for architecture shots if you care about straight lines).

I am very impressed with the capability of this lens, however it's a pixel peeper's nightmare, since every image that has even moderate contrast divisions (areas of adjacent high and low brightness) will have an accompanying purple fringe... in many images this issue is something you might never notice, but given the right subject the fringe can be huge and extremely distracting **(after some more shots in varying light I have to say that although the PF is in most shots, it only detracts from a small percentage of "normal" scenes, with the majority of pictures only showing this flaw upon magnification. The place where it is most visible is on a white area that is adjacent to a darker area, colored areas tend not to show in a way that detracts from the image much).

There I got it out of my system...now for the good points:

Even at 300mm this lens is fairly sharp wide open and sharpens up even more stopped down a bit. As anyone who has used a 300mm lens will undoubtedly know, it's a bear to hand hold a 450mm equivalent lens even in open daylight without softening images a bit due to camera shake, in addition the f5.6 max aperture at 300mm means you need *bright* daylight to be able to get any appreciable DOF without risking shake.

The focus hold button is a cool addition, but if the lens is missing focus or hunting I prefer to switch to MF as the wide rubberized focus ring makes doing it "the old way" easier than it is with 1st gen. Maxxum lenses. ** another note, shooting into the sun with this lens only rarely produces colored discs and contrast is not reduced as much as with the 100-200 and 35-70.

** for some reason the PF seems to be more visible on images made with the a700 than ones taken by my 5D. Part of this may be due to metering differences; the 5D underexposes a bit compared with the a700 (at least mine does on the scenes I shot with both to test this lens), this lead me to try underexposing by 2/3 stop when using the 75-300 in high contrast situations on the a700, which I believe minimizes PF somewhat.

** update....after at least fifty more images taken I am still at a loss to predict which images will have PF that detracts from the capture, I have actually gotten hot backlit subjects which showed PF in one frame and didn't in the next...go figure?!?

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: March-30-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f4
Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6
Sony 55-200 f4-5.6 SAM 55200-2

price paid:

62 GBP (used)

positive:

Great IQ
Extremely sharp above f7.1
Typical Minolta colour
Comparitively lightweight
Inexpensive
Range

negative:

PF in bright contrasty conditions at larger aperture.
Without lens hood - Flare!

comment:

Above f7.1, sharper than the beercans, but not qite as good in low light conditions.

The 55-200 is sharper than the lot between 70-210 at similar apertures - very underated lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: dosaa   review date: January-01-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

big beercan

positive:

weight
sharpness
zoom lock

negative:

build q
no limiter

comment:

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Yonis   review date: November-19-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70mm Sony Kit lens.

price paid:

$60 Aus (Used)

positive:

Useful range in addition to 18-70 Kit lens
Manual focus ring is smooth
Focus Hold button
Focus Length dial.
Price
Colours come out nice.

negative:

Loses sharpness at long end (Still Useable though)
Lens Creep (understandable for price lens)
Grip has come out of groove on my version
Autofocus hunts a lot in low light
Minimum focusing distance at 1.5m.

comment:

You get what you pay for in this lens. It's range is great when you're getting started and getting to understand what type of photography you like. Autofocus can be a bit of a problem at the start but it can be worked around after a bit of experimentation. I have managed to get some reasonable bird shots with the lens.

I would definitely suggest this lens to anyone starting out and wants a big zoom. It is not a bad lens at all. The 55mm end is useful because it's easy to find a filter.

The is actually very good for portraits as long as there is enough light. A lot of space is needed though due to the 1.5m minimum focus distance. The apeture is only 4.5 at the short end too so outdoors in the day it works well.

Overall, for anyone wanting a big lens and wants it on the cheap I would suggest this lens. It doesn't have many shortcomings for the price and is very hand to have in the kit.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: nickepic   review date: July-26-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70 F4
Sony DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6

price paid:

700 sek~80 USD(used)

positive:

Sharp
Lightweight
Colors
Great overall image quality

negative:

Much purple fringing in high contrast
1.5m focus distance
AF quite slow at fully zoomed in
Focus hunts in low light

comment:

I like this lens alot and got many great pics with it.
To remove some of the annoying purple fringing I lower the purple saturation in lightroom.

You can look at some of my photos taken with this lens at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickepic/tags/minolta753001995new/

Also some product photos of the lens at:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickepic/tags/minoltaaf75300f4556new/

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Gianni-xxl   review date: July-21-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

16/105 - 50f1.7 - 100/200 - Beercan - 70/300Soligor

price paid:

106 €uro (Come nuovo)

positive:

Peso piuma, Colore, Nitidezza, Contrasto, Costruzione, Linea Moderna

negative:

Aberrazioe Cromatica presente solo sul grigio metallico ma non sempre

comment:

Sono veramente felice di questa lente, sono felice di essermi disfatto di 2 copie di Beercan. La mia copia c praticamente nuova. Ho notato che a differenza di altri il mio 75/300New possiede una tonalita abbastanza fredda. La resa c ottima anche se oltre i 210mm tenta a diminuire ma rimanendo sempre a livelli piu che accettabili. La cosa che mi soddisfa maggiormente c che la sua resa ottimale inizia gir alla massima apertura. Lo sfocato c carino. L'AF c accettabile. Possiede saltuariamente dell'Aberrazione Cromatica ma purtroppo a questo prezzo non potevo trovare di meglio, inoltre si manifesta solo sul grigio metallico e molto di rado.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: alphafreak   review date: July-07-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

75-300 sony Kit

price paid:

120 USD

positive:

Light , Good Build , Good IQ

negative:

non for it's price

comment:

for those unwilling to shell out $800 for the G lens , This is next best

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: shendra   review date: June-15-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Konica Minolta 75-300mm D
Minolta 100-300mm

price paid:

160 USD

positive:

nice range of zoom
compact and usefull for light travelling

negative:

plastic feel on the body of the lens

due to the long range, small shake will affect the image very much.

comment:

I like the lens for the simplicity and lightness of the body, and very usefull when I feel like to travel light with a long range lense.

The images produce by the lens is sharp compare to the newer lens, produced by Konica Minolta 75-300D. With its price that is a bit cheaper than the Konica Minolta, it is a worth to buy lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Shootist   review date: May-31-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan 70-210
Little Beercan 100-200
Big Beercan 75-300
75-300 “New”
Sony 55-200 Bundled lens

price paid:

$120

positive:

Light, Sharp, and Compact

negative:

It's a plastic experience

Prices almost caught up with Beercan

comment:

I did a somewhat formal shootout of these 5 lenses; prices are with shipping/tax/all costs included:

Beercan 70-210 paid $140
Little Beercan 100-200 paid $85
Big Beercan 75-300 Paid $180
75-300 “New” Paid $120
Sony 55-200 DT Bundle lens (The Tamron re-labeled) included with my A350

I went through a bit of trouble in doing this but am not sure there is really enough differences to report or if those differences are just due to my copies. That said, here are my results shooting on a tripod at f5.6 and 250 shutter on a new Alpha 350:

1. Big Beercan won for Bokeh and took 2nd place in sharpness
2. The “New” 75-300” surprised as noted around here a few times…1st in sharpness and 2nd in Bokeh. Nice and light, the sensible choice but…you got to admit the beercans have that beercan “thing” about them…Also – I paid $120 for this lens so…they’re not the big bargain they once were.
3. The Beercan came in 3rd in sharpness, but it must be said that the top 3 lenses were nearly identical in sharpness. This lens took best photo “feel” and color though – and strangely – it may be the one I keep, go figure. I know, not very scientific : ( This lens really does live up to its hype. Mine is all beat up and looks like hell but WOW – those dings did NOT touch the IQ!
4. Little Beer Can…after reading here I guess this lens is soft at f5.6 so….take what you want from this. Still, I did plenty of shooting and this lens marked the only consistent and true drop off from the pack. You could almost take your pick of the top 3 and maybe never know the difference. This is the only one I’m sure to sell. It’s small size doesn’t do me much good – if I’ve busted out the camera bag and the a350 then I’m committed to being encumbered – and I certainly, certainly wouldn’t pick THIS lens as my walk-around shooter…hah.
5. Well, the SONY DT is obviously outmatched here but…it’s sharp really. My main issue with this lens is how cold it’s photos are. Yeah modern lenses kill flare and fringe and tweak the light around but…unless you’re a soccer Mom (I’m a classically trained armature photographer) the best results from this lens are just ho-hum. That’s tantamount to preaching to the choir on a site like this, I know ; )

That’s it….take what you want from this and feel free to contact me. I’m selling off a few of these because it’s kind of expensive owning them all (and a bit greedy since they overlap) so I won’t be able to do this again probably.

-Shootist

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: joel22484   review date: May-13-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Big Beercan
Sony 55-200

price paid:

$130 used

positive:

Sharp
Small
Light
Cheap
Focus Hold

negative:

None for the price.

comment:

Maybe it's just me, but I am finding this lens and the 3 other lenses I have in this range to perform about the same.

The Big Beercan and this lens are the closest in details (exactly the same really) except one is metal and old, and one is new and plastic.

If I had to choose one to stick with...I don't really know which one I would choose, but probably this one because it's lighter and cheaper. I couldn't make up my mind, so I'm selling both and bought a 70-300G :)

I compared this directly with the 3 other lenses listed above and all were quite sharp, had pretty much the same colors, all created decent bokeh. I don't know if I am not picky enough, but those are my findings. This is a great lens IMHO for the price (I overpaid and they can be found for quite a bit less).

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: petesidewalk   review date: March-25-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

K/M 75-300 Big Beercan
K/M 35-70 4
Sony 18-70 Kit Lens
K/M 50 1.7
K/M 70-210 4.5-5.6
K/M 70-210 4 Beercan
K/M 28 2.8
K/M 28-80xi
K/M 28-135 4-4.5
K/M 35-70 3.5-4.5
Tamron 200-400 5.6 LD NEW
Sigma 75-200 2.8-3.5
Deitz 28-200
Tamron 20-35 3.5-4.5
KM 100-400 4.5-6.7
Tamron 28-75 2.8
KM 50 3.5 Macro
KM 35-105 3.5-4.5
KM 24-105 3.5-4.5
Sigma 18 3.5
Sony 70-400 4-5.6 G
K/M 80-200 2.8 G
K/M 75-300 4.5-5.6 NEW
Tamron 300 2.8 LD IF

price paid:

140.00 USD

positive:

Lighter
smaller
55mm filter
sharp
range
bokeh colors

negative:

hard to find a good copy
a little CA
a little flare

comment:

I did a side to side comparison at 300mm with this lens and a big beercan. The Big beercan is sharper at larger apertures up to about F9, at F13 the new one was slightly sharper. The beercan has *slightly* better color. This is a lot easier to travel with and focus is close between the two. Thanks

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: dca1213   review date: March-24-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 Beercan
Tamron 70-300

price paid:

120 USD used

positive:

weight
size

negative:

CA, Soft at 300, did I mention CA?

comment:

There is an echo in this room, like the previous reviewer I too read the earlier reviews and had high expectations for this lens only to be disappointed by it's performance.

Perhaps it's sample variability but this lens has some of the worst CA I have ever seen and I thought the cheap Tamron was bad. I do most of my shooting early in the day or late in the afternoon to take advantage of the suns angle and the purple fringing on this lens is everywhere. Even on light colored twigs laying on the ground.

Do not attempt to us this lens in high contrast situations, keep the sun at your back and shoot in the shade if possible.

The lens is reasonably sharp at f8 and f11 however at 300mm it gets soft regardless of the f stop. It out performs the Tamron in sharpness and colors but little else.

This is the worst performing Minolta lens that I own.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 4 

user: jvandegr   review date: March-15-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5
Sony 70-300mm f/4.5 - 5.6 G
Minolta 28-135 f/4.0 - 4.5
Nikon 300mm f/4.0 AF-S
Minolta 300mm f/4.0 APO

price paid:

$125 (near mint)

positive:

Decent build quality
Inexpensive
Light weight
Relatively compact

negative:

Strong spherical aberration
Strong chromatic aberration
Manual focus ring not smooth
Zoom ring not smooth
Small maximum aperture
Focus hunts a lot in low light
Somewhat slow autofocus

comment:

I had high hopes for this lens based on the reviews here. Unfortunately, its limitations are too significant on modern high resolution digital sensors.

At 300mm, which is the focal length that most users buy this lens for, its performance is seriously compromised by strong spherical and chromatic aberration (this is why I gave it a score of 2 in the distortion category). Even stopped down to f/8, these problems do not improve. Unfortunately, neither are correctable in Lightroom or other photo editing software. The Sony 70-300mm G is much better at 300mm than this lens. From 75mm - 200mm, this lens is fairly sharp wide open, but certainly not deserving of a sharpness rating of 5, as some other reviews have indicated. Aberrations are better controlled in this focal range. By f/11, center sharpness is very good, but it still can't compete with any of my primes. Edge sharpness is good (definitely not excellent), when it's not be destroyed by aberrations. My Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 is much sharper at all focal lengths and apertures, and has nowhere near the aberration problems of this lens.

Focus performance also leaves much to be desired. The autofocus hunts a lot in low light at all apertures. At any focal length, this is my slowest focusing Minolta lens. So, I decided to mostly use the manual focus ring. Unfortunately, its movement is not very smooth or precise, requiring a bit of work to get it right. If you need fast and reliable autofocus, this is not your lens.

Flare is reasonably well controlled, but does rear its ugly head every now and then. The small maximum aperture makes this lens really only useful in bright conditions. If you're expecting legacy Minolta colors with this lens, you're going to be disappointed. Only at maximum aperture does it really have colors that approach those of my Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5. All other apertures produce fairly washed out colors, at least for a Minolta lens. Compared to my Nikkor glass, they aren't bad. Despite its mostly plastic build, it is tough enough to suffer some mild abuse, and its relatively low weight makes it easy to carry.

Having said all that, this is one of the better performers for its price, but its optical and focus issues are too substantial to really make it useful. This is a common problem with this design of lens, regardless of the manufacturer, and there aren't many good alternatives.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Bard1   review date: March-13-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300 APO, Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6

price paid:

$120 USD (used)

positive:

very very Sharp stopped down a bit, rich color that is as true to nature as I have seen with any lens except the 24-85 RS. quite light for reach, great balance

negative:

A very little CA with high contrast extreme long end enlargements, hunts in low light

comment:

I've only had this lens 7 days and am still learning how to best handle it but I have gotten more keepers already with it than I did in the 8 months I had the Minolta 100-300 APO. I posted an example at 300 mm f16 in forum sample images to illustrate my point. It's the closest I have come to a G class IQ with any of the longer lenses I have tried. I really don't need f2.8 since most of my photography is outdoors. Coupled with the Minolta 24-85 f4.5-5.6 RS, I believe have finally got a light weight combo that will cover 95% of my needs at a quality I am very pleased with. So far CA is the only real drawback I have noticed and that's only a problem in very high contrast situations such as tree branches against blue sky and then only sometimes. I think I can live with that. I may someday feel the need for the Sony 70-300 G. but so far at least, I really wonder if could tell the difference 95% of the time. I have to wonder how much copy to copy variation there is in terms of aberrations. From the reviews on this site, I suspect a good deal.

Update: After several days of extreme efforts( birds in tree tops against a bright sky ) to see how bad the CA issues were with my copy, I am happy to report that they are significantly less than I experienced with the 100-300 APO ( prob. a bad copy). In all but a few extreme cases I found few to no CAs until enlarging images nearly to the max, and even these are partially controllable with PP. I have noticed that any over exposure of high contrast objects causes CAs to appear and conversely, when a photo properly exposed CAs are rare. Also of significance I have experienced NO zoom creep. From examples here on Dyxum it appears to me to be in the same league, IQ wise, as the 70-300G or the big beercan. I recommend holding out for a good copy and if you have major CA or 300 mm end softness issues try another copy. I like this lens better every day.
Update 2: After several months of daily use I continue to be amazed by the IQ of this lens ,so much so that I just boosted my ratings to account for my experience. I wish it were f2,8 but that would make it too heavy.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Derek   review date: March-05-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 100-300 f4.5-5.6
Min 100-300 xi
Sigma 70-300 Apo Macro
Tamron 70-300 LD Di

price paid:

L75

positive:

Sharpness
Colour rendition
IQ
Price

negative:

A little PF in very well lit contrasty shots

comment:

My second review of this lens as my fisrt copy was stolen.
After trying the lenses above I just had to get another one and I picked this up in virtually mint condition.

This copy seems sharper at 300 mm than my previous copy. The PF is nowhere near as bad as on the Minolta 100-300s or the Tamron but this lens is noticeably sharper than those three. The Sigma shows no PF and is nicely sharp. The images just lacked something compared to those produced by this lens.

For the money, I believe it to be the best long zoom you can buy. I would be interested to see a direct comparison between this and the'big beercan'

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: hotrod   review date: March-05-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 35-105mm ( long )Tamron 28-200mm- Tamron 70-300mm LD-DI-sony 18-70mm kit lens

price paid:

$158.00

positive:

sharp-sharp-sharp-good color-very smooth zoom & focus-great build-lots of reach-focus hold switch good looks-not to heavy-very sharp,not to hard to find.

negative:

a little flare off shinny objects-focus hunts in very low light,must stop down a notch in low light for tack sharp IQ,for the price there's really nothing I can't live with.

comment:

I bought this lens on e bay a couple of months ago and for the price it's a GREAT lens , I use it on my A-300 indoors ( on a tripod )and out, it's sharp and stopped down 1 or 2 stops in low light it's tack sharp, my copy is mint in every way. I like it's IQ & Colors enough that I bid on and won another one just like it in case I ever drop one or wear one out, I just hope it can keep up with this one as I have not received it yet, I don't see how it could be any sharper up to 280mm, it resolves down to the core,just a little soft at 300mm. There are 2 versions of this lens, make sure you get the ( new ) not the ( II )( my opinion) This lens will not suit everyones needs to a Tee, but it does me, folks that need a wider lens with lots of reach should consider the sony or tamron 18-250mm.I see some folks rating this lens sharpness at a 3, man they must really have a bad copy. By the way folks, when testing a lens I think everyone should use a tripod, after all we're checking the lens not the camera man ( woman ) you may not be as steady as you think and blame the lens for not being sharp, my camera has I.S.,but I still use a tripod to test a lens indoors and out. It blows the 28-200mm Tamron clean out of the water, the Tamron 70-300mm does a pretty good job for the price, but can't keep up with this lens, the kit lens is a joke, and 35-105mm is a good competitor. Anyway for what it's worth I LOVE mine.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Amphitrite   review date: March-01-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 kit lens

price paid:

85€

positive:

Sharpness
Colours
Weight and size
Build
Zoom range

negative:

CA
Noisy AF

comment:

Warm and saturated Minolta colours and decent sharpness, especially when stopped down a bit. Not too heavy to lug around all day.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Chr_Bra   review date: January-13-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Minolta 28-135

positive:

Sharp
Good Built
Well Balanced
Sheap

negative:

Screw on lens hood

comment:

This is rather embarrassing, I´ve had this lens much longer than my KM 7D but never put it on cause I thought that it couldn’t match the Beercan. Well the old boy might lead when it comes to colours, but got it´s ass kicked in sharpness by this youngster. I hade to do a tripod test shooting a detailed money bill at 135 mm to convince myself. I´ve always wanted the Big Beercan (and still do), but now it feels more for nostalgic reasons, I don´t think it can be so much better that it motivates the rather hefty price tags they have. I love to see what it can do when I put it on the a700.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Scar   review date: November-12-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony DT 18-70
Minolta 50 F/1.7
Sigma AF 28-70
Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 II

price paid:

$70.00

positive:

Very sharp
Great colors
Inexpensive
Focus hold button very useful in low light.
Nice Bokeh

negative:

a little slow to focus in low light

comment:

I just got this lens with a Minolta 400si, I am amazed at how sharp this lens is, the colors will WOW you. The weight works great for me because it helps balance the camera and reduces camera shake. Only drawback is that autofocus might be a challenge in low light.

I will certainly recommend this lens

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jakubh70   review date: November-02-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 70-300 APO, APO DG, DG, DL, Minolta APO 100-300, Sony 75-300

price paid:

120USD

positive:

Sharpness all the way, focus hold button, able to make great pictures

negative:

not very fast, CA can be awful

comment:

I'm pleased with the sharpness and contrast of this lens. Sharp wide open at 300mm so you can use aperture for DOF control, getting more and more sharpness. It is not apochromatic lens, CA appears if you overexpose contrasty objects.
Sigma's 70-300's are faster in 70-160mm range, but over 200mm this lens is much sharper and gives contrast and colour Sigma's don't have. Also sharper than Minolta 100-300 APO in F5,6-F8 range, I think at F11 these lenses are comparable. Zoom ring could be better, it feels too plasticky - but it won't go loose like those in newer Minolta zooms. After all, great buy for the price, probably the best 300mm you can get at price under $200.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: worbit   review date: October-24-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SAL 16-80 /f3.5-4.5
Min 70-210 /f3.5-4.5
Tamron 35-105 /f2.8

price paid:

90 USD (used)

positive:

Saturated color
Nice bokeh
Very sharp from 70-250mm
Focus hold switch

negative:

Slow auto focus and hunt in low light
1.5m focus distance
Some CA at long end

comment:

This lens is light and feels solid. Focus hold switch is very useful in sport or racing, since its auto focus speed is low. At 70mm, it’s good as my SAL 16-80mm and Tamron 35-105mm. It is better than my 70-210 /3.5-4.5 in sharpness and color. I always travel with 16-80 and this lens. This combination covers from 16-300mm with good results.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Derek   review date: July-29-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5

price paid:

L80

positive:

Sharp
Colour

negative:

Auto-focus speed

comment:

Excellent performance for this range. Very similar results to the 70-210, a lens I believe to be underrated. However this lens seems slightly better in terms of sharpness and of course it has the extra reach.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: ICE29   review date: July-26-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210/4 beercan
CZ 16-80
Minolta 28-75

price paid:

150 USD

positive:

very good sharpness, better than BC, light, cheap

negative:

noisy and slow AF (slower than beercan), a little lower sharpness @300mm, some purple fringing @300mm

comment:

I got this lens some years ago, and it has been my only telephoto lens (since I didn't shoot much tele anyway). Light, so good for hiking.
Ok, after a year of using both beercan and this, I can say beercan is less sharp, more heavy, but has better bokeh and faster focus

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: glass-hoper   review date: June-22-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tamron 24-135
beercan

price paid:

80 usd ? not sure

positive:

lightweight
good reach
nice colors

negative:

slow
not really sharp wide open
build

comment:

very nice lens overall: cheap (can not remember the exact price - second hand), good reach, acceptable build quality (less so than the BC), nice colors and boketh, very good performance in good light - very sharp stepped down a touch.

decent AF speed, some flare wide open. the hood is very useful but on my lens is a pain to take it off...

very good value for the money - would not part with mine even if I don't use it frequently. (keeps me from buying the ssm G that I don't really need anyways ;)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mountainhunter   review date: June-12-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 70-300 4-5,6 APO DG Macro

price paid:

100€(used but mint)

positive:

Lightweigt, very sharp

negative:

noisy AF

comment:

I got this lens, to compare it with the Sigma 70-3004-5.6 Apo DG, as that lens has proven to be a dissappointment. Not at all sharp, and dull colors as far as I'm concerned.

I only got this lens today, the weather has been terrible, but I managed to take advantage of half an hour of dry weather to go outside and test it. And I'm glad I bought it. Nice colors, and much sharper, even wide open. I used the sigma for over half a year, tried just about anything, and never managed to get any shots i really liked. First 30 shots i take with the Minolta, and there's a few good ones in the batch.

I'll try and update this review as I keep using this lens, but if you're looking for this zoom range, and you come across one of these lenses, don't hesitate.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: peaches   review date: May-19-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-50 (kit lens)
50 f/1.7

price paid:

found (in family)

positive:

range
colors
bokeh
sharpness (depending on me)
build

negative:

on the heavy/big side

comment:

I got the 350 last week when I realized I could use the old Minolta lenses I had from a long time ago (well, my dad did). I have a Fuji S9000, mainly bought for the macro ability, so I tend to view everything from its ability to provide sharp detail (I favor macro). The 75-300 does deliver in that regard, but because of the weight, I'm still struggling to keep a steady hand. When I can, the results are amazing - from f/5.6-11 (all I've worked with so far and I'm used to shooting at f/2.8, ISO 80 constantly on the fuji), fantastic color, sharpness, and what beautiful, beautiful bokeh. I should maybe mention, too, that I haven't changed from ISO 100 (and probably won't unless it's completely impractical). So I've only been shooting outdoors in daylight to dusk. It's been a long time since I've used this lens and we need to become better-acquainted, but just a few days out, I'm very pleased. I'll edit this as I work with it more, and want to get some sample images up as soon as I can. I can't find dad's old beercan, but comparing what I've gotten right off the bat, I think this one's going to fill its place just fine (if not better).

AF is fine, but depending on how close I am to the subject (and a lot of times I am as close as I can get), MF is better (faster) and I have no problem with that. I prefer MF anyhow, and also notice that I'm not using Live View but the viewfinder, instead. I wish I could see DOF in the viewfinder, but have been very happily surprised when I check the display to see how well we did after a shot.

I should mention, too, that I haven't used the kit lens at all, really, so I can't say I'm comparing the two. I also have the 50 f/1.7 and while I'm extremely pleased with its results - I love that these old lenses still work! - I'm not making a comparison there, either. It's simply a great, classic lens, that will produce fantastic results as soon as the person behind the camera (me) can consistently (that's the key here) master it!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: PeterB   review date: April-23-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 70-300 LD Di Macro
Minolta 100-200
Minolta 70-210 (4.5/5.6)
Sigma 400mm 5.6

price paid:

$89.00

positive:

Sharp, reasonable macro, good balance & weight

negative:

it's longer then I realize, AF a little slow.

comment:

This is a great lens and I'll get another one just in case I hit a post with it. I currently like to shoot a lot of stuff at minimal distance @300 and I keep forgetting it's about 16" long at that setting. It's sharp at 300mm! I compared it to the latest model Tamron which I send back last week after getting this one. The Tamron was soft past 250 and "fluffy" :-) at 300.
The color is great and right on the money. Almost never needs work.

The AF is not setting any speed records. I don't use AF for close up anyway. There is probably a G APO lens that's accurate 100% of the time but I won't trade-in my car for it.

I also tested it with some moon shots against the Sigma 400 (none APO) and a 500mm mirror. The enlarged 300mm picture blew away the others at any f stop - no contest. Definitely my preferred nature lens for anything with a pulse, eyes, feet or wings... at least until I can afford a Minolta 100-400. I won't sell it anytime soon.

Conclusion: A great lens for $200 and super for <$100.00. Thanks to the Dyxum reviewers for talking me into this one.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Hoffy   review date: February-19-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f4 (beercan)

price paid:

Came with 303si

positive:

Focus Hold button
Sharpness
Weight & size
Build

negative:

CA in high Contrast photos
F5.6 pretty early in the range

comment:

This lens came with a 303si Super that I bought in the mid 90's.

Takes nice sharp photos. AF is OK (I have learnt to use it in Motorsport with a reasonable success rate).

Much easier lens to lug around then the beercan. If it was a F4, or F4.5 longer in the range, it would be hard to choose between the 2

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: nabreu   review date: December-14-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70
Sony 75-300

price paid:

75€

positive:

Nice range
Sharp
Built quality

negative:

Some CA
Not so fast AF

comment:

My first A100 got stolen and with it i lost my Sony 75-300.
I didn´t like that lens very well especially because of the built quality so when i got my new A100 i wen´t and searched for an alterative and found this lens.
It delivers a bit more CA than the Sony but the built quality and image quality compesates.
I like it much more than the Sony.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: cuzz57   review date: March-20-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 Beercan

price paid:

100.00 (used)

positive:

Build
Quality
Focus Hold Button
Zoom Range

negative:

Nothing

comment:

This lens is fantastic. The phots are crisp and the color is true. I think this lens can easily compete with the quality of the 70-210 Beercan. Both of these lens are legendary lens and if you can find one, Grab it. Oh yeah, the focus hold button is extremely useful...

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: peterVL57   review date: February-21-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 70-210 f4 (beercan)

price paid:

70 euro (used)

positive:

Well build and yet not heavy, sharpness, nice warm minolta colors, good range

negative:

flare control

comment:

I bought this lens at a very low price and it's really been a good bargain. Compared to the famous "beercan" I think it's really good. Although the "beercan" is really supersharp in it's total range, it's sometimes hard to tell which lens makes the sharpest pictures at 210 mm. Your pictures will have warmer colors with this lens( whether you like that or not is a matter of taste ) is smaller and not so heavy as the "bearcan", and has a longer range ofcourse. There is some CA but this lens performes better in this area then the "beercan" does. The "beercan" has f4 throughout the whole range, which is a strong point over this lens.
Overall this is a very fine lens, considering the price.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: TomekG   review date: September-12-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

90$

positive:

Bulid, super sharpness at 200 - still good at 300mm, color, AF/MF hold button. 55mm filter.
0,5kg of weight.

negative:

Prone to CA.

comment:

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: omerbey   review date: January-23-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f:4
tokina atx 80-200

price paid:

200 usd years ago

positive:

sharpness, price, weight and size.

negative:

noisy, flimsy build.

comment:

A nice lens with ok autofocus speed (slower on 7d). bokeh is nice. colors are good minolta colors.
slightly warm.

I favor this over the 70-210 f:4 for the extra reach and weight. I gain one full stop when shooting with this rather than 70-210
its as sharp as tokina at f:8

flare is issue. Sometimes even with the hood. The flare lowers contrast drastically.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Cleanmaxx Brian   review date: December-17-05  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Konica Minolta - AF 80-200 / 4.5-5.6

positive:

Nice range and not too heavy. Good build quality with metal mount. 55mm filter. I really like this lens! Very sharp too. Available used for under $150 US

negative:

Some CA ut not too bad. Wish it was f4

comment:

I really like this lens. The picture quality can be very impressive especially for the price! 300mm is a nice reach for me...much better than the 210.