Comparision test Sony 70-400 vs.Minolta 400mm F4.5

Message Topic Search Topic Options Post Reply Create New Topic Printable Version Translate Topic

   The lens test was done on Sunday April 19th 2009 in cooperation with Michael, Gustav Kiburg, and Hans Brinkel. Michael kuijpers brought his Minolta 400mm F4.5 and Gustav his Sony 70-400 G lens together with his 1.4 tele converter. Hans provided accessoires, test cases, and the test location.

Why this test?

Currently, there are not too many tele prime lenses available for the Sony photographer. Only the top Minolta prime lenses from the past (all G glass) offer a good alternative. Sony only recently started selling a 300mm F2.8 prime (note: in Europe?) of outstanding quality but also quite pricey. In the meantime, Sony did announce a 500mm F4.5 lens for 2009. (note: or is this still a rumor?)

In 2008, Sony started selling a 70-400mm F4-F5.6 telezoom lens which is currently available for around 1325 Euro. We consider a used Minolta 400mm F4.5 as a good alternative for that lens. However, the used Minolta prime lenses are fairly rare and hard to get. Depending on the state and accessoires of the price for a used 400mm is about 1600-2000 euro. 

In this test, we only tested at 400mm. The image quality of a telezoom is generally at its worst at the extreme range so it should give a good impression. The big question for us was how well the new telezoom that is specifically designed for the new digital cameras would do with respect to one of the highest quality tele prime lenses from the Minolta stable. And can we consider the Sony telezoom as a serious alternative for the more expensive used Minolta prime?

Of course, all of this in consideration with the newly announced Sony wide aperture and hopefully cheaper tele prime lenses.

Weather:

The weather was sunny without clouds but with considerable wind. The wind porbably had a small influence on the used test materials (i.e. plastic birds on a stick). Nevertheless, with the sunny weather and by using a good tripod, the differences are fairly small -- and in the real world birds generally don't sit still either  :-) 

Camera settings on the A700:

White balance was Sunny

2 second shutter delay (= mirror lockup)

Raw capture

Adobe RGB

Manual mode preferring Aperture and no exposure compensation (0,0EV) (with exception for the auto focus test).

ISO 200

Spot metering

AF: spot AF field

Post processing:

Adobe photoshop lightroom 1.4

All photos were processed in an identical way

Whitebalance: daylight

Sharpening: 95

Detail: 30

General conclusions:

The Minolta prime from 1995 is still a performing very well. With regard to image quality in generally still beats the Sony 70-400 from 2008. In itself, this is not a big surprise. What is a surprise is how small the differences between the two lenses are. On short distances of about 7 meters (21 feet), the differences are extremely small. The Minolta prime wins on longer distances where the differences become somewhat larger.

During the testday, I did notice that teh Sony had more trouble with the bright light on this sunny day, and the some photos are somewhat over exposed. Of course, this is also part of learning to handle this particular lens.

The weight of the Minolta is 1920 grams while the Sony is 1500 grams. The Minolta is also slightly more difficult to handle when shooting without a tripod due to the longer length. The Sony is more compact and in my opinion quite usable when shooting without tripod during daylight. Of course, a tripod is in general the best alternative.

The most important difference between both lenses is in my opinion the difference in shutter speed for equal aperture values. The Sony sometimes has significantly longer shutter speeds as the Minolta. I don't have a technical explanation for this.. perhaps someone knows?

Minolta 400 F4.5

Pros:

- Maximum aperture

- Better shutter speeds

- Slightly sharper at 400mm and at 560mm with a TC

- Solid metal construction

- Autofocus delimiter 

Cons:

- Rare and only available on the used market

- More expensive as the Sony 70-400

- The Minolta circular drop-in polarizer filter is very hard to get and very expensive. A polarizer might be needed for BIF or reflections on the water during fowl photography)

- The white paint easily chips (as is usually the case for the Minolta prime lenses)

- Need a tripod

Sony 70-400 F4-F5.6

Pros:

- Cheaper as the Minolta (about 650 euro cheaper)

- Available as new

- Can zoom from 70-400mm

- Compact enough to photograph without tripod

- Autofocus is silent and accurate (SSM)

Cons:

- No autofocus with the teleconverter

- Price difference of Sony 1.4 tc with respect to Canon

- Solid build, but not as good as the Minolta

- A plastic hood (but this does save weight)

Final conclusion

Those who want the best result still need to go with the faster Minolta lens, or have to have more patience until Sony releases a 400mm F4.5 prime lens. Even in that case, the price difference might be steep between the Sony 400mm prime and the Minolta 400mm prime. It is also hard to find a Minolta 400mm prime on the used market.

Those who choose to be mobile and would like the convenience of a zoom lens, will choose for the Sony 70-400mm. The Sony zoom is very close in image quality to the Minolta prime which is a great achievement. Moreover, the lower price of the Sony is something to consider. ($1600 versus $2400-$3000)

Finally, I would like to thank Gustav and Michael for the help during the test day and for providing their precious lenses. With their help, this test could not have been done.

Good luck with your choice, and enjoy making the photos,

hans brinkel , gustav kiburg

Edited by ijsvogel - 08 May 2009 at 19:42

Comparision test Sony 70-400 vs.Minolta 400mm F4.5

Cameras

Lenses

Accessories

Learning

Articles

Computer Related

Contests

Challenges

Meetings

DPC hall of fame

Last lens reviews

New forum posts

Last 200 forum topics

Last 200 forum posts

Active forum polls