Minolta AF 100-200mm F4.5 A-mount lens review by transiently
|transiently#36831 date: Apr-12-2017|
flare control: 3
|ownership:||I used to own this lens|
|compared to:||Minolta 75-300 "big beercan". At the time (early 90's), I found that the images I shot on film (back to back, in a reasonably controlled test) with the bigger lens had better contrast and a look which pleased me more, good as the 100-200 was.|
|price paid:||I cannot remember|
|positive:||Good sharpness. Small size. Light weight.|
|negative:||Very long minimum focus distance.|
|comment:||I had what the shop called a "show stock" example of this lens, boxed as new, during the early 90's. |
I liked it, but I didn't love it. Images were sometimes a bit flat-looking, even when they were sharp. Based on some side-by-side testing I did in the early 90's, my example pleased me less than the 75-300 "big beercan", so I sold or traded it.
From what people are saying about it now, my preference for the bigger lens's imaging qualities is not typical. Maybe I will revisit this one. I have not used one for about a quarter of a century! It is almost certainly as good as the 70-210 3.5-4.5 which replaced the beercan, despite probably retaining for less then half its price when new. I think they compete well on size and weight, too.
I can't really remember much about the distortion or flare performance, so have guessed a little with those.