Minolta AF 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 APO A-mount lens reviews
 japp#45798 date: Dec-21-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 75-300mm minolta 70-210 beercan |
| price paid: | €35 with some other |
| positive: | nice length |
| negative: | untill now nothing |
| comment: | this lens blows me away every time i take it with me. the images are so much better than the 75-300! and to be honest this is my first apo lens and am pretty happy i could have this lens for so litle. if you can find it for around €50 bucks it is a lens you schould consider for its size the range and the 'apo' lens elements (for chromatic aboration). P.S. fun fact the lenshood of the minolta beercan can fit on this lens! so if it did not came with one just use your beercan one (if you already have one of course, but why wouldn't you?) |
; 24MP| AVLB#45640 date: Feb-1-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 55-300 Konica Minolta 75-300 |
| price paid: | £42 |
| positive: | Small and lightweight; Sharp at 300mm |
| negative: | Lens creep |
| comment: | This APO lens is truly a lot better than the KM 75-300 in all respects. Looking at some of the reviews here, I wonder if some have been reviewing the standard lens and not the APO version. I have tried this lens on the A850 and A68 and they both perform very well with it. The clarity at 300mm is better than the 55-300 on the A68. This lens will now be my main lens for the A68 and will compliment the 70-400 on the A850. |
| awa54#44063 date: May-20-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 100-200 4.5 Min 75-300 4.5-5.6 RS Min 100 2.8 macro RS Min 135 2.8 Tamron 200-400 5.6 Sigma 300 4 APO macro |
| price paid: | $70 USD |
| positive: | very little C/A extremely light and compact great zoom range useful and easily available hood only subtle differences in performance from short to long ends as expected, this lens has typical Minolta color rendering |
| negative: | doesn't have zoom "creep" so much as zoom "plunge" I wish it was just a tiny bit sharper might actually be *too* light as with many tele-zooms the bokeh could be better |
| comment: | This lens has a lot going for it, but is enough of a compromise that it leaves me wanting more... Praising with faint damns: It's *almost* C/A free, but not quite... extreme conditions coax a bit of fringing out of it It is certainly acceptably sharp and has very respectable edge and corner sharpness on FF, but the 135 prime, 100 macro and 300 prime are definitely sharper at their respective focal lengths. While construction is typical Minolta "new" or RS quality, it would certainly be a nicer lens if the barrel was a bit heavier and the zoom ring had better tension. While I have yet to see colored blobs from intense light sources, the 100-300 APO does suffer some contrast reduction when shot into very bright scenes. Compared to the primes, it's lighter than all but the 135 2.8, though the 135 and 100 are both shorter by a little (and quite a bit compared to its fully extended position). The color is better than the Sigma 300 macro and the Sigma macro only focuses about a foot/30cm closer. It has more C/A than the Sigma 300 and the 100 macro, but less by far than the 135 2.8. Compared to the zooms, it has less C/A than either the 100-200 or 75-300 RS (especially in terms of PF, which plagues the 75-300) and compared to either one, has equal or better sharpness depending on the focal length. In terms of size it falls almost exactly between the 100-200 and the 75-300. The Tamron is much larger, heavier and has significantly worse performance on sharpness and C/A fronts, though it does have more reach... All this said, it's hard to be serious about criticizing a twenty-five year old, sub $100 compact tele-zoom for not providing the same results as multi-thousand dollar pro zooms and primes. Despite it being frustratingly on the cusp of greatness, it's still a well above average performer and a keeper for me, as my go-to walk-around long tele. |
| Miranda F#41976 date: Dec-30-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS Minolta 24-50 f4 Minolta 35-70 f4 & f3.5 Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6 Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-100mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 35-105mm f4-5.6 N Minolta 70-210mm (4 versions including f3.5-4.5) Minolta 100-300mm non-APO. Sony 30mm f2.8 Sony 35mm f1.8 Sony 50mm f1.8 Sony 18-55mm & 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-135mm (tried, not owned) Sony 18-250mm Sony 55-200mm f4-5.6 Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Soligor 60-300mm f4-5.6 Tamron 90mm f2.8 Sigma 28-200mm# Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4 Tamron 28-200mm aspheric Various other wide angle and tele lenses plus MF primes & zooms. |
| price paid: | £50 |
| positive: | Sharp even at full FL Sharp fully open light and more compact than most 300mm zooms or primes Virtually no lateral CA MF is nice when needed works well with TCs works with digital and film cameras Useful on FF and APS-C Works a treat on the LA-EA4 and looks good even at 42Mp. |
| negative: | MFD is a longer than the 70-210. Very little else. On the A7Rii, you can see sometimes see axial or lateral CA on distant fine tree branches but less than most other lenses of the period. |
| comment: | Having tried the non-APO version and liked its size and weight, I wondered if the APO version would kill the CA you always get on 100% crops of film-era lenses. And it does. I use this for birding (it's now my mainstay for this instead of the Sony 55-300 as it plays well with Kenko TCs, unlike the Sony) so it has to cope routinely with heavy crops for those pesky little birds that hide away. And it does very well at this for what is a compact and fairly cheap lens (yes, I expect the f2.8 and f4 beasts would be better, but I don't have them). Shooting jpegs in camera I rarely see any significant lateral CA (okay, occasionally there's some axial CA = bokeh fringing on OOF twigs) but I can't recall having to reject even a heavily-cropped image for CA, which I can certainly not say for the other 300mm-capable film-era zooms I've used. So, no LR profile needed. :-) I tend to use a 1.4x Kenko DGX attached, which replaced an earlier 5-pin one that also worked, and the combination AFs fine at the short end, and in good light at the long end. MF is also good to use (even with the TC) on an EVF camera with either focus peaking or focus magnify, and I sometimes use 1.4x or 2x digital zoom as well which doesn't improve the resolution much (if any) but helps to align the focus square and the exposure. Is a TC actually worthwhile on a cheap 300mm zoom? Good question. Most film-era zoom lenses reaching 300mm at f5.6 barely show much improvement in resolution and do show lots of CA, so usually no, on a modern 20+MP DSLR/DSLT (different matter on a 12Mp camera!). On this lens the 1.4x definitely does improve the resolution of feathers, claws, etc, and I've done a lot of tests with TC and lens combinations, which always show the 2x TC is a waste of time unless you have a high-contrast target like the moon. If you want 2x magnify, use a 1.4x TC and 1.4x digital zoom, which gives you the best res and only 1 stop light loss. For a while I favoured the Sony's clear-image zoom, but now I don't. The straight digital zoom seems to work better, and somehow seems betetr than cropping afterwards too, which is slightly surprising. Possibly something to do with how the jpegs are prepared. Anyway, the 100-300 APO is my new favourite birding lens on the A58 DSLT (which has an EVF necesary for the focus assist) and it's also one of my favourite long teles on the A900 (though not for birding), together with the smaller of the two Minolta 70-210mm zooms which have shorter MFD and are good for nature close-ups. 2021 Update: Have tried various A-mount zooms on the A7Rii on LA-EA3 and 4, and in challenging lighting conditions (poorly lit largish barcode in the garden), the 100-300mm APO gave consistently better results and a usefully higher hit-rate than the DT55-300mm on LA-EA3, which I presume is mostly the LA-EA4's PDAF showing its virtues. Either this or the 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 seem excellent choices for the E-mount/adapter combination, and though the LA-EA4 feels a bit unwieldy at first, the big knobbly bit makes a good left handhold with either. |
| addicted2light#32727 date: Dec-5-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Contax Zeiss 18/4 Distagon; Contax Zeiss 25/2.8 Distagon; Contax Zeiss 35/2.8 Distagon; Contax Zeiss 50/1.7 Planar; Contax Zeiss 60/2.8 Makro-Planar; Contax Zeiss 28-85 Vario-Sonnar; Contax Zeiss 100-300/4-5.6 Vario-Sonnar Canon EF 24/1.4 L; Canon EF 50/1.8 STM; Canon EF 135/2 L; Canon EF 24-85 Fuji 16-50 XC; Fuji 55-200 XF Hasselblad 50/4 Distagon; Hasselblad 80/2.8 Planar; Hasselblad 250/5.6 Sonnar Leica R 180/4 Elmar Minolta M-Rokkor 28/2.8; Minolta M-Rokkor 40/2; Minolta M-Rokkor 90/4 Minolta 24/2.8 MC (55mm filter size); Minolta 35/1.8 MC; Minolta 50/1.7 PF MC; Minolta 100/2.5 MD; Minolta 200/4 MD; Minolta 28-85 MD Minolta 50/1.4 AF; Minolta 100/2.8 AF Macro Nikon 18/3.5 Ai; Nikon 20/4 UD; Nikon 24/2.8 AF; Nikon 35/1.4 K (pre-Ai, 9 rounded blades); Nikon 35/2 Ai & AF & Nikkor-O (pre-Ai); Nikon 50/1.4 AF; Nikon 50/3.5 Micro-Nikkor (pre-Ai); Nikon 60/2.8 AF Micro-Nikkor; Nikon 85/1.8 AF; Nikon 180/2.8 AF ED; Nikon 200/4 Ai; Nikon 300/4.5 Ai ED; Nikon 70-180 AF Micro-Nikkor; Nikon 80-200/2.8 AF; Nikon 100-300/5.6 Ai |
| price paid: | 80€ |
| positive: | + Sharpness once stopped down + Colors + Compact + Lightweight + OOF rendering ("bokeh") @ 300mm wide open + 55mm filter ring + Low contrast (read the comments) |
| negative: | - Not particularly sharp wide open (but still decent) - "Too light", can suffer from shutter shock on the A7r - Low contrast (read the comments) |
| comment: | Reasonably small and unobtrusive, lightweight and with an handy 55mm filter size. At least on the (demanding) Sony A7r it's not that sharp wide open at 300mm (still decent though), but once you stop it down one or two stops it shines. Because of the "old style" coating, it needs quite a bit of clarity to "recover" the lost contrast. But with 20/30 points of clarity the rendering is indistinguishable from a more modern lens. This in my book is actually a good thing, because low contrast means less risk of loosing either highlights or shadows. Contrast is like salt: you can add it later easily, but removing it is nearly impossible, so better start low. Incidentally, because it's so lightweight, on the A7r it will suffer mighty from shutter shock (I solved this jamming cork strips between the L-bracket and the base of the camera; they work dampening the vibrations). From what I've heard there might be quite a bit of sample variation, but at least my copy two stops down is the first lens I ever had* that it is essentially (as in "you can barely see the difference squinting at 100%") as sharp as the Contax 100-300 Vario-Sonnar (at the same aperture, obviously). *The Fuji 55-200 is up to the task as well, but the sensor is much lower in resolution compared to the A7r True, the Vario-Sonnar keeps it up even wide open, but for shooting landscapes I will gladly trade off performance at f/5.6 for substantial weight & size gains. I bought one just as a lightweight alternative to the Contax, but after seeing the kind of performance it was delivering I immediately covered all the other focal lengths I needed with Minolta AF glass and an LA-EA4. |
| Magnumúrfi#32720 date: Dec-2-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300 75-300 big bercan. |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | Light Cheap Color. Good Flare |
| negative: | Very soft, plastik, poor CA low build. |
| comment: | This is a very soft lens. The sharpness F8 and F22 is ok, but 4,5-5,6 very soft! Cheap and light, and very good color. 24MP is critical. |
| jwasturias#29630 date: Jul-17-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 100-300 f5 m42 (CA is horrible) Tamron 70-300 KAF LD (CA and sharpness at long end unusable). TAIR Photosniper 300 f4.5 MC. (Actually at f5.6 better than any other lens I tried) CA no problem at F5.6 and bokeh very nice. Pentax SMC 135 f3.5 (nice compact, but more CA than the APO). Sharpness at f8 about the same. Minolta 28-135 f4-f4.5. Lovely lens, but half a stop light transmission lost into a black hole. Same f stop has 1.5x faster shutter speed on the APO or any other lens. Beercan 70-210 f4. love the built. Similar to 28-135.Sold it :( Beercan 100-200 f4.5 (Sold it:(, but I am going to buy this one back. Works better at open aperture than classic beer can and the APO, and less CA than classic beercan). |
| price paid: | 120 |
| positive: | CA control in high contrast situations. It is not perfect, but miles ahead of my beercans (70-210, 100-200, 28-135) and various primes (pentax smc 135 f3.5, canon fd 85 f1.2L and some native E-mount lenses (when lens correction for CA is switched off!) Important: this lens really needs to be stopped down at least half a stop! At 300mm use f6.3 and the result improve a lot. Weight and size. So minuscule, there is no excuse not to have this lens with you. |
| negative: | Needs to stop down at least 0.5 a stop for real improvement. Auto-focus quite slow. (Compared to for instance the Minolta 28-135 which only has to move the rear element). |
| comment: | It is amazing how much stopping down half a stop (from f5.6 to f6.3) makes a difference! Centre sharpness is almost maximum and corners are really lifted. The beercan 100-200 is probably the best for open aperture picture taking (f4.5) better than the APO or the classic beercan 70-210. But at f6.3, the APO beats them all in my opinion. And the high contrast CA control is miles better. However, I prefer the built and feel of the beer cans and want to purchase the 100-200 again. (Only cost 70 euros secondhand). I love the 28-135 and use both with the LA-EA4 adopter for when I need fast auto-focus. (Plenty of manual focus jewels in my collection). NOTE: This lens has a back-focus issue on my camera (like the other Minolta lenses I have !) I need to dial in -3 micro AF adjustment on the LA-EA4 adapter. Initially the pictures wide open looked a bit soft until I started comparing manual focus and autofocus pictures on some small font writing. I adjusted the correction until the result of Manual focus and autofocus were about the same. Still, I recommend stopping down at least half a stop if you are going to pixel peep :) Compared to Minolta 28-135 at f6.3, the results are very similar between 100-135). Obviously the "secret handshake" can go down to f4.5 (which is actually f5 in terms of light transmission), Both lenses can do with stopping down half a stop. |
| QuietOC#18364 date: Oct-1-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-250 Sony DT 55-300 SAM Sony 70-300 G SSM II Tamron SP 70-300 USD Sony 70-400 G SSM Minolta AF 75-300 "Big Beercan" Minolta AF 75-300 D Sony 75-300 Minolta AF 100-200 F4.5 Minolta AF 100-300 APO Minolta AF 100-300 APO D Minolta AF 100-400 APO Sigma 150-500 EX DG APO OS HSM |
| price paid: | 79 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small fully retracted Fast AF 55 mm filter diameter Slightly better lateral CA control No purple fringing Flatter focal plane than 100-200 F4.5 |
| negative: | Low contrast Softness Zoom creep 100 mm Bokeh rather busy |
| comment: | I purchased two of these from eBay a year apart both from Japan. The first for $125 included the original clip-on hood and caps and a Minolta carrying case. The second copy didn't include the case or original back cap, but seems to be in better condition. This copy also performs identically to the newer D version. The 100-300 APO was $550 when first released. About the same price the original Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 when it was released in 1986. The street price seemed to have dropped pretty quickly down to $330 within a couple of years. There is one picture of a 100-300 APO with a smooth focus ring. The aperture has 9 blades like the original 75-300 and unlike the later 75-300 lenses. Unlike the original 75-300 and like the 24-85, 28-105, and 75-300 D the blades are more curved and keep a more circular shape stopped down. It is smaller and lighter than the DT 55-300 SAM. The zoom action on the second copy is very nice with very little zoom creep even when hanging straight down. The newer 100-300 APO D had a stiffer zoom action that didn't operate as well, but also didn't creep at all. I used a wide rubber band on the zoom ring to control the zoom creep on the first copy. This lens operates just like the DT zooms and cheap Minolta kit zooms. The lens extends but does not rotate while zooming. The front element extends and rotates while focusing. This lens just doesn't render fine details wide-open. Both the Minolta AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6 and 100-200 F4.5 have more center sharpness. The original 1985 Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 blows it away, not to mention the DT 55-300 F4.5-5.6. Even at f/8 all the other lenses are sharper, but the difference is reduced. APS-C corner performance is very similar to the 55-300 and not as good as the original 75-300. CA control is decent, but not perfect. The lateral fringing is indigo/yellow instead of magenta/cyan. The lens doesn't show much purple fringing unlike the older/cheaper Minolta lenses. I often find the 100 mm minimum focal length limiting on my APS-C camera. The softness wide open makes it a rather poor choice for the movie and fast burst AF modes on SLTs. The compact size and light weight is nice. This lens should be a nice companion to the 24-85, 24-105, and 28-105 normal zooms. |
| transiently#12104 date: Jan-23-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 non APO 75-300 big beercan Canon 75-300, Canon 100-300 L Nikon 75-300 AF from c 1990 Canon 70-200L Minolta 70-210/4 etc |
| price paid: | Only about 60 GBP |
| positive: | Pleasing sharpness at most focal lengths. Only very, very little purple fringing - far less than all the other Minolta competition, and far less than most telezooms. The size and weight are so low that it is not hard to carry and balances quite well on the A37 camera. |
| negative: | Noticeably poor edge sharpness at the short end of the range. Not ideally sharp at 100mm even when stopped down considerably! The bokeh is rather distracting. Unsurprisingly (but slightly disappointingly) lacks the knock out colour of first series Minolta AF lenses. |
| comment: | Interesting lens whose appeal for me is based on its combination of low weight, small size, fairly low price, and decent optical performance, particularly at 300mm. Without any one of these, I would probably be more tempted than I am by a newer lens. Sharpness by focal length follows somewhat that of much older zooms ie its focal length extremes perform less well than the centre of its range. However, most or all the Canon, Nikon, and other lenses of this age and type that I've used have been excellent at their short ends, with a gradual deterioration with increasing focal length. This one is clearly weakest at its short end. 300mm is noticeably a little less good than, say 250, but for use at long focal lengths, I think this lens holds up better than most of the competition. Between about 135 and 250, I'd say it was definitely a good performer wide open across the cropped frame, although even in this range, there is a noticeable improvement to be had by stopping down even 1/3 of a stop. Compared to the non-APO, this has most of the same optical characteristics, particularly the poor performance at 100mm, but with very much less of the purple fringe problem that can afflict that lens (and most other telezooms) against bright light. I think this one has slightly more colour saturation and have a general feeling that when it's good, it's even better with this one than the cheaper lenses. Compared with the big beercan, *that* lens has even better colour, less bad bokeh, slightly less sharpness at, say 135-300, MUCH more purple fringing, and nearly twice the size and weight. This is a "good enough" lens which happens to have an ideal form factor for a lens to carry around. I have read from an authoritative source that this lens and the 100-400 APO (and presumably the standard 100-300 and some others) were made for Minolta by Tokina. I don't know whether the design was by Minolta and only the manufacturing outsourced, although I do know that these designs were ONLY sold as Minoltas, and never under any other brand. (Unlike, for example, the Cosina-sourced Minolta MD-fit lenses from the late 1980's, which appeared in all sorts of mounts and brands). My sharpness rating hovers between 4.5 and 4. It's a more than fairly sharp lens considering its age, size, price and focal length. |
| Freddan_6#11754 date: Apr-5-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 4.5-5.6 Big Beer Can Minolta 70-210 4 Beer Can Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO Tamron 200-400 5.6 |
| price paid: | 1100 SEK = 122€ |
| positive: | Sharp, small, lightweight |
| negative: | Build is a little bit worse than the original beer can series. Zoom creep. Some flares. |
| comment: | A tiny bit sharper than any of my 2 copies of Big Beer Can. Small, Some Zoom Creep. Just as sharp as the 80-200 APO. Nice colors. Very little distortion. Some flare problems. No vignetting on APS-C sensor. |
| Bstrom650#11715 date: Mar-7-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | My 35-70/4 Maxxum lens is similar in operation and also produces very nice images for the age and technology of the day. |
| price paid: | $67 shipped |
| positive: | Just had a super clean sample delivered off eBay today. Excellent condition inside and out. Sufficiently fast optically to cover my shooting situations. Very responsive AF albeit with the typical screw drive whirs and clunks, but quick and accurate. Took a few quick test images and was pretty impressed with the images. A few flash pix revealed very good sharpness even at wide open. Soft corners of course, but quickly improves when stopped down. This will make a nice race track lens. |
| negative: | The screw drive AF is about all I can complain about. It was expected though, so I really don't care... |
| comment: | I'm new to the Sony/Minolta experience, having come from Nikon gear. Love the light weight of the Maxxums on my a65 and am looking at using this gear for video primarily although it takes excellent stills. Build quality is clearly prosumer at best but I am quite easy on my gear so it is not an issue. |
| cbanks#11533 date: Dec-8-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Minolta 70-210mm f4 'beercan' Everything else in my lens collection Some lenses I tested for a friend |
| price paid: | 177 USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharp (for a zoom) Minolta colors Lightweight and compact |
| negative: | Some CA Not a 70-210mm f4 'beercan' (see comments) Based on reviews, quality of copies vary widely |
| comment: | Like many beginners I bought a 75-300mm kit lens with my Sony a65. I researched it and, long story short, saw advantages in Alpha firmware correcting that lens' deficiencies and I was hesitant to pile huge bucks into a focal length I might not use much. For about 2 years that pretty much worked as planned but... Fast-forward and my 75-300mm was used far more than my 18-55mm kit lens. After 2 years I've started building a fairly large lens collection. Enter the Minolta 100-300mm APO as a planned replacement for my 75-300mm. While my Sony kit telephoto zoom has generated some of my favorite photos (I use 2 as desktop backgrounds and another as smartphone background), the IQ of that lens has left me often wishing for more and often the results don't look sharp enough to me. My initial results comparing this to a 'legendary' 70-210mm 'beercan' I bought at the same time and some lenses I was testing for a friend at the time was I was pleased with the Minolta's sharpness and overall IQ. To my eyes sharpness is a toss-up with the 'beercan' and the APO edged out the others (Sigma 400mm, Minolta 75-300mm, Minolta 18-200mm). In the real world (highest enlargement I do is 32" widescreen monitor), the only difference I see between the APO and the 'beercan' is in the 'Minolta' colors. The 'beercan' colors are more old school, 80s film-ish while the APO is more true to a digital world (if that makes any sense). Which is better? It depends. As soon as I'm pleased with an APO photo I'll look at the same 'beercan' shot and think it's even better. Go figure. I'm keeping both for now. The downside of this lens is CA. I posted a cropped example in the linked sample forum. So how bad is it? I didn't notice any CA until I coincidently cropped an image. Still, given the "APO" designation this is disappointing. So far my pictures are on mostly cloudy fall days. I'll have to see how it holds up on bright summer days. Alas, my Sony 75-300mm never exhibited even a hint of CA. My immediate plans are to use the APO as my go-to lens in this focal length in my bag. It's lighter, more compact, and more manageable on my a65 than the 'beercan'. However, I need to mention a cheap ($30) used Tamron 1.4x teleconverter I paired with my 'beercan' works very well IQ-wise and the AF works well so range-wise it can be made roughly comparable on the long end. Certainly I plan to play much more with my 'beercan' once the weather improves (freezing rain today). The 'beercan' even with the teleconverter figured in is a bit cheaper. The bottom line? At this point, not even my Sony 75-300mm is going up on eBay but then I'm a bit of a collector even if I was 100% convinced the 100-300mm APO was the way to go. Too bad I can't pair the a65 firmware CA, distortion fixes inherent in the Sony 75-300mm with the classic Minolta colors of the 'beercan' with all the other characteristics of the 100-300mm APO. 8^) |
| mr T#11312 date: Aug-17-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105 3.5-4.5 early |
| price paid: | £90 |
| positive: | +Color +light and compact |
| negative: | -Sharpness, soft |
| comment: | Not a good lens on sony full frame @ f11 @ 100mm this lens is ok just maching my Minolta 35-105mm wide open. stoped down 1 stop the 35-105mm is much better At wider apertures it is soft away from the center. @200 sharp in the center at f8/f11 @300 it is not even good in the center. I sold it a week after I got. Ok if you do not want to print larger than A4. |
| dbrummag#11037 date: Apr-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-200mm APO f/2.8 Tamron 70-300mm SP Sigma 70-300mm APO |
| price paid: | 150 USD |
| positive: | Light Amazing Color Good Sharpness Value |
| negative: | Zoom Creep |
| comment: | I had been comparing lenses in this range for some time, especially this lens against the Tamron. I had the opportunity to pick a like new copy up at a very good price so I pulled the trigger. For a walk around lens, I liked the color of this lens better than the Tamron. I have been taking shots in similar setups and comparing the prints against other lenses that I had in my bag before, particularly my Sigma 70-200mm APO f/2.8. With the same setup, IE the Sigma stopped down significantly more than this lens shooting f/5.6 at 135mm, I got almost identical photos. Of course, the lenses have completely different reasons to be in the bag, the Sigma I use primarily for shooting basketball action in low light. This lens I picked up because I wanted a little more reach in my walk around lens. However, the fact that it stands up in image quality to the $900+ lens I compared it to is admirable. At 300mm, my copy is just as sharp as between 100-200mm. You have to make appropriate manual adjustments to get the image as with any situation but it is still there. APO glass is worth the money every time and in every situation. Beyond, speaking of G glass, becomes a law of diminishing returns. The difference between this lens at $150-200 and a G lens at $800+ is not worth the difference unless a) you want to spend crazy amounts of money on your bag or b) you are shooting professionally to enlarge images for huge prints. I use to own the G copy of Sony 70-200mm prior to the Sigma, last time I fork out the money for the minimal difference. |
| Gradus#10962 date: Mar-4-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron AF 28-200 F3.8-5.6 Aspherical; Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 SAL1870;Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM |
| price paid: | EUR 150 (used) |
| positive: | Range in APS-C Size and weight |
| negative: | Sharpness on longer ranges Zoom creep |
| comment: | I bought this lens for it's range in combination with it's size and weight. Although I made some lovely pictures with it, I cannot say that there is some kind of magic between me and this lens. When photographing moving objects (cars, planes) on longer distances, I miss something. It just isn't that sharp enough to impress. Next to that I miss a bit of color magic. As I said, made some lovely pictures on shorter ranges but as I bought it with the range as important argument, this is not my favorite lens. |
| Bahudda#10912 date: Feb-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 100-300mm f4 Sony 70-200mm f2.8 G SSM Sony 75-300mm Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 Minolta 70-210mm f4 Minolta 100-300mm f3.5-4.5 [non APO or D] |
| price paid: | $110 USD |
| positive: | Light weight Sharp Color & contrast |
| negative: | Very little for the price paid |
| comment: | This lens is part of my two lens light weight Minolta color kit. It is typically paired with the MinO 28-105mm f3.4-4.5 RS. I use these two mostly for landscape and rarely use them for portraiture. The Sony & Tamron 70-200mm work much better for portraiture. It is much lighter than the metal Tokina 100-300mm f4. In image quality it is as good as the Tokina and Minoltas but just under the Sony & Tamron f2.8's. It renders images in a similar fashion to the Minolta Beercan without the luscious bokeh of the Beercan. It is not quite up to the micro-contrast of the f2.8's yet it has its own charm and character that makes it a fun and reliable lens. This lens has all of the advantages of the non APO/D version without its drawbacks of heavy CA. I would recommend this budget lens to anyone who wants good quality glass at a reasonable price. |
| derekw#10741 date: Nov-30-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 New Minolta 100-300 xi |
| price paid: | 140 GBP mint |
| positive: | Sharpness Minolta Colours portable |
| negative: | Can't think of any |
| comment: | Like woodmen's review below, my copy of this lens is sharp, and I mean SHARP, at maximum aperture throughout the range. Wonderful Minolta colours. Build should be 4.5 because there is nothing wrong with it. A bit pricy but you get a lot for your money. |
| streets#10576 date: Oct-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300 non apo |
| price paid: | 200 USD used |
| positive: | This lens is a great buy. Works very well with my 1.4X teleconverter. |
| negative: | Zoom creep Lens hood recommended at all times. |
| comment: | missing |
| cev#10506 date: Sep-12-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 70-300 USD Di |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness lightweight Great color |
| negative: | Range |
| comment: | Portraits really stand out with this lens. Shot some great pics of the moon also with a 1.7 teleconverter. It was sharper than a new Tamron 70-300 USD Di. Not as heavy as a Tamron so I would carry the Minolta instead. Maybe not as bright color as some Minolta's I've seen but very natural color. |
| chrishoek#10504 date: Sep-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 75-300mm big beercan tamron 70-300 ld di macro |
| price paid: | 135 euro used |
| positive: | small well built sharp until 200mm |
| negative: | Not sharp above 200mm even stopped down to f8. zoom creep |
| comment: | I have owned this lens for about a year and just sold it. The lens is nicely built, has very good colors , almost no ca but my copy was not sharp from 200mm to 300mm. |
| robert.pierrick#9915 date: Feb-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 xi 100-400 APO |
| price paid: | 100 Euros |
| positive: | Very lightweight and small. Very sharp except at widest apertures. |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Optical performances seems to permit bigger resolutions than my 14Mp camera. It's sharper than the 100-400 APO and it has not any purple fringe comparativly to the xi. The xi just beat it wide open. |
| GarryA#9606 date: Nov-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP 70 - 300 USD |
| price paid: | £140.00 |
| positive: | Light and compact very sharp lovely deep saturated colours sharp wide open |
| negative: | zoom creep bit noisy focusing |
| comment: | I think this is a great little lens that I dont think can be bettered I can only asume it would equal or better the Sony 70-300 G because it is clearly sharper than the Tamron. It is as sharp wide open as it is right up to f11 but the contrast is a tad low wide open I used it on a A580 it amazed me how clear and sharp it is and the focusing was OK. Used on my A77 the focusing is a lot faster no messing and little hunting what a shame they dont make them any more |
| tpolakov#9118 date: Jun-10-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 New Sony 55-200 Sigma 18-200 Sony 70-300 G SSM |
| price paid: | 190 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Light for the focal range Almost no CA Sharp - see below compared to 70-300 G SSM Focus hold button Outstanding price/performance ratio |
| negative: | Focus can hunt Some zoom creep Bokeh can be a bit nervous, although mostly OK Starts at 100mm, but this allows it to be small and light |
| comment: | Compared to Minolta 75-300 New: - sharper - CA negligible, no purple fringing (this was bugging me with the 75-300, so I sold it) - a bit more contrast on close up shots Compared to Sigma 18-200: - the Sigma, like most "universal" zooms, changes the focal length depending on the focus distance. It reaches 200mm only at infinity, for closer subjects, the focal length is shorter. So for closer subjects, only a "real tele" gives real closeups. - much better CA behavior - reach Compared to the Sony 55-200: - range - as far as I recall the Sony had a bit better micro contrast (newer digital coatings I guess), but sharpness wise, they were very similar So to sum this up, this lens is the perfect tele lens for a hobbyist on budget. It is reasonably light, but seems built better than the newer cheap Sonys. Sharpness upto 250mm is very good wide open, and excellent stopped down 2/3 stop. At 300 you need f7.1-8 for good results. In CA/fringing department is on par with the 70-300G (I haven't owned that one, judging on review pics). So, if you can get one around the price of the Sony 75-300 or cheaper, it's an obvious choice. Edit: I got my A77II and I realized the perceived softness at 300mm was due to very slight backfocus. Now with AF microadjust, the sharpness at 300mm is better than at 100mm wide open. Further surprise: I borrowed a 70-300 G SSM and the Minolta is sharper at 300mm wide open (at longer distances)! At F8, they are about the same. At close focus - up to around 3-4 m, the Sony is much sharper (even stopping down does not help the Minolta). Maybe this comparison is valid only for the copy I own, but the Minolta is an incredible value. |
| MrRogerBen#8696 date: Feb-25-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF75-300 New |
| price paid: | 260 USD (Used) |
| positive: | -Not too heavy -Solid build -Sharp temtped to give it f6.3-7.1 -Nice Bokeh -No distortion -Very tiny CA after f6.3-7.1 -55mm filter size (cheap filter) |
| negative: | -Not sharp at longer (200-300mm) focal lengths and CA, even after f7.1-8 -CA when open snd a little bit soft at 100mm when open (f4.5-5.6) -Focus Hold a little small |
| comment: | More sharpest, than Minolta AF75-300 New, but need to give it f6.3-7.1. Accordingly, in non sunlight weather or in the evening, is not recommended |
| snajper#8267 date: Nov-18-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan Min100-200 Tam80-200 SAL55-200 |
| price paid: | 150 |
| positive: | Range Tiny very sharp good colours great hood |
| negative: | for the price none. |
| comment: | I have been looking for smaller replacement for my beercan and I have finally found one. Range is great for its size and 300mm on APC is max I can shoot handheld. Sharpness is very good and the colours are fantastic. This lens will now allow me to sell all my zooms except beercan. |
| Janneman1967#7600 date: Jun-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 80-200 f2.8APO HS 70-400 SSM |
| price paid: | 400 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Small & Light. Liked the colors |
| negative: | Lens creep. |
| comment: | missing |
| woodmen#7529 date: Jun-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-200mm f/4 beercan Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G HS Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5 |
| price paid: | 250 CAD (used) |
| positive: | Small Light Sharp wide open at all focal lenght great Minolta colors Inexpensive No CA even wide open |
| negative: | Focus and zoom ring a little stiff |
| comment: | When I bought this lens it was because I had a great deal on it and wanted to sell it later with a profit.(because I own and love a really sharp and mint copy of the beercan) I did every possible test there is on this lens and to my surprise, it is even better than my beercan (even if I stop down the beercan to f/5.6). This was a great surprise and, strangely, that botherd me. I really wanted to love and keep my beercan but now I am begining to think that I must sell it and keep this lens. The only flaw with this lens is that it's not f/4 and only start at 100mm. Everything else is perfect. The image quality is as about the same between f/8 and wide open. The only difference is some vignetting wide open. Honestly, I don't believe the 70-300mm G or the 75-300mm can be any better than this on. Truly a gem lens! |
| pcarmalt#7230 date: Apr-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 55-200 F4-5.6 (APS-C) Minolta 70-210 F4 Sony 100 F2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | GBP 170 |
| positive: | + Compact and lightweight + Good colour + APO works....lack of CA |
| negative: | - Soft. Need to stop down to f/8, even then not as sharp as beercan - Bokeh not as smooth as beercan - Doesn't have the same 3d look as beercan / 28-135 etc - VERY slow AF, slower than beercan. |
| comment: | I didn't really warm to this lens. The first mistake I made was comparing it at 100mm to my 100 Macro :-) I took this lens on two holidays and I don't think I printed a single photo taken with this lens... it just seems to be missing the beercan magic. Then I compared my beercan + Kenko 1.4x TC to this lens and realised I could always turn my beercan in to a 100-300/5.6 with better performance, so there was no point in having this lens. |
| firtha#7150 date: Mar-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300 APO Vivitar Series 1 70-300 |
| price paid: | 201 USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharp Little CA Bold Colours |
| negative: | Zoom creep Hunts in low light |
| comment: | Can't add much to the previous reviews. Zoom creeps badly when lens is held 'front up' or 'front down'. Very slightly sharper than the Sigma APO, slightly sharper than the Vivitar in 'formal' tests. You probably won't see a difference in normal use. A bit soft at 300 mm f5.6, though surprisingly sharp at f11. (I didn't test at f8). As expected, almost negligible CA - only shows very slightly when wide open - not visible at f11 or f22. Colour is Minolta all the way - dramatically different than the Vivitar, which is very muted/pastel. Recommended - nothing wrong with this lens at all... |
| JeremyT#7125 date: Mar-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 75-300 Beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Reasonably sharp - Very small for its range - Slightly less CA than beercan / 75-300 |
| negative: | - Still has CA, especially wide open near 300mm - Needs stopping down for optimal sharpness on long end |
| comment: | I bought this lens for fairly cheap due to the fact it was missing its hood and the filter ring was damaged. Its performance is very similar to the SAL 75-300mm. Wide open near 300mm the 100-300mm APO has less CA than the 75-300mm, but it also seems like it's slightly softer, so it's mostly a wash. Stopping down is required for optimal performance near 300mm. I'm a little disappointed in this lens as reviews implied it would be better than the 75-300mm. In practice there's not a lot of difference in IQ, and you're mostly just getting a smaller lens in exchange for 25mm less on the wide end. If you aren't concerned about size, I'd go with the 75-300mm, which is wider, performs similarly, and is much cheaper. On the other hand, this lens is a good bit smaller, so it makes a great travel zoom when you don't have room to spare. The "D" variant of this lens appears to be optically identical, so I'd probably stick with this non-D version (which is much cheaper). ADI for this sort of lens is definitely not worth a 50% premium. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 70
- sharpness: 4.19
- color: 4.59
- build: 4.01
- distortion: 4.51
- flare control: 4.26
- overall: 4.31
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login