Minolta AF 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 A-mount lens reviews
 slarty54#39937 date: Sep-21-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 2.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-200 f4.5 |
| price paid: | 25 aud |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Plastic front element and other elements maybe |
| comment: | I tried to undo front ring to remove front element with a lens caliper spanner. It was unbelievably tight and the spanner slipped, whoops! A deep gouge across the lens and now I know it ain't glass, it's plastic so clean carefully. What did you expect for the price? Real glass? |
; 20MP| transiently#34777 date: Feb-5-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 APO, 75-300 big beercan, Canon EF 75-300, Canon EF 80-200, Tamron 55-200 (same as Sony) etc etc |
| price paid: | part of a bundle |
| positive: | Compact and fairly well-made lens which is easy to carry around. Sharpness at long focal lengths doesn't decline as much as some cheap lenses. |
| negative: | There may well be an easy way to process it out, but the purple CA from this lens is so strong at long focal lengths, whatever aperture you try, that it manages to leach away from the highlights and colour the whole image very pale purple. Like the APO version, performance at 100mm is only so-so. |
| comment: | I owned this lens a few months and used it for a few weeks. The sharpest images were obtained at between about 135 and about 200mm, but purple CA really affected most of the shots I made with it. I remember shooting at the seaside in medium bright light (*not* full sun) and getting pale purple waves. In this respect it was worse than the worst listed above (Canon EF 75-300), and that lens was also a lot sharper at 100mm. It is fundamentally a reasonably good lens but seems rather unsuited to digital. I liked the form factor and found the results promising, so bought the APO version. Revelation! The APO is sharper and loses the purple. It is just as small and light. They both focus down to 1.5m at all focal lengths and work well. I haven't tried any of the more common 75-300 budget Minolta lenses - perhaps they perform similarly - but I'd only recommend this one if it was ludicrously cheap. Get the APO version instead! I increased my rating for "colour" from 2 to 4 after checking the reviewing guide and seeing that the rating is intended to exclude CA. |
| Miranda F#34756 date: Jan-17-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta: 50mm f1.7 (both versions) 35-70mm f4 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 28-100mm f3.5-5.6 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 75-300mm f4-5.6 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 APO (non-D) Sony: 30mm f2.8 macro 35mm f1.8 50mm f1.8 18-55mm kit 55-200mm f4-5.6 55-300mm f4-5.6 Vivitar 70-210mm Cosina 60-300mm Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro Various Tamron adaptall primes & zooms Various MF primes 300-500mm Several mirror lenses 400-500mm |
| price paid: | 45 UKP |
| positive: | Length weight Aperture build bokeh handling appearance MF |
| negative: | soft at 300mm CA, PF if you pixel-peep MFD |
| comment: | If you’ve swapped your kit lens for a hyper-zoom and find the performance is disappointing at both ends and not that great in the middle, consider getting yourself a real telephoto! There are lots available, so why choose the 100-300mm Minolta? Firstly it is a good lens, well made, and with Minolta quality glass and colour, and although it wasn't a cheap lens new, it can now be found amazingly cheap today. Like many of Minolta’s later zoom lenses, it is also very compact and quite light – around half the length and weight of the much-talked about Beercan, with more focal length and not that much slower in aperture. It’s shorter and lighter than either the Sony 55-300mm or Tamron 70-300mm (all versions) and the big beercan too which is useful. Sure it’s not as good as either of the more modern lenses, and if you’re looking to get those bird feathers really sharp look elsewhere, for it’s a little soft at the long end and 100% crops show CA and PF. But if you stop pixel-peeping and frame your pictures fully, it’s a nice lens to have; it’s also good to use in MF with a decent rubber ring to grip and a reasonable 1/3 turn. The bokeh is nice too, and because it’s an FF lens those OOF circles really are circles and not squashed lemon shapes near the edges like most APS-C lenses. And it’s useable on FF and on film too. On film, contrast, sharpness, and colour are all fine and it makes a good partner to any of the 24/28-70/80/100/105mm normal zoom lenses, giving real reach with not much extra weight to carry about. About the only irritating thing is the MFD which is a typical (for the period) 1.5m rather than the 1m or less of more recent lenses, so if you're photographing ducks on the local lake you make find yourself backing up a bit when they come close, but for the more shy ones you won;t have a problem. |
| Magnumúrfi#32721 date: Dec-2-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 APO 75-300 bercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Very cheap! Compared to the price very good buy. Very good build |
| negative: | Average CA, sharpness, flare. Good color |
| comment: | This is the amateur cheap lens. Not poor, but no professional. |
| MarcoZ#25516 date: Mar-3-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta ad 70-210 f4 |
| price paid: | €50 |
| positive: | Compattezza, colore, nitidezza alle focali corte e medie |
| negative: | Costruzione plasticosa, poco luminoso. |
| comment: | Obiettivo con più che oneste prestazioni, adatto per uso generico. Poco luminoso. |
| Titticec#10997 date: Mar-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 50 euro |
| positive: | piccolo e poco pesante |
| negative: | poco luminoso |
| comment: | ben costruito, non ingombrante e leggero!i colori sono i classici minolta e come il 70/210 della stessa generazione offre un ottimo sfocato!se fosse stato più luminoso sarebbe stato molto buono!tutto sommato non è pesante e ingombrante come altri "300" e la resa finale è più che accettabile! molto consigliato se si trova sotto gli 80 euro.. |
| ithinkso#10961 date: Mar-4-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Vivitar 100mm 3.5 macro Sigma 400mm 5.6 apo |
| price paid: | 90.00GBP (used)? |
| positive: | Minolta colour. light. |
| negative: | no focus limiter. focus lock button less than positive in use. Some CA if you look for it. |
| comment: | I had this lens in my 7000i days. I bought it especially for use at airshows. It was the best I could afford at the time. I found it hunted terribly with the relatively small (by today's standards) AF sensor (although I think the 7000i had a class leading AF sensor in it's day). I would switch to manual focus forgetting that with this camera it automatically switched the meter mode to centre weighted from multi-pattern, so the results were often under exposed and disappointing. So it would be fair to say my technique was somewhat lacking and so if I had persevered I may have got better results. I never made much use of the lens with either my Dynax 7 or A100, and the lens went on long term/permanent loan to my daughter who took up photography while at art school, along with my 7000i. As she didn't really get bitten with the photography bug, and seeing as I now have the A77 I thought I'd "borrow" this lens back and check it out again. I was really pleased with the results I got today out in some mid afternoon sunshine. It's actually quite sharp! Although I have to agree with comments below about getting the sun behind you! I don't have the hood (never did) and I suspect that it would benefit from one. This lens might just be the ticket for you if you can pick one up for a reasonable price, but I really think that prices generally for minolta lenses like these are somewhat inflated by the reputation of "beercans" and other high end minoltas. Don't pay over the top. |
| homeranger#10902 date: Feb-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | N/A |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Focus Hold Button Affordable Zoom Lightweight Decent Build Quality |
| negative: | Not super sharp Bland contrast |
| comment: | Bought this lens in my quest to own and try most of what Minolta has put out (I'll never make it). I was not very impressed with this lens. Not super sharp and some distortion. Maybe I got a bad used copy? This would not be a bad lens if you can get a good copy cheap. However I would recommend looking elsewhere though. |
| JohnF#10668 date: Nov-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Similar zooms I've used on film cameras. |
| price paid: | don't recall |
| positive: | Well built. Nice zoom range. |
| negative: | Sharpness not quite there. CA noticeable. |
| comment: | Somehow this one has stayed in my kit bag. If only it was sharper I'd use it more. |
| derekw#10394 date: Jul-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Other Minolta 100-300s Sigma 100-300 f4.5-6.7 |
| price paid: | 40 GBP used |
| positive: | Very sharp stopped down Superb colour Price |
| negative: | CA/PF below f8 at focal lengths above 200. |
| comment: | Can't understand some of the mediocre reviews this lens has received - obviously its hit and miss wether or not you find a good copy. If you do, you won't be disappointed. This sample is usable wide open becoming very sharp stopped down above f6.3. Sharp upto 275mm and reaonably sharp at 300 if placed on a tripod. The colour is superb - Minolta at its best. Build similar to 70-210 f3.5-4.5 and 75-300 new, which I personally like. (much better than a lot of current budget lenses produced by Sony, Sigma and Tamron) No noticeable distortion or problems with flare (with hood) |
| HiDesert#10011 date: Mar-9-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300G Sony 18-200 |
| price paid: | $80, IIRC |
| positive: | Lightweight Compact Focus hold button |
| negative: | Not very sharp Feels a bit cheap Chromatic abberation |
| comment: | I got this lens in a fit of serious tele lust, when 200mm was my maximum reach. There was a good deal here on Dyxum, so I figured "why not?" Shortly thereafter, I got the 70-300G, and I almost sold this lens. Then I got a 102AW slingshot, and discovered that there was no way the G lens was going to fit in that. So the 100-300 became the slingshot long lens. It's done well at times, not so well at other times. It's not very sharp, and under challenging conditions (high contrast, backlit), the fringing and chromatic aberration are very apparent. But put the sun behind you, stop it down a bit, and you can sometimes get very useable images. It's not the most solid lens in the world; if I ever fumble while sitting on the motorcycle changing lenses, I'm sure that will be the end of this lens. I'd probably buy a 70-300mm plastic fantastic to replace it. |
| michsad#9183 date: Jun-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 89 (used) |
| positive: | Cheap, decent built quality, focusing speed on A580, nice color |
| negative: | CA is awful, sharpness (except F7.1 at about 200MM) |
| comment: | Bought this lens on a budget hoping to take advantage of an older Minolta lens with a potential for good color and glass quality. It delivers on the color quality, but everything else is lacking. CA is awful and almost always heavily present. Distortion isn't much better and flare control is poor as well, even with the rather large hood. Pass on this lens and buy something better. I'm waiting to buy the 70-300G. This lens will need to carry me over until December. |
| colli#9078 date: Jun-3-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MINA 70-210 F 4.0 MINA 24-105 D SONY 55-200 |
| price paid: | 84,00 EUR (used) |
| positive: | light weighted, small, nice colours, macro option, 55mm filter diameter |
| negative: | not really sharp, slow AF |
| comment: | I bought this lens in good faith as an APO version because it was advertized and depicted as such (which it was definitely not). The first test pictures were somewhat disappointing, however, in particular in conditions of dim light. In bright light with apertures of F8.0 and above the results are not so bad yet. I will try to get an APO version of this lens instead. |
| ponz#6860 date: Feb-4-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light weight, yet sturdy. Sharp Wonderful colors |
| negative: | Hunts a little with low light |
| comment: | I picked this lens up along with a beat up Maxxum 7000i and original Minolta 35-100. I wasn't counting on much when I felt the weight of this 100-300. Being somewhat old-school, I come from the day where 'heavier' typically indicated better build quality. The glass was also pretty dirty. It has one near-microscopic abrasion on the front element that does not affect image quality. The first thing that struck me, much to my surprise, when I placed it my a700, were the rich colors. It's no slouch in the sharpness department either. I haven't had her outside in bright light yet, but I expect equally good performance. I imagine one would simply have to avoid certain lighting situations, from what I've read, since this is the Non-APO version. If true, I find that a small price to pay for the other qualities this lens exhibits. I still don't quite get the overall 'low ratings' for this lens. I guess I lucked out with a good copy. Now - if I can get all the oil cleaned out of that 35-105 at a reasonable price, I'll be one happy camper. |
| Milan33m#5357 date: May-7-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 100/2,8 Macro, MAF 70-210/4 Beercan, MAF 28-105/3,5-5,6, MAF 50/1,7 |
| price paid: | 90 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Good zoom range, not so heavy, quite good AF, have macro option, which takes quite good pictues, famous 55mm filter screw like other ones, hood, |
| negative: | flare, not often sharp, |
| comment: | I would say I use it as equivalent of MAF 70-210/4 Beercan on airshows photography due to its less weight, but it lacks good sharpness and bokeh and handy of Beercan has, my exmaple has proabably easy opening/unrolling from short to longer zoom. Can somebody compare it in a new review to MAF 75-300 lenses? Is it worth to change it to MAF 75-300? or still keep that one? |
| anthony566#5187 date: Apr-7-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 75-300 Sony 18-250 |
| price paid: | Ł53 |
| positive: | Light & fast on my A350 and very sharp upto 250mm. The focus hold button works fine on my A350. |
| negative: | could always be faster & sharper. |
| comment: | Picked this up while kicking around on evilbay to feed my lense addiction, when it arrived i could'nt belive how much like new this lens looked and for me looking at the build year 1988 Minolta really knew how to build lenses. My advice is if you are trying to stick to a bugdet then look at the older Minolta lenses rather than go for the new Sony,Sigma & tamron's. The test photos I took in my garden were bright light and full of colour not bad for a 21 year old lens....... |
| Derek#4735 date: Jan-23-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 75-300 New Sigma 70-300 Apo macro |
| price paid: | Ł60.00 (GBP) |
| positive: | Sharp upto 250mm Useably sharp at 300 when stopped down Good colour Lightweight |
| negative: | Wish it was sharper at 300 |
| comment: | Good lense but nothing special. Not as good as Miolta 75-300 new |
| sjinouck#4371 date: Nov-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28/200 aspherical Tamron 28/200 XR superzoom |
| price paid: | 70 EUR |
| positive: | Lightweight, delivers good images at 200 mm, nice bokeh, colours are warm. |
| negative: | no zoomlock, or it doesn,t work with mine, soft when used at 300 mm, slow AF, only sharp at F8 or more... |
| comment: | I bought this lens a few years ago, second hand for about 70 euro, for my minolta dynax..Now it´s sometimes used on my Alpha 200.. Works at it´s best in good light conditions, at F8, and 200 mm. It feels a bit ´plastic´ but for me, it´s good value for meoney. What i don´t like is that there´s no working zoom/lock on my 100/300.. |
| NadrKan#4094 date: Sep-15-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 75-300mm (SAL75300) |
| price paid: | 85 € (used) |
| positive: | lightweight & compact.great to carry on trips.very good range,best result around 200 mm at f8,no flares.good value for money. |
| negative: | somewhat soft at far end (300 mm),focus hold futton doesan't work on sony alpha 300. |
| comment: | interresting lens.first I was sceptic regarding the price. since I own a couple of minolta lenses which serve me beautifully,I tryied it and found it very satisfactory. |
| godsakes#4047 date: Sep-5-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 1 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | tam 17-50mm sony 18-250mm min 100-200mm beercan |
| price paid: | L50 |
| positive: | compact & light |
| negative: | soft lack of magic zoom creep |
| comment: | this is definately the softest telezoom lens i've used and there's no magic to the colours nor brokeh. all in all a disappointing lens although i wish all lenses were so light & compact. The APO version is still worth your consideration but this version is worthless. |
| DavidZMetal#3938 date: Aug-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 70-210 F/4 - Sigma 70-300 F4.5-5.6 APO Macro |
| price paid: | RM500 (used) |
| positive: | - Light weight - Nice Bokeh - very Sharp when stopped down - Minolta colors is good :) - Best bang for the buck - Never had any flare with the hood in my experience |
| negative: | - AF isn't really considered very fast. But faster than beercan |
| comment: | I've bought this lens as a replacement for a lens i had in my mind which is Sigma 70-300 APO. I chose this one over the sigma because of its color and bokeh. Although its soft wide open, but this is expected for the price paid . When its stopped down to F7.1 , sharpness started to show :D Its sharp even until 250mm and at 300mm it began to show some softness. Again this is expected from a lens at this price Overall , this lens had let me captured alot of nice shots. I'll upload a few to the sample pictures . Anyone looking for a good , compact, light, cheap with nice bokeh and sharp daylight lens. This is the one :) |
| pschoone#2895 date: Oct-31-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 200/2.8 apo G HS, with 1.4xTC apoII |
| price paid: | 500€ (?) new |
| positive: | Great zoom range, especially on APS-C; Lightweight and compact |
| negative: | Hunts in low light; Not razor sharp; Sometimes hazy, no sparkling colors; zooms out when held upside down |
| comment: | This summer, the lens, after 16 years, failed: a guiding pin and a small spring fell out; Costs 250 € to have this fixed nowadays, which I will not do. Replaced by 200/2.8 apo G HS with 1.4TC; Note that in spite of the minuses I list above, I have operated the 100-300 with pleasure for all these years. |
| DANX#2789 date: Sep-29-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 200 USD |
| positive: | Light, Compact |
| negative: | Slow AF but is not important |
| comment: | missing |
| Pepigno#2638 date: Aug-16-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 75-300mm f/4,5-5,6 Minolta 75-210 f/4 (beercan) |
| price paid: | 250 USD used |
| positive: | Light Good focal range |
| negative: | Bad sharpness to backlighting |
| comment: | Good lens for price To backlighting sharpness takes place |
| dtimoce#2128 date: Apr-8-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85 Minolta 24-85 Minolta 50/1.7 KM 18-70 |
| price paid: | 190 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Light, focal range (if you need it) IQ ok on 100-200 mm range in good light |
| negative: | Chromatic aberrations Slow AF, hunting Need to be stopped down to f8/f11 for sharpness |
| comment: | Good IQ on 100-200 range in good light (stopped down to f/9 - f/11). The chromatic aberrations or bothering me at most at this lens (remember this is the NON APO lens). The AF is slow and hunts a lot. |
| jaccojacco#1584 date: Dec-28-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105mm |
| price paid: | 450 EURO (new) |
| positive: | Strong, used on heavy travelling |
| negative: | Rubber ring |
| comment: | Although sharpness isn't of very high quality I used this lens with great pleasure during 16 years on my film Minolta's and on the 5D. So good worth for money. |
| Watty#1242 date: Sep-26-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 80-200F2.8, 100-300 APO, 100-500 F8 MD (manual focus) |
| price paid: | Ł65 sterling |
| positive: | Good performer over long distance |
| negative: | Not as good at 300mm as I'd hoped |
| comment: | Adequate performer - does the job and brings home the results - nothing special. Can hunt for focus in lowish light. |
| bharnois#732 date: Apr-28-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300 APO Macro Beercan Min 70-210 f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Lightweight but durable, good in good lighting, long zoom, can macro. Can be colorful and sharp. Fast enough outdoors. Range on 5D!!! |
| negative: | Soft at 300 if you are not careful but lately I'm getting some really good stuff so it definitely also depends on technique and settings! Typical tiny zoom ring. Slow for indoors events. Massive zoom creep! |
| comment: | Pretty expensive when I got mine! Never really had flaring issues as I ALWAYS used the hood on it. Hard for me to be objective as I've been using this and my 35-105 forever! This was a big deal lens waaaay back when I bought it. You can get very differing results with this glass and I've been disappointed by it on occasion. It is more durable than it lets on. It is light enough you don't really modify the way you hold your gear. I've had some awesome shots!! In the wrong conditions it is very flat. Soft at 300! (But not always!) If you are careful and stop down you can get good macro in bright light. You KNOW this hunts a little in low light and complex situations and you'll need the little focus ring. (EDIT: Since my Sigma APO has given up the ghost I have been using this a lot. I really like it now more than ever! I've also bumped my color (which is VERY Minolta) and Distortion to 5 for myself though some of you with better glass wouldn't say so.) |
| slash#693 date: Apr-16-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210 / f4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | -leightweight -range |
| negative: | - needs to be stopped down seriously to deliver good results (f8-f11) - Weak at 300 |
| comment: | Well, this is not the lens to use if you need quality. It's a slow consumer zoom that suffers at max focal leghth. I found the results disappointing even when used on a tripod. There are better consumer zooms for minolta af. 70-210/f4 comes to mind but even the two 100-300 apo siblings should be better then the non apo 100-300. Don't want to bash it completly but i would say, just avoid it and go for the apo-versions. |
| azzkikr#524 date: Feb-20-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210 f4, 28-75 f2.8(D), 18-70 AF\DT (kitlens) |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Nice zoomrange, very usable when trekking |
| negative: | Can be soft whem zoomed to the max |
| comment: | Not bad at all for the price, I payed 45euro for a second hand copy of this lens. Not as sharp as the other lenses I own, but the nice zoomrange is very effective to me. If you're looking for a nice tele with reasonable performance at low costs, this is the one. Lens is prone tot flare. Look for a copy including hood. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 31
- sharpness: 3.73
- color: 4.23
- build: 3.77
- distortion: 4.13
- flare control: 3.81
- overall: 3.93
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login