Minolta AF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 D A-mount lens review by Phil Wood
|Phil Wood#46949 date: Aug-7-2023|
flare control: 4
|ownership:||I own this lens|
|compared to:||All other Minolta 75-300mm zooms, 100-300 (original, XI, APO)|
All Minolta 70-210 & 80-200 zooms, 100-200
Sony 70-300 G, 55-200, 55-300f
|positive:||Light, cheap, decent IQ once stopped dwon.|
D - which I am sure is a great asset if you ever use ADI flash (I very rarely do, and if I do it isn't with a 75-300 zoom).
|negative:||Soft wide open.|
Needs plenty of light.
CA, silver body (black is available, but usually costs more).
|comment:||It's taken me a long time to get round to posting this review, but I took my copy out today on my A7Riv/LA-EA5 to see how it coped with 61Mp - and it wasn't bad. |
There are the oft repeated negatives:
plastic build - sure, it's plastic, but that makes it nice and light, easier to hand-hold and mine is still in great condition after 20 or so years. I reckon the build quality is okay.
sharpness - wide open it is, let's face it, pretty poor, you need to stop down the f8 or f10 to get decent results. However, on a sunny day this was not a problem, I got pretty good results with the aperture set on f10, ISO 400 and at shutter speeds that were suitable for hand-holding.
CA - notably purple fringing is undoubtedly an issue, but it's easy to correct.
flare - I didn't notice any out of the ordinary flare, perhaps I just didn't point it in the right direction.
colour - I have no complaints of the colour of the images it produces, but I do dislike the silver plastic body.
In short, this isn't a great lens, but none of Minolta's 75-300s are. It's advantage over the others are it's cheap, light and readily available.
Is it worth getting one? Only if you really need 211-300, the beercan is just so much better and not a lot pricier. To be honest this applies to all of Minolta's offerings at this zoom range. If you do need longer than 210 there are better lenses from other manufacturers.