Minolta AF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 D A-mount lens reviews
 Phil Wood#46949 date: Aug-7-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| 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 |
| price paid: | 20GBP |
| 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. |
| A68noob#45649 date: Feb-27-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300G1 SSM Tamron 70-300 USD Sigma 70-300 APO DG Minolta 75-300 Big Beercan Sony 70-400 G1&2 SSM |
| price paid: | basically few euros |
| positive: | +most inexpensive 70-300 you can get +small, light +stopped down pretty good IQ +nice bokeh +not best, but alright minolta colours +build is 'good': it feels cheap, but it is absolutely solid. nothing is wobbling, AF is alright, no zoom creep.. no cheap sigma plastic gears were used.. |
| negative: | -ridiculous purple fringing -many old school problems: filter still rotating, screw drive AF, narrow MF ring, etc -too cheap even: no distance encoder or something similar -silver colour.. oh god -approximately after ~230mm the IQ is drastically falling -no stunning sharpness at max. aperture.. but would you expect it at this dirt cheap price? no.. |
| comment: | I own two copies, bought both very cheap (30 & 40€ with bag, Dynax camera and 28-80) = dirt cheap.. in mint condition. Dont get me wrong, this is not the best lens ever.. but considering the price it is much better than you would expect from all those reviews here. I tried shooting some birds in trees.. purple fringing literally everywhere - awful. I shot some lizards close up.. bokeh was nice, colours were nice, sharpness was nice.. I shot some face portraits wide open.. nice enough for any hobby photographer (must be focused correctly tho). I shot some body portraits and it can deliver quite some pleasing pictures.. nice again. For occasional use in the FL region of 70-300 it can be a pretty good lens if you can avoid the weaknesses. I also owned SAL 70300G and i would choose this Minolta any day over the Sony, as i probably paid 20 times more for the Sony. The 70300G is (to me) basically this Minolta WITH zoom creep, SSM and no purple fringing. Is it worth it for me in this case and my profile of photographing? Absolutely no. AF on modern bodies (i used it on A68) is fast enough and with camera focus limiter its even quicker. The worst thing about this lens is that Minolta disappointed me. The AF line up from 1985 still rocks in 2021 but what did they do until they released this Dynax Kit Lens? Even worse purple fringing than a decade before and a very cheap plastic build + the awful silver colour. No wonder why they got bought soon after that by Sony.. Still, if you have the chance.. give it a try if it suits your photography style (avoiding high contrast situations) and you are a on a budget. I would also prefer this lens over any similar Sigma from the time around 2005 because you never know when the plastic sigma gears will fail.. (Ratings based on price/performance. 2* on flare for purple fringing) |
| Kopipapa#45583 date: Sep-16-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan, Bigma. |
| price paid: | kit lense |
| positive: | Price, sharpness, weight, color. |
| negative: | Above 240 useless. |
| comment: | Better not to use beyound 230-240. At F8 is excellent. The color is better then my Beercan sample, although the Beercan is sharp at wide aperture also. |
| QuietOC#42981 date: Jan-12-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-250 Sony DT 55-200 SAM Sony DT 55-300 SAM Minolta AF 70-210 F4 Minolta AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6 I/II Canon EF 70-300 F4-5.6 IS II USM Tamron SP 70-300 USD VC & non-VC Canon EF 75-300 F4-5.6 III USM Sony A 75-300 F4.5-5.6 Minolta AF 75-300 "Big Beercan" Minolta AF 100-300 APO Minolta AF 100-300 APO D Minolta AF 100-400 APO |
| price paid: | Included with 600si |
| positive: | Size and weight Sharp wide-open Fast focus Curved aperture blades 55 mm filter size Direct focus control Matches other D lenses |
| negative: | Purple fringing Lateral and axial CA Focus plane curvature Hard plastic focus grip Lens extends for zoom and focus No lens compensation support Slightly warm color cast "300 mm" is even wider than 100-300 lenses |
| comment: | This silver copy came with a $68 used Minolta Maxxum 600si from an individual eBay seller. This is the third version of this lens with the main difference being the addition of a focus distance encoder. The styling matches the 28-80 D kit zoom and later 28-100 and 18-70 D kit zooms--all have a small aluminum trim ring near the focus grip which is not found on the earlier II lenses or the rebranded Sony versions. The retail price of the Sony SAL75300 version was $250 before it was discontinued. "MALAYSIA" This lens is similar in size to the 55-300, longer than the 100-300, but shorter than the original 75-300. It extends more with zoom than the others, but doesn't get as long as the original 75-300. The focus grip is hard plastic but it is styled like the rubber grips on the 70-210 II and 100-300 APO. This copy is quite sharp wide-open even at 300 mm, but like the late 70-210 zooms the focus plane is more curved. It is quite prone to purple fringing like those lenses and the contemporary kit zooms. The original Minolta AF 75-300 shows less purple fringing and has a flatter focus plane. I find it a bit better optically than the Canon EF 75-300 III USM. The 7 aperture blades are curved, but they don't form as circular an opening stopped down as the 9 curved blades on the 100-300 APO D. The original 75-300 had 9 aperture blades, but they are pretty straight. It seems to use the same hood as the 100-300 APO D except with different lettering. This is the same three lobed bayonet still used by the 18-55 SAM II. Overall a perfectly fine telephoto kit lens that matches the image quality and appearance of the 18-70, 28-80, and 28-100 D kit zooms while offering more reach and range than the 70-210 zooms. |
| Atom Ant#29642 date: Jul-30-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 1 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 1 overall: 2.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-400 Sony 18-135 |
| price paid: | $70USD (used) |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Extreme CA Soft - esp towards 300mm Focus is slow with some hunting |
| comment: | From 100-200mm when stopped down, sharpness approaches acceptable. The worst problem is that, with any contrast in the scene, the flare & CA are terrible. Of course careful correction will get rid of most of the problem but that just improves things from comic to merely unacceptable. Maybe mine was a bad example... |
| CKL#20402 date: Oct-31-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Beercan 70-210 - Kitlens 55-200 |
| price paid: | part of kit |
| positive: | - First impression, what an ugly lens... however it's quite ok |
| negative: | - None |
| comment: | Got this more then 17 years ago (omg.. is it so long ago) and today did a test of all the telezoomlenses I got. I tested it at the back of my house, making shots of my back neighbours 30 meters away. It's not bad if you skip the first stop. It's sharper than the kitlens (which surprised me), but the beercan is sharper (except the end). At 300mm it's softer, but it's still descent. |
| Epic Win#10310 date: Jun-19-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 80-200mm f/2.8 HS APO |
| price paid: | 100 USD |
| positive: | Cheap, light, disposable. Good bokeh. |
| negative: | CA and speed were the only negatives I experienced |
| comment: | Despite all the negative ratings you will find for this lens, it is capable of producing good pictures in a controlled environment. It is a great lens for a somewhat bright, overcast day. Produces rich colors with the default settings on a KM 7D and probably outresolves the sensor. I recommend this lens for travel photography, when you want to keep your kit light and also know the weaknesses of this lens to pull it out when it will perform. Going over some old pictures taken when I had this lens, close scrutiny reveals that out of focus areas ("bokeh") are nice and creamy wide open. I didn't find an obvious flaw with what I saw. NOTE: this lens automatically focuses from zero distance to infinity owing to its "Macro" feature, therefore focus hunting can be a frequent problem if multiple surfaces catch its attention. |
| pbagley#9980 date: Feb-28-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210mm f4 Beercan @70 and 210mm 35-70mm f4 @70mm |
| price paid: | 150 USD (new) |
| positive: | Sharp at 200mm Colors are nice. |
| negative: | Not sharp at 75 or 300mm CA is bad wide open at 300mm |
| comment: | Purchased new in 2005 when I bought my KM 7D. Tested using an a580 at ISO200 shooting a still life. Images were cropped from 4912x3264 to 493x329 and compared. @75mm the lens is solidly in last place compared to the 35-70 (sharpest) and 70-210 (nearly as good) at all f=stops, both center and edge. 200mm - at f5.6 a little softer than the beercan, but at f8 it's a toss up. At f11 the 75-300 is sharper. Blasphemy! But also true. 300mm - at f5.6 the image is soft with some serious purple fringing. The CA gets better at f8 and f11 but still present. Colors are a lot like the beercan, as expected. I did not test for flare, but the CA leads me to think it may not be good at 300mm. Conclusion: Disappointing at 75 and 300, but surprising sharpness at 200mm, f8 and f11. I've mainly used this as a wildlife lens, nearly always at 300mm, and the results have often been disappointing. Now I see why. |
| lifeispixels#9896 date: Feb-6-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300 APO D Tamron 70-300 USD Sony 55-200 SAL55200-2 Cosina / Vivitar 100-400 4.5-6.7 |
| price paid: | 150 usd (new) + 30 usd shipping & tax |
| positive: | Good, acceptable wide-open sharpness across the zoom range, light, cheapest full frame telephoto lens. ADI compatible |
| negative: | CA can be abysmal in high contrast scenes, bokeh is fine but not outstanding, plasticky build |
| comment: | This is a fine choice for beginners' telephoto zoom. And the cheapest full frame telephoto. Nothing outstanding but good enough to produce results you want. My copy is a silver one which has nice finish but feels quite plasticky in hand and seems scratch prone. Sharpness is surprisingly good wide open across 75-300mm range. Although the image will look dull and low contrast when approaching 300mm end. Many suggested it's best to stick to 75-200 range. Compared to Minolta 100-300 APO D, that one needs stopping down hard from f8 onwards to get good sharpness but it produces much better contrast and punchy images. The colors of this lens is not rich, warm and deep like the original Minolta, looks more like modern Sony lens. So nothing outstanding here. Minolta 100-300 APO outshines in this department. Auto Focus works well in normal situations. It's accurate and dependable. Much better than Minolta 100-300 APO. Focus does hunt in low contrast but it's not worse than tele zoom in this price range. If you're looking for AF performance in this range, consider Sony 70-300G and Tamron 70-300 USD with ultra sonic drive. The worse thing about this lens that made me go look for Minolta 100-300 APO and Tamron 70-300 USD is Chromatic Aberration or purple fringing that can be so strong and abyssal. Easily noticeable even when scaling down images. This problem doesn't show in overcasting days but in bright day light, it's so bad in contrasty areas in the images. Big dilemma is since the lens is slow, you need good light and high shutter speed to reduce blur. However the CA is so bad in bright light and it produces better images in shade but then the shutter speed isn't high enough and need to raise ISO which affects IQ. Minolta 100-300 wins in this regard. Overall, this lens performs well for its price. Nothing outstanding but good enough when you learn its limitations and avoid its flaws. It's worth considering if you don't do much telephoto works. A better option than Sony 55-200 if considering its longer range and compatibility with full frame. However for mobility, I would carry lighter and smaller 55-200 to use with APSC camera. If I expect to shoot under hot bright noon as it often is in Thailand, I would reach out for Minolta 100-300 APO for its better colors, contrast, and no CA. Sharpness is not a problem because I can stop down hard in bright light. For serious works, I consider Tamron 70-300 USD or Sony 70-300 G. See my photos with Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6 D on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| derekw#9678 date: Dec-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 big beercan Minolta 75-300 New Minolta 75-300 II |
| price paid: | 41 GBP like new |
| positive: | Sharp enough Minolta colour Effective Hood Lightweight |
| negative: | Poor AF, especially in low light Feels and looks cheap - although it is!! |
| comment: | The ratings are correct - this is the worse of the bunch of Minolta 75-300s - BUT my copy isn't that bad. Usably sharp wide open across the range, it sharpens up with stopping down without ever achieving the excellent sharpness of the Big Beercan or New lenses. I may have a good copy and the reviews below suggest big variations between individual samples. Very poor autofocus. Some PF at longer focal lengths. Seems more comfortable when used for close up subjects. Conclusion - good value for money if on a tight budget but the 75-300 New wont cost a lot more. |
| Blitzkri3g#9157 date: Jun-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony 18-70mm Kit lens Tamron SP AF 10-24mm F3.5-4.5 Tamron 55-200mm AF F4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 150€ Used. |
| positive: | -Sharp up to 200mm. -Long Range. -Cheap second hand. |
| negative: | -Losing sharpness above 200mm. -F5.6 at the far end. -Generally softer than the Sony/Tamrons. |
| comment: | That was my Zoom lens back when I had the Sony a100. Built to last.It s been used under rain/dust and after a good cleaning it was and still is as new! You could find it cheap as a second hand buy and its range is amazing.Too bad its so soft especially wide open.The Sony a100 s resolution didnt help things too. Its a dependable affordable all around zoom lens, but dont expect miracles! N. |
| w1ggy#7707 date: Jul-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300dg |
| price paid: | £50 |
| positive: | Love this len,s i had the sigma 70-300dg before and this is far better ,light sharp stopped down abit nice colour , good lens |
| negative: | Hunts like hell poor af ,other than that its ace . |
| comment: | I use this on my sony a380 i had the sigma 70-300dg before and this is far far better , lighter sharper and give better colour and alot less cro/ab.The sigma kicks ass on the macro front i do miss that alot,but on the whole the minolta is a superb len,s and i dont think in the price range for a 75-300mm zoom you will find a sharper one . My mate has the shockinly poor tamron 70-300 the cro/ab and flair are nasty ,if you must buy a new lens for your sony , get the 75-300 sal its this rebaged ,or the sigma ,the tamron is awfull.Id recomend this len,s all day long to anyone on a budget,its a good zoom even stays quite sharp at 300mm ,i tend to use mine around the f8 mark or above but will retune a nice image at f5.6 upto 200mm.Anyway under £100 its a very good len,s.As for the poor af manual focus it works a treat nice big focus ring on it too ,JOB DONE . |
| McLinda#7564 date: Jun-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | cheap fairly sharp beautiful bokeh |
| negative: | has cheap feel to it slow auto focus washed out color zoomed in |
| comment: | missing |
| Dryce#7521 date: Jun-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300G SSM |
| price paid: | 40 UKP (new) |
| positive: | Cheap lens which can occasionally deliver a surprise. |
| negative: | Soft at longer focal lengths. You have to work within its limits. |
| comment: | No complaints because this isn't a high end zoom. I've been surprised by how well it can perform under good conditions up to about 210-225mm if you can stop it down to F8. It's light weight and not a big deal to carry around in your bag just in case. |
| hrstrat57#7014 date: Mar-6-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-200 |
| price paid: | $85 USD |
| positive: | Lightweight, great reach on C format, inexpensive. I think it is optically the same as the new Sony 75-300 |
| negative: | Very slow AF, esp in low light, loud, 5.6 comes up real quick results much better stopped down to F8 or more. Bokeh at 5.6 can be very bad at longer focal lengths. |
| comment: | Bought this used from a local shop just for giggles, expected it to be junk from the many lukewarm reviews I have read. Pleasantly surprised...I like it. The 300 reach on my A700 brings things in real close and is a lot of fun. I have the 100-200 which I bought new and love but the results from this lens, tho clearly not as good were not awful. Hopefully I will get in some birding and sports shooting tho the AF is slow and the lens is very loud, might even drive the birds away :) - - - All in all for short money not a bad lens, I am very surprised. The build is ok, it has a sturdy metal mount. I like it and fully expect to have a lot of fun with it tho I will grab a big beercan at some point - then this can go to my kid so she can have fun with it too! Beware bad bokeh at small apertures with zoom fully extended. Can be downright nasty! |
| profhankd#6907 date: Feb-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Various Tamron, Sony, Sigma, M42 |
| price paid: | 150 USD (new) |
| positive: | Very good close focus, good zoom range, small and light; IQ is better than you'd expect |
| negative: | IQ gets flat as you near 300mm, max aperture goes to f/5.6 quickly |
| comment: | Mine is black, not silver. It is a very versatile zoom lens. Both build and IQ are a huge step up from the 18-70 kit lens, although nobody is going to mistake this for a fixed-focal-length prime. The main problem is what happens as you zoom long. Maximum aperture becomes f/5.6 really early and contrast seems to go down pretty dramatically as you approach 300mm. Not exciting. On the other hand, it is perfectly usable, even wide open, and focuses to a surprisingly close distance. It is hard to complain for the price. It also is pretty easy to carry in a small camera bag, so you'll have it when you need it. In fact, my initial A-mount APS-C kit was a Sigma 10-20, Sony 18-70, and this... and it took more than a year before I added to that set. I still think that's a well-balanced set, just a little weak in the 18-70. Yeah, the Sigma costs more than the other two combined, but ultrawide zooms are optically complex enough that you need to spend some money to get them right. Update: I'm finding myself using this lens much less since getting a beercan. The beercan's better IQ and f/4 is quickly making this a lens I use only when the beercan is too big or I need 300mm. Update 7/2015: This is my easy-to-carry up-to-300mm choice, but my 28-200mm Sigma has become the one-AF-zoom choice due to range, size, and IQ. This lens is still fine on either APS-C or FF at 24MP. Update 6/2023: I've now tried this out on my A7RV with LA-EA5. It's pretty good, although AF and resolution certainly aren't on par with my one-year-old FE Tamron 28-200mm or 150-500mm. The images are pleasantly resolving in the 20-30MP range, which really isn't anything to complain about. What's more strange is that it worked with one of my A-mount teleconverters on the LA-EA5: an AF 1.4X Teleplus MC4. AF hunted a bit more, and detail resolved didn't really increase, but it is an option to give you a 420mm view in a very compact and lightweight package. |
| lowcost4dslr#6678 date: Jan-4-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | big beercan beercan Jupiter 21M (M42 200 mm f4.0) Jupiter 37A (M42 135 mm f3.5) |
| price paid: | 100€ |
| positive: | Fast AF for outdoor sport photo Decent sharpness Decent color light |
| negative: | Decent IQ |
| comment: | This zoom came with the D5D double kit. I was happy with it for sailing and windsurf (high wind) shots Because teh AF speed is excellent in good light The big beercan produce better image quality in all aspects |
| szacsa82#6410 date: Nov-18-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta zoom xi 80-200 Sony kit lens (18-70) |
| price paid: | 20000 HUF (70 euro) |
| positive: | good build extremely sharp close-ups range (up to 300mm) |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I bought a used one from an old Minolta kit for my Sony Alpha 200 and was surpirsed by the huge difference there was between the image quality of this lens and the Sony kit lens. I love this one and wish I could use it also instead of the kit lens (the range doesn't allow for that). |
| wetapunga#4830 date: Feb-10-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210/4 beercan Minolta 300/4 Sony 500/8 Reflex |
| price paid: | NZD 175 (used) |
| positive: | ADI functionality Light to carry |
| negative: | Sucks in dust Silver is conspicuous |
| comment: | This lens is a decent budget-level long telephoto. You won't be thrilled by the photos and you won't be crushed with disappointment. Not good, not bad, just mediocre. Nice for snapshots if you aren't printing big photos and want extra reach. I much preferred the using the beercan to this lens. |
| diveasia#4476 date: Dec-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sal1870 sal16105 |
| price paid: | 66 euro! (mint) |
| positive: | Cheap and light! surprisingly fast AF great minolta colours Very sharp stopped down |
| negative: | nothing, considering the price! |
| comment: | For this price, nothing can beat this lens! I used it om my Alpha 300. I was really surprised when I bought this lens. VERY sharp in daylight, sharp at night stopped down. Even without flash it gives more than average results indoors! Awesome minolta colours (blows away the sal 1870 kitlens here). VERY fast and smooth AF. Only at 280-300 it can hunt a bit, and you need to zoom out and back in. No problem for me. A bit slow, goes to 5.6 very quick, but this is normal for a non prime tele. Feels a bit cheap because it is in plastic. Don't know why it gets bad reviews. You can not compare this lens with a prime. Maybe I got lucky and got a great copy. A must have if you do not have the money to buy a prime....but then again, does an amateur really need a prime? |
| fjbyrne#4391 date: Nov-15-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 70-300 |
| price paid: | 60 USD (new) |
| positive: | - Good range - Light - Sharp at shorter focal lengths |
| negative: | - Soft wide open at longer focal lengths - Some CA issues at the longer focal lengths - Slow AF |
| comment: | I picked this up on clearance from Circuit City for $60. It is a decent lens especially in the 70-200 range. Build quality is OK. Better CA control than the Tamron but that isn't saying much. |
| TallPaul#4241 date: Oct-14-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-200/2.8 G |
| price paid: | Ł130 (new) |
| positive: | Cheap lens with good range. Performs better than you think stopped down. Not too heavy to carry around. |
| negative: | Its a budget lens, so not great. Quality suffers wide open, which is a problem at the 300mm end. Not designed for digital as far as I am aware. |
| comment: | My version of this lens I have had for around 8 years, bought new to use with my film body at the time (2xi). This lens is a great deal for the price, especially with the current second hand prices. Its not comparable to the more expensive lens's, but for someone new to Alpha mount wanting a longer zoom than the kit lens this lens is a good buy. The quality is not superb, but for the price its very good, and with film I have had many happy years of shooting before I was fortunate enough to upgrade to a G lens. |
| whitecat#3434 date: Apr-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Beercan. |
| price paid: | 180 USD (new) |
| positive: | Inexpensive. |
| negative: | Not very sharp at 300mm Purple fringes. Build quality. |
| comment: | An inexpensive zoom lens, I purchased it because I wanted the 300mm focal length. It can be quite sharp when stopped down, but more often than not, I have been disappointed. The beercan is better, but only goes to 210. |
| Space Cowboy#3355 date: Mar-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70/2,8G 70-210/4 100/2 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | price, colourful colours, light, nice hood |
| negative: | plastic body, dust sucking when zooming, bokeh |
| comment: | A nice budget lense. Colour contrast good enough for price. Medium sharpness. Needs to be used carefully in bad weather, because wetness and dust get inside when zooming takes place. Ugly bokeh doesn't allow getting really good pictures. |
| Webguyyy#3032 date: Dec-4-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300 APO DG Minolta 70-210 F4 |
| price paid: | 275 cdn new |
| positive: | Compact. 55mm filter size. Entry level telephoto. |
| negative: | Slow, jumps to slowest aperature F5.6 quickly. Rotating front element. Average entry level telephoto performer. Lack of a true macro feature. |
| comment: | This lense is an average performer, as an entry level telephoto lens. It's the same lens as the Sony 75-300mm kit lens. It's fairly well made, and takes reasonably sharp pictures. It's biggest handicap is it's speed. It' jumps to it's slowest aperature speed of F5.6 by about 120mm, compared to a Sigma 70-300mm APO DG, which reaches F5.6 at 220mm, in the same price range. It's minimum focusing distance is called a macro, which it is not. It's really it's closest focus distance magnificaton 1/4, compared to Sigma & Tamrons macro 1/2 magnification. |
| eccles#2675 date: Aug-30-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 kit lens |
| price paid: | Ł65 (used) |
| positive: | Nice carry around lens Sharp wide open up to 200mm AF ok, manual focus good too Compact when in the bag |
| negative: | Soft at 300mm PF with high contrast especially at 300mm Zoom ring too tight |
| comment: | Purchased on ebay to use with new A100, for Ł65 plus postage my example was boxed as new. It has the full 8 contacts, hence the 'D' label. Initially I was a little disappointed with this lens but with a bit of PP effort it can turn in quite creditable results, even when wide open. At full zoom however, it needs to be stopped down a bit for best results and even then you have to watch for PF. Other forms of CA are just about non-existent though. As a stopgap until I can get a macro lens I've been using a Canon 500D close up lens with a stepping ring to shoot butterflies, and at 150-200mm zoom it's taken some surprisingly good photos with very smooth bokeh. Usefully, I have been able to coax accurate AF out of very cluttered backgrounds. Edit: After taking further pictures with this lens I became convinced that it was rather soft at 300mm but at 200mm there was a very good 'sweet spot'. So I spent an hour shooting test photos of the back fence with the A100 on a tripod and SSS turned off. Tested wide open, F8 and F11. I didn't test at smaller apertures because of digital refraction effects. The result is as follows: At 75mm it's soft wide open, good at F8, tailing off again at F11. At 135mm it's good at the three tested apertures. At 210mm It's good at the three tested apertures with that suspected sweet spot at F8. I knew it! At 300mm the detail was actually there, but it looked soft at all tested apertures. And even on my boring old wooden fence there was a little purple stuff at the edges. A bit of PP work with some unsharp mask on the raw images can bring the detail in at 300mm. However, it flares at the drop of a hat at this focal length, losing contrast so easily with distant subjects. But if you can tempt the wildlife a little closer, the bokeh is first class and you can turn in some very nice pictures. I think I'll love and hate this lens alternatively. |
| kapuxino#2485 date: Jun-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210 Sony 18-70 Lens kit Cosina 100mm 3.5 macro |
| price paid: | 150EUR "new" |
| positive: | Cheap!! Very sharp stoped down a bit Nice colors Feels robust |
| negative: | It should be stoped down a bit for best results |
| comment: | A cheap zoom, great for nature and outdoor photos. You can get nice results with this lens. Photo samples: http://flickr.com/photos/kapuxino/414736240/ http://flickr.com/photos/kapuxino/408620420/ http://flickr.com/photos/kapuxino/421369822/ http://flickr.com/photos/kapuxino/391964378/ |
| sooner#2358 date: May-26-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Baby Beer Can Sigma 28-200D |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Very good resolution at f/8. Not bad results wide open. Pleasing near-macro photos. Light and compact enough. |
| negative: | Considering the price - nonthing. |
| comment: | I have tested this, and the lenses listed, using the Koren, 2003, (5mm) test charts to determine the resolution based on the MTF-50 criterion. Two of the sine-wave, test, strips; one horizontal near the center of the frame, and the other, diagonal, very close to the corner of the frame. The tests were made with a KM5D, hand held, image stabilization “on”, ISO 100, in bright sunlight so that the shutter speed was quick enough to satisfy the reciprocal of the focal length criterion. Results: (focal length/f-stop/lines per inch on an 8” x 12” print at center/ditto-at corner). (300/8/128/63), (300/5.6/97/38), (75/8/119/65), (75/4.5/108/61). My understanding of photo resolution quality is: >150 lpi=excellent, >110 lpi=very good, >80 lpi=good. I have some very nice 8” x 12” prints from this lens at 300 mm as well as macros of flowers. While not up to the Beer Can, or the Sigma, it produces very good results at f/8. I wonder if this lens, the 75-300 (New), and the 75-300II are all the same optically. The physical specs suggest they are. More details on this and other lenses can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/royanddee/lens_test_results_mtf50.htm |
| eldonito#1915 date: Mar-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210 F4 (beercan) Cosina 100 F3.5 Macro Sigma EX DG 85 F1.4 HSM |
| price paid: | [gift] |
| positive: | Price Nice bokeh Long reach Lightweight Metal mount D lens -> v. good with flash Better MF control than older AF lenses "makes you look like a pro" (friend's comment) |
| negative: | Softish Purple fringing Focus hunting in indoor light levels or less when zoomed in. |
| comment: | Nice and lightweight, but doesn't feel cheap. Pleasant colours and good for portraits on sunny days. No problems for MF. Much less CA than the beercan wide open, but soft nonetheless and evident purple fringing, e.g. on flash shots. The softness persists beyond f/8 at longer f-lengths: would recommend f/11 for 300 mm. Hampered by small aperture ratio at the long end, it hunts a lot, especially in low light / indoors. At 10 MP, cropped beercan shots from 210mm had more detail than uncropped 300 mm shots from this lens. Hmmm, a bit of a toy lens, but you get what you pay for! |
| nemethp#1847 date: Feb-17-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap Price Some very sharp photos at 300 Nice DOF at 300 |
| negative: | A little tough on focus Not too usefull on Macro |
| comment: | This was one of the Kit lenses for my maxxum 5 and it has become one of my favorite lenses on the 5d. I love how sharp the photos are at 300mm for a kit lens. I am buying a sigma 70-300 APO for my sister and I will update this to compare the two when I get it. I think it is a great lens for the price. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 47
- sharpness: 3.89
- color: 4.17
- build: 3.66
- distortion: 3.98
- flare control: 3.74
- overall: 3.89
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login