Sony AF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 A-mount lens reviews
 icameisaw#44162 date: Nov-6-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Sony 18-250mm f3.5-6.3 Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Tamron 80-210mm f4.5-5.6 Minolta 70-210mm f4 'beercan' Sony 70-400mm G Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G Tamron 200-400mm |
| price paid: | £117 s/h |
| positive: | It's not just longer than but better than the kit lens. It's a reasonable size and weight. |
| negative: | You get a long lens to use the long end. Sadly, this is where the colour fringing and distortion is at its worst. Screw focusing isn't very fast. |
| comment: | What got me taking the 50mm f1.4 off the camera for at least some of the time was this long zoom lens. I thought I bought for not very much, but I see it was about the same as its replacement. The main problem is, again, that it's not very good. Yes, I could get pictures of the 'like a zebra but with even more stripes' when they were far from the viewing platform, but they aren't supposed to have colour fringes at the edges of their stripes... Sold last year for about half what I paid. |
; 12MP| QuietOC#44127 date: Aug-27-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-250 Sony DT 55-200 SAM 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 Minolta AF 100-300 APO Minolta AF 100-300 APO D Minolta AF 100-400 APO |
| price paid: | Included with A57 |
| positive: | Size and weight Fast focus Curved aperture blades 55 mm filter size Direct focus control Matches other Sony 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 |
| comment: | This lens is essentially identical to the Minolta AF 75-300 D. The zoom grip was changed to the tight horizontal style Sony uses. This particular copy was included with a used A57. The list price of this lens was $230 to $250 with some sales for $200. It may have often been purchased as part of a body kit for $100 extra. It was effectively replaced in 2012 by the Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6. "MADE IN CHINA" This copy isn't quite as sharp as the Minolta AF 75-300 D that came with my 600si. 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 Minolta AF 70-210 II and 100-300 APO. Like the late Minolta AF 70-210 zooms the focus plane is fairly curved. It is quite prone to purple fringing like those lenses and the contemporary kit zooms. The original 75-300 shows less purple fringing and has a flatter focus plane. 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. The Sony SH0007 hood is bulkier than the Minolta hood. It shares the same three lobed bayonet still used by the late Minolta kits zooms and 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. |
| Keber#38858 date: May-15-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 (kit) Sony 18-250 Sony 50 f1.8 SAM Tokina 28-70 AT-X pro |
| price paid: | £50 used |
| positive: | Cheap Light weight Full frame Good MF |
| negative: | Plastic build Soft over 150 Bad focus ring position |
| comment: | This is a cheap and cheerful kit grade lens, I wouldn't recommend it if you are looking for a "go to" lens (sport, wildlife etc). But if like me you are looking for an occasional long lens (and can't warrant SSM money) it's good value. Handling, build and image quality are better than any of the other kit lenses but it will probably never blow you away. The light fall off and CA are noticeable in the corners on an APS-C camera so I expect it may be an issue on full frame. |
| Ssoyd#12075 date: Jan-2-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 2 build: 2 distortion: 2 flare control: 1 overall: 1.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70 "C" Tamron 16-300 USD Tamron 18-200 Tamron 70-300 USD Tamron 70-200 f2.8 USD Sony 35mm f1.8 Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | 100 USD as kit |
| positive: | Cheap. Came as part of a kit with my A100 |
| negative: | Everything Slow inaccurate AF Not sharp at any setting, especially at 300mm. Build quality mediocre at best |
| comment: | I used to own the Sony version of this lens, not the Minolta. I would not recommend this lens to anybody. The best thing to do with it would be to throw it under a paving roller to smash it to pieces. The Tamron 70-300 USD I bought to replace it blows it completely out of the water. I paid an extra $100 for the lens as part of a kit with my A100. It was passable on that 10mp camera but when I upgraded to the 16mp A55 all the deficiencies became obvious. |
| macronut#11738 date: Mar-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300mm APO Minolta 75-300mm Big Beercan Sigma 75-300 APO |
| price paid: | kit package deal |
| positive: | Cheap ADI (not that it's used much) lightweight Everything about this lens is OK for the money, but as used lenses keep getting cheaper... |
| negative: | Too many better lens choices out there at a similar cost. Not sharp at the long end. |
| comment: | This lens gets a bad rap from some folks. I just do not understand why anyone would overly bash it. You get what you pay for, and when it was new this lens represented a fair value. There has to be some cheaper lenses manufactured for those that need them. It is all plastic, but it isn't built all that badly. In fact, mine (now my wife's) functions smoothly and feels like everything is nice and tight. There is enough weight to it, to feel that it is put together fairly well. Under the standards of more expensive Sony offerings, but not bad. Tamron made a 100-300mm, that was of considerably worse build quality. I mean that thing deserves a 2 rating without hesitation. Yet somehow it is rated in these reviews as slightly better than the SAL75300. Goes to show that you can't always trust what people say! Really makes me wonder how many lenses on this site have misleading review scores. Sharpness should be considered acceptable given what this lens is. But that doesn't mean you should go buy it. When comparing to better glass, yes it loses obviously, especially fully extended. Side by side shots against all three lenses I listed above show softness more and more as you approach 300mm. The kicker is that those lenses do not cost more than this Sony! I'm not going to ramble on much about this lens. It is what it is. An affordable modern lens that absolutely will please your average casual user. If you got this as a package deal, cool. If you are reading this because you are considering this lens, I see no reasons to buy it. It makes alot more sense to step your game up. Used lens prices are down considerably right now. The Minolta 100-300 APO D can be bought in excellent used condition for a hair less than $200. Buy the Mino and you will never give the Sony another thought. The Sigma performs well also, but is a push-pull zoom. Also it may not work on a Sony SLT body. The Big Beercan is a solid choice, but bear in mind the extra weight! |
| mojtaba1364#11309 date: Aug-13-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 Beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap reasonable sharp Full Frame Range for APS-C IQ |
| negative: | Not sharp corner Normal Quality |
| comment: | missing |
| MVKregg#10549 date: Sep-28-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL-70300G, Tamron 70-200 F2.8 |
| price paid: | kit package |
| positive: | (For the price): -Good bokeh & close focus -Reasonable IQ at lower focal lengths. Easy to use, big grippy zoom ring. Relatively compact/discrete for FF and the FLs available. Pretty rugged for an inexpensive lens. Once it finds focus, it is reasonably sharp/accurate. |
| negative: | Slow, mediocre contrast and CA at longer FLs. Autofocus slow and hunts, especially in lower light. Cheaply-made flimsy hood (required for good flare control). The plastic hood is easy to break, and a replacement is nearly $30US! |
| comment: | Got it as a package deal with my A100 years ago. Liked it enough that I kept it when I upgraded to FF. Have been surprised how often it is on my camera, and some of my favorite shots were taken over the years with this lens. Great for outdoor candid shots and medium tele work, or for locations where you don't want your expensive glass to go. I also have an array of filters that I bought for other lenses with the same filter diameter, which has been very convenient: with a soft focus filter and good light, the lens works for senior/family portraits, etc. Out on the water, with a circular polarizing filter I have gotten shots friends with glass 10X the price haven't been able to get. The close focus allows it to function as a macro lens for outside flowers and bugs. A good "jack of all trades" long lens. |
| minoltista.ca#10498 date: Sep-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210 f/4 Tamron SP AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD IF Macro Tamron AF 70-300 Di LD f/4-5,6 macro Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 60-300mm f/3.8-5.4 Tamron Adaptall-2 SP 70-210mm f/3.5 |
| price paid: | kit lens on APS-C |
| positive: | pretty sharp stopped down good zoom range small, light, discrete low distortion nice color et smooth bokeh work well on FF |
| negative: | soft et huge CA wide open front element turn when focusing plastic |
| comment: | For its price, this lens is good performer. Of course, the plastic construction does not inspire much confidence, but mechanically and optically, this lens is a good value for an amateur, who does not want to spend a fortune to have just a little better. Between 100 - 200mm the image quality is good, and at 200mm, it is better than the "famous" beercan. |
| alphafive7#10347 date: Jul-1-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 2 overall: 2.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 200 USD |
| positive: | Price Weight Filter size |
| negative: | Soft above 250 Seems to hunt too much |
| comment: | Bought it years ago for the a100, before I knew about the Mind of Minolta and the good glass they made. The lens is now parked along with the 18-70 kit lens. |
| Skoropada#9422 date: Sep-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | - Zoom range - Cheap |
| negative: | - Sharpness - Build quality |
| comment: | missing |
| balacau#8980 date: Apr-30-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 50-500mm (non OS version) Sony 18-70mm DT (kit) zoom Minolta 28-80mm |
| price paid: | £200 I think |
| positive: | Light-weight Fairly compact size. Effective lens hood. Pretty cheap for filters (55mm) It fits nicely with the 18-70mm kit zoom without any overlap. |
| negative: | Rubber grip is a dust magnet although easy to clean. Doesn't always produce sharp images. I'd love a wider end, 50mm maybe? |
| comment: | This was one of the two first lenses I ever bought for my a350. It has served me quite well although some situations have produced less than sharp pictures. This isn't always the fault of the camera/lens however. Now, it lives on with the a580. The SAL75300 seems to manage with most weather situations that our UK climate will throw at it. The lens hood is not only effective at reducing flare, its also very good for protection against raindrops! Although not an excellent match, I have paired this lens with my Kenko Teleplus 2x TC. Far easier to transport them both on foot than carrying a 500mm lens! IQ suffers though so you may want to watch out for that. For the price, I suppose it was a decent buy. It fits nicely with the 18-70mm DT kit lens, giving a full range from 18-300mm without any overlap although I do curse the 75mm for not being wide enough at times! Its a keeper for my aps-c a580; I was surprised to read that its designed for Full Frame dSLR's! |
| edhoku#8839 date: Mar-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210, 75-300, Sigma 70-300mm |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light, good for female photographers. |
| negative: | Very plastic... The rubber grip get dirty easily images sharpness un-impressive |
| comment: | Borrowed this lens from a old friend's daughter to shoot some images during a family outing. Very disappointed with the sharpness even that this is a Kit long Lens. Feel very plastic... |
| RedDrake#8838 date: Mar-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 50-500 Sigma 150-500 Minolta 70-210/4 Tokina 70-210 SD |
| price paid: | Part of kit |
| positive: | + small and light + cheap |
| negative: | - CA is plentiful - not really sharp at tele end - front of barrel rotates during focus |
| comment: | So, I came across this lens by chance, got it in a kit with a used A500 and the regular 18-55 kit lens. I've taken it for a test during the weekend on my A700 and I am quite satisfied with the results it produced. AF speed is reasonable at the tele end and is very fast at the "wide" part of the zoom. Although once it starts hunting it can take 2-3 seconds to traverse the entire focus range. For the record I've managed to get two birds fighting in mid flight at 280mm with an overcast sky (So not completely ideal). As for sharpness, it's pretty ok around 70mm, but goes very bad after 200mm. 300mm and f/11 does not yield as much detail as the sigma 50-500@300mm does wide open! (although the Sigma costs about 5x as much and is expected to deliver that much more) 70-100mm does not need much stopping down, 100-200 about f/8-9 and f/9 and above for 200mm+ would be my suggestion. Another problem is color fringing (aka CA), as it is pretty bad on anything that is high contrast. White birds against an overcast sky are a big no-no for example. And of course there is an engineering mistake that was made by minolta I guess (this is a rebranded Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D I believe). When mounting the hood, the mounting mechanism is too stiff, and the barrel start to turn, which also turns the focus ring and the focus screw drive motor in the camera! I am very uneasy securing the hood on this lens when attached to my camera ... Other than that, you get what you pay for. A budget telephoto zoom that does more than enough for it's price. |
| Eric_D#8727 date: Mar-2-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 70 300 Di |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light Affordable |
| negative: | Soft over 200mm Slow |
| comment: | I sold my copy and kept the Tamron 70 300 Di. The Sony focuses faster than my Tamron But the Tamron starts at f4 and focuses closer. Both soft at 300mm. |
| Zony#8474 date: Jan-4-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp Even tones |
| negative: | Heavy |
| comment: | I have been real happy with this lens. It is sharper and has more detail than it's price-point would suggest. Microcontrast makes it a nice portrait lens at it's wide end on crop cams. |
| Jezebel_Jones#8082 date: Oct-12-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300, Minolta 70-210 RS |
| price paid: | $195 au |
| positive: | Light, cheap, fast focusing, sharp, has Sony ADI |
| negative: | It has really bad bokeh, very unattractive and overpowering, a little soft at 300, but below 270 it is fine. |
| comment: | A good lens if you are shooting in a way that will not produce bokeh, the bokeh is so bad that it ruins shots. |
| roo#7816 date: Aug-14-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -Minolta AF 75-300 Bigbeercan -Minolta AF 100-300 Xi -Tamron SP 300mm F5.6 Telemacro |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | -sharpness -range -lightweight |
| negative: | -CA!!! -MF ring not very smooth |
| comment: | I have a mixed evaluation on this lens. First of all this is quite a sharp lens in my opinion. At 300mm and wide open this lens is much sharper than my 100-300 Xi and Tam SP 300mm and on par with or slightly sharper than my bigbeercan. On the other hand it suffers from quite severe CA especially when I take a bird or small object with the sky in the background. This CA seems to be the kind that is NOT correctable with software, so it must be the 'longitudinal' CA. bbc does not show CA almost at all in any situation. So am I going to sell this and keep the bbc? Probably not. This one weighs only 440g without caps or hood while bbc does 860g!!! In fact since I bought it I've been carrying this one almost all the time rather than bbc. CA does improve if not goes away when stopped down. Maybe I can live with this lens and in some occasions I will take my bbc with me until I get an ultimate telephoto lens. If only the CA problem is resolved this would be a killer lens and I would not look further in this class of lens. So I can't understand why this lens is rated so low and Bigbeercan so high. The difference is actually minimal. |
| Amaceira#7626 date: Jun-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | Kit |
| positive: | - Long zoom - Good results for a entry level telephoto. - Circular aperture blades - Good bokeh! - Works on Full Frame cameras!!! |
| negative: | - Quickly jumps to f/5.6 - Lack of a true macro feature - Small manual focus ring - Dust collecting rubber grip - Front element rotates while focusing |
| comment: | This lens is a good performer, as an entry level telephoto lens. It's fairly well made, and takes reasonably sharp pictures. This lens biggest handicap is it's speed. It jumps to f/5.6 at about 120mm In low light is a no-go without a tripod... and focusing might give you a headache! It is reasonably good from 75-250 if you stop it down to f/6.3 at the wide end & f/7.1 at the tele end but from 250-300 it is soft whatever aperature. |
| Bill73#7565 date: Jun-14-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 70-300Macro Sony CZ 16-80/f3.5-4.5 Sony 50/f1.4 Sony 18-55/F3.5-5.6SAM Tamron 90mm/2.8 MACRO Tamron 18-200/3.5-6.3 Sigma 28-200/3.8-5.6 SOny 18-70/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | Cheap! Actually takes very decent (and dare I say it ... good) pictures. 55mm filter Very sharp up to 200. |
| negative: | Hood is rubbish CA can be bad - especially at long end if you don't stop down. Auto focus can be terrible in limited circumstances. |
| comment: | I got this lens with my a200 and there's no way I would part with it! I know alot of folk on Dyxum like to rubbish this lens - for 80% of tele shots you're ever going to take this lens will do a good job. It's sharper at 200mm than either of Sony's 'budget' mid zoom options (the 50-200 range)! Yes the auto focus can be a shocker and the CA is pronounced in some situations. None of this detracts from what at the end of the day is a very decent lens. I also have the Tamron 70-300 Macro and I do use that lens more often (the psuedo macro function is awesome!) but I think there'll be a place in my kit bag for this lens for a long time to come yet ... |
| sora3#7540 date: Jun-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | With kit |
| positive: | Good starting lens to start and shoot with Decent image once you hit within 75-150mm Good grip for beginners to use with |
| negative: | Slow AF, especially if you're shooting in low light Hunts a bit if you have large contrast in the subject Not a good lens to use in fading light, early afternoon is probably the limit to use with Very noisy IQ starts to fade once you hit beyond 200mm, especially at 300mm |
| comment: | I initially start with this lens when I got the a200. It's a good lens to start off with. However, once you get over the basics, you'll probably want to ditch this lens and go higher. The lens doesn't allow a lot of growth after that, even more so with fast pace shots such as motorsports and the like. I still keep this one as it has its purpose but definitely go for something better once you're over the beginner status. |
| Argote#7415 date: May-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL1870DT Minolta 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 Minolta 100-200 f/4.5 |
| price paid: | ~200 USD (Kit) |
| positive: | Good price Nice reach Non-photographers are impressed with it |
| negative: | Slow for indoors use Ugly 'Bokeh' "Soft" @ 300mm Rotates on Focus Hunts more than I'd like to Strong CA near 300mm |
| comment: | I think that for the money this is a nice lens, it has very harsh bokeh though. Having 300mm is very useful. Hunts a bit in low light conditions. |
| fleptoeter#6933 date: Feb-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 18-70 minolta 28-85 minolta 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | Was in the kit |
| positive: | Nice range Sharp enough |
| negative: | hate the hunting |
| comment: | I used it at the MotoGP, and i got some really good results, nice for sports. Above 200mm it's wise to use a tripod. It's a nice lens for me. I don't use it much, but I wouldn't want to miss it either. |
| SvenJTD#6610 date: Dec-20-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Kit lens |
| positive: | Lightweight, good extension to the 18-70 kit lens, good range, ok sharpness |
| negative: | Slow AF, noisy |
| comment: | Pretty decent results considering it came with the camera and for that price. |
| samjackson#6091 date: Sep-20-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Carl Zeiss - 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM Sony - 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM Rokinon - 85mm F1.4 Sony - 100mm F2.8 Macro Sony - 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | Kitlens |
| positive: | cheap lightweight 300mm sharp for a kitlens ok bokeh |
| negative: | mf ring af slow and noisy CA not sharp until f8 flaring in the sun |
| comment: | i like the range of this lens, once again its a kit lens so dont expect much, but its reasonably sharp. af is crummy, but i actually did some photos of jetski racing with this lens with quite reasonable results! atleast better results than my old fuji s9500! |
| careyy#6074 date: Sep-17-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | kit 18-70, 55-200 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | good range |
| negative: | not sharp |
| comment: | 55-200 have better sharpness and overalimage quality |
| nitrosyl#6054 date: Sep-15-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 70-200mm f/4 (Beercan) - Minolta 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 APO - Minolta 135mm f/2.8 - Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 DT - Sony 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 SSM G |
| price paid: | part of kit |
| positive: | - cheap - small & light - full frame compatible - circular aperture blades |
| negative: | - not sharp (esp. at 300mm) - chromatic aberration - mediocre build quality - not flare-resistant |
| comment: | missing |
| eugenephoto#5964 date: Sep-3-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 |
| price paid: | 92.00 |
| positive: | Focal Range Lens Hood |
| negative: | Slow Auto Focus Fringe |
| comment: | The lens is great. I managed to pick one up at Circuit City before it went out of business. The lens is slow to auto focus. It's easier, quieter and usually faster to manually focus this lens. There is a considerable amount of fringe in images taken at 300mm. At 75mm the lens performs quite well. At 300mm you will need a tripod for most shots. This is a great lens, just keep in mind you will probably have to spend some time in the digital darkroom adjusting many different levels. Shoot in RAW when using this lens. IT WILL HELP!!! |
| michaelg#5942 date: Aug-30-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 19-35 M35-105 M50/1.7 Beercan M135/2.8 Sigma 105Macro M28-85 Vivitar Series1 105/2.5 |
| price paid: | 220 USD |
| positive: | Light |
| negative: | Not Sharp from 250-300 Slow |
| comment: | Bought this lens with my a350. It is reasonably good from 75-250 if you stop it down to f/6.3 at the wide end & f/7.1 at the tele end but from 250-300 it is soft whatever aperature. I ams elling this as i have a big berrcan on the way. |
| SChurchill#5850 date: Aug-13-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70mm kit lens |
| price paid: | L176 |
| positive: | Cheap Light |
| negative: | Appalling CA Slow AF |
| comment: | This was the first lens I bought for my A200 and must admit to being thoroughly disappointed with it. Just after I got it I went to a local zoo to try it out. The purple fringing is horrific over 200mm. I have photos of black, white and purple Zebras. This is not just a faint purple fringe but deep halo that passes through purple to deep blue. I have perservered with this lens due to limited funds and now shoot at a maximum of 200mm. At around 160mm I have found it to be very sharp. |
| JeremyT#5734 date: Jul-20-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 55-200mm |
| price paid: | In kit (A200W) |
| positive: | - Cheap - Light - Good range - Sharp < 200mm |
| negative: | - CA (fringing), very bad wide open at 300mm - Not as sharp > 200mm - MFD could be better - Slow AF |
| comment: | A good yet underrated value zoom. Don't discount this lens due to the Dyxum score, which I imagine suffers simply due to it being a 'kit' lens and for being a 450mm equivalent which can be difficult to work with. The lens does have some limitations. It's slow, already at f/5.6 by 120mm. It focuses accurately (albeit slowly), but if it misses it goes on an excruciatingly long hunting trip. The 1.5m MFD is disappointing. Build seems fine, although the filter ring rotates on focus. Up until about 200mm it's actually very sharp wide open, and I don't feel a need to stop down on my A200. It performs just as well as the much more highly rated SAL 55-200mm through that range. Wide open near 300mm sharpness is reduced and it suffers from substantial CA in high contrast shots. If you shoot at F/8 it's sharp again, but the fringing is still a problem no matter how much you stop down, and that is clearly the biggest weakness of this lens. Its second hand prices are quite nice, so if you're looking to get to 300mm on the cheap it's a great choice. On the other hand, if you don't need 200-300mm (or full frame), the more portable and faster 55-200mm may be a more practical option. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 60
- sharpness: 3.78
- color: 3.88
- build: 3.58
- distortion: 3.85
- flare control: 3.82
- overall: 3.78
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login