Minolta AF 100-400mm F4.5-6.7 APO A-mount lens reviews
 kevinbm#4596 date: Dec-30-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 400mm SD Minolta 80-200mm xi |
| price paid: | 400 USD used |
| positive: | Build quality Colours Speed Fast autofocus Sharpness |
| negative: | Zoom creep |
| comment: | Only just got this lens the day before Christmas but took it out to photograph my kids on their new bikes. Was impressed with the speed of autofocus and on processing the raws later on the colours that the lens gives - very vibrant and real. The focus is a little soft at 400mm but overall this lens is so sharp. Coming from the xi lens with its motorised zoom I was a little disappointed with the zoom creep if the lens goes out of the horizontal but this is something I will get used to. I see this lens being used regularly alongside my main walkaround 28-80mm xi zoom. |
; 12MP| Dynaton-DK#4475 date: Dec-5-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Cosina AF100-400 Tamron AF200-400 Sigma AF400 APO Sigma AF70-300APO Sigma AF70-300 Minolta AF100-200 Minolta AF100-300 Minolta AF28-135 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Very sharp Autofocus speed Fair weight |
| negative: | Heavy front glass (be careful) |
| comment: | The lens is significantly sharper and (surprisingly) fast in real life. Compared to other similar lenses this lens is in fact not very heavy, and produces about the same quality as some 1,5x heavier lenses. The only issue is the heavy front glass which feels like it excert some mechanical stress on joint of the front part of the barrel (However, nothing that is a practical issue to me as I only shoot horisontally - never vertically). It is maybe not super-sharp at the long end (towards 400mm where the Tamron AF200-400 is better), but I find it still to be pretty sharp - and more than adaquate. Much sharper than anything else I have had. Before I managed to find one of these I've used a Cosina AF100-400 F4.5-6.7 with fair results (provided some PP was done to the pictures), but the Minolta is in a completely different legue (it is unfair to compare a VW build Skoda with a Porche, so the Cosina cannot be directly compared to the Minolta). This lens comes at rather high prices used, but I find that it's still worthwhile to buy if you can find one. |
| petesidewalk#4465 date: Dec-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | K/M 75-300 Big Beercan K/M 35-70 4 Sony 18-70 Kit Lens K/M 50 1.7 K/M 70-210 4.5-5.6 K/M 70-210 4 Beercan K/M 28 2.8 K/M 28-80xi K/M 28-135 4-4.5 K/M 35-70 3.5-4.5 Tamron 200-400 5.6 LD NEW Sigma 75-200 2.8-3.5 Deitz 28-200 Tamron 20-35 3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 500 USD |
| positive: | Sharp throughout Bokeh Range Comparitively compact Amazing in good light |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | I bought this from a fellow Dyxum member. I Got a great deal on a great lens. It has a great range and is unusually sharp for a zoom of this size and compactness. Great bokeh and has no apparent CA. I am very pleased with this lens and am still exploring it's capabilities. It reminds me of a 400mm zoom beercan, except proportionally lighter. |
| nosmo king#4464 date: Dec-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 70-300mm g |
| price paid: | 450 USD used |
| positive: | Nice Focal Range, Compact size. solid feel. Sharp wide open at 400mm. f6.7 is really f6.3. |
| negative: | Auto focus is a bit on the slow side. |
| comment: | I like the extra 100mm range this lens has over the Sony 70-300. Color and sharpness is great. Outdoors in good light is where this lens will perform best. |
| lattiboy#3975 date: Aug-17-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 75-300mm Minolta Big Beercan 100-200mm Minolta 100-300mm Minolta 70-210mm Minolta Beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | 1) Colors and bokeh 2) Sharpness is excellent throughout the range 3) Range 4) Build quality 5) Size for range |
| negative: | 1) Focus speed (could be my copy) 2) A little soft wide-open over 350mm |
| comment: | This lens is pretty rare to come by. It isn't nearly as available as the 100-300mm APO and is usually a sight more expensive. I took it out to some parks here in Seattle and caught some really nice portraits of people. The bokeh is AMAZING. Also, insultingly sharp (to model) at f/8 and above. VERY sharp wide-open throughout the range. Perhaps SOME softening at 380mm, but not much. I believe it to be superior to the beercan for sharpness and bokeh, with an additional 190mm of reach. This lens is QUITE compact for the range. A keeper for me. I prefer it to the limited use I had of the 70-300mm G....and you'll pay about $250 less for this one. PS I'm going by the review guidelines for this one. I am going to go through my previous reviews and update accordingly. |
| NetQwik#3866 date: Jul-20-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 400 G |
| price paid: | 548 USD used |
| positive: | Range Weight Size Price |
| negative: | Zoom creep Rotating focus ring |
| comment: | Since I originally posted this review, the 70-400CZ has been released. I know that's the one I want but for now the 100-400 APO will have to do. I don't get to shoot at extreme distance often enough to justify the expense of a major upgrade. On an a900, toggling from FF to APS-C gives 600mm images as well. Zoom creep is not that big of a deal because I only reach for this lens when extreme range is required and this is not a practical walking around lens. Unless you are a professional and have the requirement or you're a wealthy collector, the 400G makes no sense due to size, weight and price although I'd love to play with one. Check out this 100% crop at http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/netqwik/DSC00074.jpg This lens can be quite sharp in the right conditions: http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll87/netqwik/DSC01231.jpg Update - This lens is excellent for the price but it does not render colors like my awesome G's. Editing is usually required. |
| chefkenny#3494 date: Apr-20-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 200mm/4 APO G macro Sigma 28-200mm |
| price paid: | 400 USD(used) |
| positive: | Sharp on 400mm well build |
| negative: | none |
| comment: | Well it is not fair to compair with my 200/4 on color but with below 200mm this lens holdup very well with 200/4 and for the price this is a excellent lens.The image shown very sharp even on 400mm and I don't know why it said 4.5-6.7 but I found it is 4.5/6.3 no biggy just wonder. Overall it is a excellent lens. You can't go wrong with it. |
| RDoe#3217 date: Jan-29-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Beercan - Sigma 70-300 APO - Big Beercan |
| price paid: | 600 USD (new?) |
| positive: | - Surprise sharp full open - Sharp at 400 - F6.3 in stead of F6.7 - Relative light weight - Metal/Plastic body |
| negative: | - Don't need it perse, but tripod mount could be helpful - My copy is a bit neutral, could have done with more contrast - Slow AF, was expected - Zoom creep |
| comment: | I Like this lens very much. Bought it in Japan as second hand, but I guess it is new. No scratches or anything. Included with lens caps, Hood and storage box. I like that this lens is sharp wide open. Especially for this range I think it is very sharp, even at 400mm F6.3. Compared to the Big Beercan it is not that heavy, it fits nicely in your hands. The build is also good, although the zoom part of the lens is plastic and extend a bit when at 400mm. But, well ... not really a negative. Compared to the Beercan, it is a bit softer wide open and the beercan has better contrast and bokeh, but that's what PP is for! For the range can't go wrong with this lens! If you have the money and need the range, go for it! |
| rovhazman#3215 date: Jan-29-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 (beercan) Minolta 75-300 (big beercan) Sony 18-200 Minolta 100-200 Sony 70-200 G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp even at 400mm lightweight for such zoom lens |
| negative: | Slow AF |
| comment: | First thing I noticed when I received this lens is that it is much smaller and lighter than I expected from such lens. Then image quality at 400mm was another good surprise. It is comparable with the beercan. On the negative side, I must mention the slow Autofocus. I was also a bit afraid to buy it because of the relatively high price for such an old lens (for the same price I can buy a new Sigma 170-500mm). But I guess it worth the price! PS - Many reviewer on this site mentioned the lack of a tripod mount as a disadvantage. I loaded my camera with this lens on my tripod (attaching to the camera) and it was stable. The lens is light enough, therefore there is no need for a tripod mount. |
| Josioau#3178 date: Jan-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300mm APO |
| price paid: | 720USD |
| positive: | Great zoom range, image quality across the full range. |
| negative: | Missing a tripod mount and a zoom lock. |
| comment: | Great lens for an impressive range of telephoto shots, at a reasonable price. On digital SLR the cropped 35mm equivalent is an even more impressive 150mm to 600mm! Decent sharpness and image quality across its range. Feels well balanced in use. Could have been better with a collar tripod mount as a camera with this lens on it attached to a tripod or monopod is a bit front heavy. A zoom lock would also have been useful as the zoom creeps out under its own weight when slung on the shoulder. But the main things, the range and image quality are great. Nice bokeh. |
| edrice#3047 date: Dec-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
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 f4 beercan Minolta 100-200 f4.5 Minolta 100-300 APO D Minolta 100mm f2.8 macro |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | sharp, even at 400mm and wide open compact for the range nice bokeh |
| negative: | a tripod mount would have been nice, but I've mostly used it hand-held |
| comment: | Well, I've waited long enough to add my results with this lens. In the past I've had the 100-200 f4.5, the 70-210 beercan, two 100-300 APO Ds, and now the 100-400 APO and it's the best of all. A general synopsis with all these lenses would be something like this - I had the 100-200 f4.5 first and it was an excellent lens, giving me better results than I ever got with the beercan. I'm not sure what all the fuss is about with the beercan which seems to me to be rather average and large and heavy to boot. The 100-200 was a better deal all around, but I did want some more range. I likewise was not satisfied with my first 100-300 APO D and ended up getting rid of it, but after I kept hearing all the great results that others were getting, I picked up another and it performed quite satisfactorily, a keeper. I keep the 100-300 APO D for hiking distances when weight is an issue and use the 100-400 APO at all other times whenever I can. This lens is sharp, sharp and sharp, right out to 400mm, and I get great results wide-open. I've had several prints hanging on my walls for some time that were made at 400mm both with the 5D and A100 and I am still astounded when I look up at the amount detail in these. It's results are quite on a par with my 100mm f2.8 macro and my CZ16-80. This lens is in my permanent collection. |
| sarapata1#3045 date: Dec-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 APO Beercan |
| price paid: | Ł300 (used) |
| positive: | nice range rich colours smooth focus and zoom rings pleasant bokeh |
| negative: | for better sharpness necessary to stop down the build quality is not that impressive - my outer barrel (the zooming one) is quite loose and is wobbling |
| comment: | best results when stopped down, optimal at F11.0, for 400mm even F16.0 my copy actually shows the minimal aperture numbers 4.5-6.3 as follows (it says on the barrel 4.5-6.7, but my 5D displays the minimal aperture no. as F6.3!): F4.5 100-125mm F5.0 125-140mm F5.6 140-190mm F6.3 190-400mm the sharpness is best at the focal lengths between 150-300mm if you do not need that long end 400mm, the 100-300mm APO is a better choice IMHO, is smaller, lighter and a bit faster in general I do not regret I have bought this lens, even I have some reservations - I had an option to go with this one or Sigma 135-400mm, but I liked Minolta much more :-) just do not expect the image quality, sharpness and the build quality of G lenses and you will be happy with this telephoto zoom lens |
| Yemble#2934 date: Nov-17-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-300mm f4.5-5.6 Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | Ł300 |
| positive: | Good sharpeness throughout the range, falling off slightly towards the long end. Portable (just). Well built. Looks fantastic. |
| negative: | A tad on the heavy side, but OK considering the range. AF hunts a lot in low light. Needs a tripod in mirky light. |
| comment: | I bought this APO zoom as a measure to prevent me wasting any more cash on "cheap" minolta zooms. I was a after a clear upgrade to my 100-300mm f4.5-5.6, but rather than buying another 300mm zoom with better optics, I chose to go for longer range as well. It took me a while to find this lens, but it was well worth the wait. Connected to the A700 body, this lens delivers great IQ right across the range, only dropping off slightly at the long end. This lens is very sharp compared to the 300mm zoom and produces results with an excellent colour balance and plenty of detail. At the extreme there can be a little CA, but nothing significant. In good light, this lens can produce really sharp results hand held, however, when it gets a little mirky, a tripod becomes essential. The lens may not be all metal, but the build quality is still excellent. I'm not sure about zoom creep, however, at 850g this is not the sort of lens that you carry around your neck for long! With the capabilities that this lens obviously has, Ł300 for a mint example seems like a bargain. |
| DANX#2793 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: | 900 USD |
| positive: | sharp |
| negative: | none |
| comment: | missing |
| rmscustom#2611 date: Aug-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-300 Promaster (made by Tamron) |
| price paid: | 472 USD used |
| positive: | Great range Very sharp Focus lock is a nice feature |
| negative: | No tripod mount. Front tube rotates when focusing No zoom lock |
| comment: | I have taken many photos with this lense and so far I am very pleased with the results. As I stated in the positive column above this lens is very sharp and focus is very precise, at least on my copy. I have used both a Tamron MC4 1.4 TC and a Kenko MC7 2.0 TC with acceptable results. The 1.4 gave very nice results with the MC7 falling off slightly. Both TC's require the lens be focused manually. Without the Tc's and cropping 100% results in superior photos that I find sharper than when using the Tc's and I think I will do most of my shooting in that manor from now on. I think some of the softness is do to my not so good eyes and slight misfocusing on my part when manual focusing. My biggest complaint with this lense is the lack of a tripod collar and the rotating front ring while focusing, which is the bigest reason for a build rating of 4. Leaning against something to steady the shot is difficult because of the rotating front ring. IF (internal focus) would definately improve the the ease of use of this lens. The lack of a zoom lock is a minor anoyance and I have drawn up plans for a mount that I hope will eleminate the camera tilting downward when carried around the neck which should eleminate zoom creep. If this mount works I will do an update on how well it worked and include plans on how to make one. I purchased this lens for a walk about lens for wild life and so far I am not dissapointed. It would be real nice if it were a macro, but a small macro lens is fairly easy to carry as an extra. I think with the addition of my home made mount, this lens will perform splendidly as a walk about lens. The colors from the lens is something I really like, as the colors to my eyes are natural and very pleasing. I have experienced some flare with the lens hence the rating of 4, but I was not using a lens hood as it did not come with one and I haven't yet found one I like, so this rating may change. I have not noticed any CA with this lens but I am not exactly an expert on judging this abnormalidy anyway. Overall I highly recommend this lens as a reasonably compact, not too heavy, wildlife lens that will definately not dissappoint you with the results. I will be posting some pics in the 100-400 APO sample photos section shortly. |
| danieljansson#2570 date: Jul-20-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-210/4 |
| price paid: | USD 650 |
| positive: | -range -sharpness |
| negative: | -zoom creek -small "bump" in the zoom (around 350mm) on my copy, nothing that bothers me though -manual focus could be smoother -slow -very slow AF (but I mostly focus manually) |
| comment: | I like this lens, in fact it is one of my favorites to use. It does a superb job at 100-300mm but can be a little soft at 400mm unless you stop down a bit (preferably f8 over the whole range to squeeze out the good sharpness it has), but then it needs lots of light to give nice results (or high ISO). The bokeh is pretty smooth if chosen wisely but my beercan had much smoother bokeh which kind of disappointed me seeing as this one costs a lot more. In good light it gives fantastic results over the whole range, but be careful using it wide open at 400mm on cloudy days. Bumping up to ISO400 and f8 (which I usually do) on cloudy days does the trick for me though. And I can get sharp results even at 1/60s at 400mm handheld sometimes. AS really works wonders with this lens. Pictures taken with this lens can be found here: http://foto.danieljansson.com/p325862328/ |
| Maffe#1788 date: Feb-8-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Focal range, light |
| negative: | Build, slow AF, f/4.5-6.7 |
| comment: | Sharp, good colors and a huge zoom-range. Slow AF and plastic/flimsy build. It needs lots of light, but gives fantastic results in return. Only had this lens for a few weeks, got it in a deal with other lenses. |
| photomind#1314 date: Oct-13-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 200-400, Tokina 80-400 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp IQ, great colors, and nice bokeh. It is also a great walk around longer zoom lens due to its relatively light weight and compact size. |
| negative: | Slow - f6.3(yes, can go as LOW as 6.3 instead of 6.7) at 400mm with either 7D or Sony A100 |
| comment: | When viewing my photos I often had no trouble in distinguishing which photos were from which telephoto lenses except those taken with Minolta 100-400mm APO; they were just sharper. It is an excellent lens in terms of IQ, bokeh, and colors. Using it handheld in the field is pretty easy. 100mm is good enough for shorter distant shots. Unlike other telephoto zoom lens it provides sharp IQ at all ranges. Sold my first copy in order to get a longer lens but regretted it right after. I eventually bought another copy again. If you are looking for a sharp telephoto zoom lens and don't care too much about the speed this is a perfect one for consideration. There is an excellent review here in AF Tele-converters Quick Reference Guide forum: comparing Minolta 100-300mm APO, 100-400mm APO, 200mm G + 2X TCs, and 400mm f/5.6 lenses. Sold my first copy to get a longer lens but regretted it and missed it so much right after. I eventually bought another copy again. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2100&PN=3 |
| lionoche#1164 date: Sep-5-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 100-300 |
| price paid: | 240 USD (second hand) |
| positive: | Nice range, not that heavy. Good construction. Colors are very good. Excellent on Dynax 5D |
| negative: | AF-speed is rather slow at 400mm (normal for that range...) |
| comment: | Gives very good results on 6Mp CCD sensors ! Some pictures taken with this lens (post-processed...) http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=222347986&size=o http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=221345171&size=o http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=211251681&size=o |
| brashquido#637 date: Mar-29-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Brilliant wildlife lens when travelling for the bulk/weight concious photographer. |
| negative: | Quite slow meaning that you need a very bright day to see the best from this lens. Front of lens rotates when focusing. |
| comment: | I plan to do a lot of travelling over the next 18 months, and was originally looking at the Bigma and other zoom lenses in the 500mm range to fill the gap of a wildlife lens. Then I saw this lens and some of the stunning results aarif has been getting, and the choice became clear. At half the cost, and around half the weight for the sacrifice of 100mm (150mm with crop factor) this lens has now become my travelling telephoto lens. It's still no lightweight at 840g, but since almost every other zoom in this range is around 1.3kg's or above, it makes this lens look very slim and portable. This lens is quite slow, as with all super telephoto zoom lenses, and in low light the AF is almost totally useless (which I get around to some extent by using manual focus). However, in bright daylight I have found this lens to be suprisingly snappy for such a big zoom, but I expect to be shooting at ISO 400 or above most of the time. Build quality I have found is very good, with a metal mount (rare these days it seems) and genreally a very solid feel to it. I have had no such problems with the zoom tightening as described below. Color and sharpness seem to be also very good. Overall very impressed and happy with this lens. |
| aarif#115 date: Sep-22-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | It’s the lightest lens that gives a range of 100-400mm, image quality is sharp throughout But losses a tiny bit at 400mm not that significant. |
| negative: | Slow AF and needs a bright day for good results |
| comment: | I will never replace it unless they come up with a brighter lens which is not heavier. It has given me some fantastic results. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 51
- sharpness: 4.42
- color: 4.63
- build: 4.18
- distortion: 4.63
- flare control: 4.39
- overall: 4.45
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login