Photoclubalpha

My current lens collection is lacking a good lens from where my beercan leaves off at 210mm, to the 300mm range. I actually have a Tamron 200-400 but it is way too big to carry around. Anyway, I am considering a Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 D APO, mainly for it's size (short/lightweight), it's sharpness, and it's affordable (for me) price. Is there anything else I should looking at given this criteria?

Thanks!

Rich

for that range I have a "big beercan" Minolta 75-300 F4.5/5.6 version1 .. it's a little more than 1/2 the weight of the tamron but I wouldn;t all it light. because it is pretty heavy still but a lot of pople like it better than the beercan. It is very sharp all the way to 300mm but is pretty prone to CA in certain situations. there a little harder to find but they generally sell for under $300 in mint condiotion

Javelin wrote:for that range I have a "big beercan" Minolta 75-300 F4.5/5.6 version1 .. it's a little more than 1/2 the weight of the tamron but I wouldn;t all it light. because it is pretty heavy still but a lot of pople like it better than the beercan. It is very sharp all the way to 300mm but is pretty prone to CA in certain situations. there a little harder to find but they generally sell for under $300 in mint condiotion

It is the same Sony 75-300/ 4.5-5.6. So better to buy a new one at that price.

Dr. Harout wrote:

Javelin wrote:for that range I have a "big beercan" Minolta 75-300 F4.5/5.6 version1 .. it's a little more than 1/2 the weight of the tamron but I wouldn;t all it light. because it is pretty heavy still but a lot of pople like it better than the beercan. It is very sharp all the way to 300mm but is pretty prone to CA in certain situations. there a little harder to find but they generally sell for under $300 in mint condiotion

It is the same Sony 75-300/ 4.5-5.6. So better to buy a new one at that price.

No, it's not - the version 1 is more like a G-series lens, similar construction to the 70-210mm f4 and very much better than the later Min/Sony 75-300mm lightweight lens.

David

Sorry, my fault, didn't pay attention to "Version 1" mentioned. Sorry again.

Minolta made a 75-300 'New' between the Big Beercan (version 1) and later models that is well thought of at dyxum. I'd like to know more about that one, it's definitely lighter than the original by ~350 grams. Several reviewers at that site compare its img quality to the legendary beercan.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=53 big BC is id=52

Dr. Harout wrote:

Javelin wrote:for that range I have a "Big Beercan" Minolta AF 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6 version 1 [...] They're a little harder to find but they generally sell for under $300 in mint condition.

It is the same Sony 75-300 mm f/4.5-5.6.

It isn't.

Dr. Harout wrote:So better to buy a new one at that price.

The 'Big Beercan' definitely is worth $300 when in good condition; the SAL 75-300 hardly is. The Minolta AF 75-300 mm 1:4.5-5.6 Big Beercan (i. e. the original 1986 version) is my most-used 'workhorse' telephoto lens whenever I don't need the speed of the AF Apo HS 80-200 mm 1:2.8 G. And I don't think it's particularly prone to chromatic aberrations. In fact, at medium focal lengths (100 mm - 200 mm) it is almost on par with most prime lenses (on APS-C format). At the short and long ends, performance drops slightly but is still good enough for most uses.

-- Olaf

01af wrote:The 'Big Beercan' definitely is worth $300 when in good condition...

I owned a big beercan for 3 days. Won it on eBay (from a german photo shop btw) at around 100Euro. Wow I was happy! Got the lens, it couldn't focus to infinity at focal lengths > 180mm!! I sent a few pics to the shop and they agreed to take it back. They reimbursed me the lens price & post&package to France which I had paid.

You might also look at the Tamron 70-300mm. David wrote about it not long ago:

http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/06/0 ... cro-ld-di/

Thats way too bad.. I like mine alot. I'm going to have a ball with it in the spring whenthe birds are back now that I know how to shoot with it.

bossel wrote:

01af wrote:The 'Big Beercan' definitely is worth $300 when in good condition...

I owned a big beercan for 3 days. Won it on eBay (from a german photo shop btw) at around 100Euro. Wow I was happy! Got the lens, it couldn't focus to infinity at focal lengths > 180mm!! I sent a few pics to the shop and they agreed to take it back. They reimbursed me the lens price & post&package to France which I had paid.

BigRich wrote:... Anyway, I am considering a Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 D APO, mainly for it's size (short/lightweight), it's sharpness, and it's affordable (for me) price. Is there anything else I should looking at given this criteria?

I just got a 100-300 APO non-D. The D version seems much more expensive, these days. If you want a small size and low price, you really start to limit the options. The Tamron 70-300 looked like it was a good option, but I suspect that the 100-300 APO has better IQ. Would be interesting to see a side-by-side comparison @ 300mm.... The Sigma also looks like a good option, but I took the chance on the Minolta, since it has so many positive comments.

One problem with the cheaper lenses is if the light isn't ideal, it can be a real problem at 300mm! Particularly if it isn't sharp enough at f5.6...

Hi

For what it is worth, I have had the Min 75-300 'new' (with dof hold button on the side), the KM 75-300D, the 100-300apo (non D), the sigma 70-300DG APO (red ring) and the 70-300G.

The best is without a doubt the 'G', which is quite outstanding at 300 wide open.

The 'New' and the 100-300 apo were about equal in sharpness but there was a bit more CA on the 'new'. I was disappointed with the apo, and don't know if I just got a bad one. I should have tried another before judging too harshly (the 'D' is supposed to be a bit better)

The Sigma is a great lens up to about 250, but mine loses sharpness above that, but it has the great advantage of being a 1:2 Macro, so at 250mm Macro it is perfect for butterflies or other insects. Not as sharp as the new and apo at 300mm, though.

The KM75-300 (same as Sony version) is not quite as good, but is light and very easy to carry.

The G just blows the rest away on a700 at all FL's and stops. Although it is only 300mm, I can crop a bit and get reasonable results equivalent to a longer lens.

I now have the 'G' and the Sigma. I have a Sigma 58mm 2 element close up lens which gives 1:1 macro on the Sigma at 300mm. I intend to try it on the G, as the lens is quite a bit smaller than the 62mm filter housing, and I may get away without vignetting. In which case I may have 1:2 with the 'G' and can dispose of the Sigma as well. (I am under pressure from the expected quarter to restrain my lensaholic tendencies!).

Hope all this does not just confuse

tom

Before Birma gets first, welcome to the forum Tom.

Welcome Tom (Doh! the Doc beat me to it .)
Thanks for the lens comparison, I guess the G will have to stay on my wish list, although I am also interested by the 2 elements close-up lens you mention - I will have to have a look at that. I guess you lose a stop or two of light?

Tom, is this the close up lens you're referring to?

http://www.warehouseexpress.com/product ... ku=1001932