Minolta 100-300xi

[Glyn R]

One of these lenses is avalable locally. It seems in OK condition everything seems to work. What are they like optically say compared with Sigma 70-300 APO Macro?

[David Kilpatrick]

Probably better than you think. While the 100-300mm design was supposedly sourced from Tokina/Hoya, the xi version was assembled by Minolta, because it was a unique type of lens. Most xi lenses are much better than their non-xi counterparts - especially the 35-200mm, which was unique (no counterpart!). They tend to sell for small money and are worth getting.

David

[Vidgamer]

I've been toying with the idea of getting something in the 300mm range, and after seeing some positive comments, splurged for the 100-300xi. It can be had very cheaply. And I've been having a rough time with it! I think the bottom line is that it needs f8-f11 to get the best out of it. Not real usable at f5.6, and f11 requires a lot of light. But if you can work with it, you can get some decent photos.

And I think I prefer the bokeh over that of most lenses. Really surprising. Raw sharpness aside, I think I like everything about the lens.. bokeh, color, edge-to-edge consistency... but it needs to be stepped-down a bit. I prefer f11.

I feel like I'm still trying to get the best out of the lens. But every so often it surprises me, so I'm going to keep trying.

(I was going to post a photo, but mine are too wide for the forum.)

[01af]

David Kilpatrick wrote:
> Most xi lenses are much better than their non-xi
> counterparts [...]. They [...] are worth getting.

In my experience this is not true generally. The only AF-xi lenses worth getting are the AF-xi 28-105 mm (fairly good) and the AF-xi 35-200 mm (very good). All the others are rather poor.

The xi and non-xi AF 100-300 mm (non-apo) lenses are fairly good at 100 mm but significantly degrade towards the long end. At 300 mm, chromatic aberrations and loss of contrast are pretty obvious. It's acceptable on film for small and medium-sized prints but definitely not good enough on digital.

The AF Apo 100-300 mm and AF Apo 100-300 mm (D) are clearly better than the non-apo versions. But they don't come in an xi version. At 300 mm, they have their sweet spots ... which is unusual for telephoto zoom lenses. At 100 mm, they are as good as their non-apo counterparts. So, both the apo and non-apo start at 100 mm on about the same performance level. From there, when zooming in, the non-apos will get worse; the apos will get better.

So for use on digital SLR cameras I cannot recommend the AF-xi 100-300 mm lens, not even for little money. Instead, I'd recommend the original 1986 version of the AF 75-300 mm (a.k.a. 'Big Beercan') and the two versions of the AF Apo 100-300 mm---i. e. w/ and w/o (D) functionality. At 300 mm, the 'Big Beercan' is slightly inferior to the AF Apo 100-300 but clearly superior to the non-apo AF 100-300. At 100 - 200 mm, the 'Big Beercan' is superior to any Minolta 70-210, 75-300, 100-300, or 100-400 zoom lens.

-- Olaf

[01af]

Vidgamer wrote:
> ... but it needs to be stepped-down a bit. I prefer f/11.

Umm ... sure. Stopped down to f/11, virtually any lens will perform well.

-- Olaf

[Vidgamer]

So for use on digital SLR cameras I cannot recommend the AF-xi 100-300 mm lens, not even for little money. Instead, I'd recommend the original 1986 version of the AF 75-300 mm (a.k.a. 'Big Beercan') and the two versions of the AF Apo 100-300 mm

These are probably in the $250+ range, while I paid $72 for the 100-300xi. I was hoping that David was right, and that I was getting a sleeper hit, but it's not as good as I'd hoped. Still, it is perfectly usable, and f11 is usable given enough light. Even f8 is pretty good. But not wide open at 5.6. Most lenses aren't their best wide open, but this one is particularly awful wide open. I wouldn't say the lens is a waste of money, it just takes some work to get the best out of it. If you want some bang for your buck, you're going to have to work harder at it.

If you ignore the need for sharpness, it seems to have good color, and I have not noticed a contrast problem at 300mm. I like the bokeh.

I do notice it being flawed at 5.6, particularly if there are any highlights. Even at f8, there can be a lot of PF and CA issues. That's probably worse than the lack of sharpness. Perhaps it's not a good lens for digital, although, I think it has more than enough resolution for 5 or 6 mp. Maybe when using it, I should go into the menu and set my camera for 5mp.

And, hey, let's not forget the power zoom feature! That's kind of neat. (Although, manual focusing is a little annoying.)

[David Kilpatrick]

One problem is that all used lenses vary - and they varied when new as well. For the money you did well (under £40 here, and you would rarely get that). I would be interested to know how the maximum aperture changes as you zoom (despite the difficulty of zooming to exact lengths with the power feature!).

David

[Vidgamer]

One problem is that all used lenses vary - and they varied when new as well. For the money you did well (under £40 here, and you would rarely get that). I would be interested to know how the maximum aperture changes as you zoom (despite the difficulty of zooming to exact lengths with the power feature!).

David

Well, one thing that really makes it hard to determine performance is that I just don't carry a tripod around. I was just out trying to photograph bugs, flowers, which I like to do, but had mixed results. I continue forget to check the shutter speed and SSS only helps a bit. Unfortunately, even in broad daylight, the shutter speed was even too low for me just now as I tried to photograph butterflies with ISO 200 and f7.1. I question whether or not other cheap 100-300 lenses would do any better in some of these circumstances. Also, even if the quality was excellent at 5.6 (which it's not), you'd have such a thin plane in focus that I am not sure how useful that would be either. (Taking photos of flowers just now, even f11 has part of the flower in focus and part out. ) Even though it says "MACRO" right on the side of it, the minimum focus distance is about a meter away! I'm trying to keep using it to see if I can figure out how to get the best out of it. I know I need to use a tripod more, but I just don't want to.

Now, if I could shoot at f5.6 (as with the new Sony lenses talked about in other threads) and still have it be sharp wide open, that would be an improvement, at least for more distant targets where the shallow DOF isn't going to limit you so much. I'm not sure that you need a 2.8 lens if you can be pretty sharp wide open at 5.6. For another example, I also have the Tamron 55-200, and it hold f4 and f4.5 for quite a ways; I used it recently indoor at ISO 800, and got acceptable results (for me). (I'm sure it wouldn't measure up to the pro-level so many online are after, but it only has to be Good Enough...)

Ok, about the maximum aperture of the 100-300xi...

100+ f4.5
120+ f5
150+ 5.6

If I don't zoom to 100% pixel view, I like the photos out of the lens. A bit of CA, but they are pleasing, I think. I've seen so many photos from telephoto lenses with really annoying bokeh. I sometimes don't like the bokeh from my 55-200 either. But the bokeh of this 100-300xi looks smooth, but it can be a negative in that areas that are just slightly out of focus areas appear a bit too soft? Not sure how to put it.

I did a comparison (photographing the same flower) between this, a 28-105xi (which I picked up super-cheap), and the Tamron 17-50. Ok, the 17-50 is an easy win. I have loved that lens since I got it. If you step down the 28-105xi, it is pretty good though! Maybe better at 50mm than it is at 105. And the 100-300xi actually looks pretty good. But then, I had all of the lenses stepped-down to f8 or f11. I've read multiple times that even crappy lenses are good at f11. Well, if that's what it takes. I think if you don't need to zoom to 100% and obsess over the details, you can get good results if given good conditions. I don't think the 100-300xi does well wide-open, so you have to count on using f8 to f11 for good results.

Ok, if you haven't fallen asleep so far, maybe some photos are in order. Since they're over 600 pixels, maybe I'll just give the link:
http://www.computingbits.com/gallery/300/index.htm
The osprey photo was taken in really poor conditions. The sun was going down, and it flew over my head and I went for it. Some of the photos didn't focus that well, but a couple looked OK. Well, if you zoom at 100%, they looked pretty awful, but yet, the extra reach made up for some of that. Downsized for the web, it looks perfectly fine.

So, I don't think that the 100-300xi is a great lens, but you can get good results out of it with some effort. The advantage is price. Can't beat it for $72. Maybe for $160.

[David Kilpatrick]

The pix look pretty good, at that size. There is a bit of 'bokeh CA' on the flower but we have just been testing a (legendarily good) 58mmm f1.4 Nokton on the Nikon D3, and that has pretty strong bokeh CA.

David

[Vidgamer]

Even just this afternoon, I saw a post with photos from another x-300mm lens, and the bokeh was really busy. I have taken photos that had a lot of grass blades in it, and I really think I like the bokeh,. It's got great color. The contrast is fine. CA is a bit of a problem. I just noticed that the corners are a weak spot too.

But I think it's a larger question of, what is good enough? I'm pretty happy with the flower photo, for example, but I could probably get it a bit sharper from another lens. Unless I'm going to print very large, though, how will anyone know which lens I used?

Even printing at 11x14, things such as color and bokeh might be more important than the ultimate sharpness at 100% viewing on a monitor.

So is this lens good enough? I may end up just using it for specific applications, like birds or planes, or other situations where I really need more than 200mm. Otherwise, I think the 55-200 is probably better to use.

[Vidgamer]

I took some more photos, but it's been a struggle to work with. Not too happy unless it's stopped down quite a bit, although I noticed that if I downsize for the web, it's difficult to find flaws. (I would say that it may not be up to the standards of the A100's 10mp sensor, but I think it does better than 5 or 6mp.)

Tonight, it developed a new fault -- the power zoom no longer works! It is now a push-pull zoom. It actually still works (focuses fine), but it's yet another annoyance.

I may be in the market for a (yet another) 300mm lens.

[Vidgamer]

David,

Did I read you correctly that you think the Tamron 70-300 is as good as the Minolta 100-300 APO?

[David Kilpatrick]

It is 'differently' good. For one thing, it is faster in focusing (my 100-300mm is extremely slow) and actually faster in aperture by up to 2/3rds of a stop across much of its range. If you set f5.6, you are setting full aperture on the 100-300mm all the way from around 150mm, but you are stopped down 2/3 or 1/3 stop on the Tamron and this cleans up the image a touch. The Tamron image can be 'dirty' but so can the 100-300mm Apo.

Right now I am contending with disappointment at the A700/70-300mm SSM. While the lens is sharp enough, my A700 threw up massive (really out of court) exposure errors with it on a shoot, nearly always erring to overexposure by anything up to three stops. I tried all metering modes but the inconsistency is the only consistent thing, and it's not a lens fault - the camera is really setting wrong exposures, like 1/80th at f5.6 in glaring full Spanish mid day sun with a mainly light subject.

Also, using the 70-300mm SSM went just as I have predicted. The first time I put this lens+hood on my camera in public, someone from a restaurant table 20 feet away shouted over at me 'That must be some powerful lens you've got there! What on earth do you need that for?' - and this was during a week where photographers with Canon 70-200mms were a common sight. The appearance of this lens with its huge lens hood makes people stare at it.

The 75-300mm, despite its massive physical mount, is just as restricted in working apertures across the range as the old 100-300mm.

So right now, I'm not happy with ANY of my 300mm options - original apo, Tamron, or SSM.

David

[Vidgamer]

Well, that makes two of us that aren't happy with our 300mm lenses.

I'm not sure that the aperture thing really bothers me, if you can get a reasonably good image at f5.6. My problem was that even f8 wasn't ideal, and I was going to f11+ for best results! Two stops is hard to make up -- it means higher ISO, and higher blur. If I could have good results at f5.6, that might be good enough.

Between the size and the price, the 70-300 SSM doesn't sound like my kind of lens. I sure would like the quality, but I don't like large lenses, and don't like to attract that much attention. The DSLR gets too much attention as it is with my 17-50 on! (I should use the small primes more often... But if you want to talk about overexposure, the one lens has a sticky aperture -- I hope this isn't your problem with the SSM!)

My other option is that I have a cheap teleconverter, but it really doesn't pair that well with the 55-200. I really would just stay content with my 55-200 except that for birds and planes, the 300mm comes in handy.

[David Kilpatrick]

Spot metering was my problem, but the spot was aimed at some fairly neutral tones. Even things like a dusty white rhino ended up being overshot.

David