Minolta 100-300xi

[Vidgamer]

It's just as well I put the lens through its paces, as the power zoom broke. It became a push-pull zoom, although without any resistance, so it would be really annoying to keep like that. I sent it back.

I think I'll try to get a different lens as a replacement. All of the talk about the new 70-300G sounds great, but the 70-300 Tamron sounds a lot more practical, so I'd like to look into that further. It doesn't seem like an easy choice in this range. The 100-300 APO is widely praised, but it is hard to find, and if the less-expensive Tamron 70-300 is just as good (in general), then that is a much better deal.

[Javelin]

why not look around for a 75-300 version 1 Minolta ? (big beercan) it gets CA too at the long end but it's sharp (fairly so even wide open) has a focus limiter, Minolta colours and is built like a tank. they should still be around pretty cheap. I does draw attention though.

[Greg Beetham]

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

I was just wondering about the light fall-off curve for the CZ70-300 lens, seeing as how it's a new model variable apature zoom, I wonder if it's in the "in camera table" yet, since the apature is set on and controlled by the body with the f/stop ring being no longer on the lens (such is progress), it might be interesting to see if the 100-300APO is also having the same exposure problem on that body...just a thought.
Greg

[David Kilpatrick]

I think the exposure issue may be related to focus lock. Most of my pictures were of animals in a safari park, and they were darker than the surrounding very light sand/scrub. I used the focus lock a lot of the time. We have now had a thread on how the focus lock on the lens also locks the exposure, and in matrix metering mode as well as spot, this is always biased to the focus point. I mainly used spot or matrix - I stopped using spot after some really strong overexposure examples.

The main problem was that in the sunlight conditions, the review image on the A700 screen did not seem so far wrong, when the actual shots could be 2 stops over.

I am fairly sure it was a combination of conditions and technique, not the lens itself. I will be doing some tests comparing the 70-300mm and 100-300mm shortly.

David

[bakubo]

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

What about the Tamron are you unhappy about?

I have an old non-APO 100-300mm that I bought in Tokyo in 1991 before the APO version came out. I like the size, but I have never been too happy with it otherwise. I almost never use it. I took it out some time back and noticed lots of CA though on shots of bodyboarders here in Hawaii. By the way, although they were moving fast the AF was okay on an A100. I just set it to single shot mode, center AF sensor, and just kept half pressing the shutter release to focus and at the chosen time taking a photo. Most were in focus. I have thought about the 70-300mm G SSM, but it is much bigger than I normally want to use and I wouldn't carry it with me when I travel. I am giving some thought to the Tamron after reading your recent article.

[David Kilpatrick]

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

What about the Tamron are you unhappy about?

It's not especially fast focusing, and the aberrations at full aperture can give the overall image a fairly soft look. I think that the Tamron design, if slightly improved and made with a very high QC aim, could be the best around - but it's a £120 lens which is almost 2/3rds of a stop faster than other much more expensive lenses, and there is a trade-off.

I plan to test the Tamron on the full frame though - it may be more acceptable than my results on the A350. After all, the A350 has a pixel density equal to a 36 megapixel full frame camera, and really taxes the resolving power of lenses.

David

[bakubo]

It's not especially fast focusing, and the aberrations at full aperture can give the overall image a fairly soft look. I think that the Tamron design, if slightly improved and made with a very high QC aim, could be the best around - but it's a £120 lens which is almost 2/3rds of a stop faster than other much more expensive lenses, and there is a trade-off.

From your earlier comment you seem to be saying that the Tamron focuses faster than the Minolta 100-300mm APO though. Is that right? If so, then that would probably be okay for me. The non-APO 100-300mm focuses acceptably fast for me and, I assume, the APO version would be the same.

I think Sigma in the past, maybe still, had a couple of 70-300mm zooms at different price points with different quality. Tamron should do the same. Add another $100-200 or so to the price and make a better version also.

[David Kilpatrick]

Yes, the 100-300mm is grindingly slow. The Tamron has a lighter focusing action and is quieter. But of course I am now used to the 70-300mm SSM so anything else seems very noisy!

David

[bakubo]

Yes, the 100-300mm is grindingly slow. The Tamron has a lighter focusing action and is quieter. But of course I am now used to the 70-300mm SSM so anything else seems very noisy!

Hmm, maybe there is a difference in the focusing of the APO and non-APO versions. The old one I have from 1991 focuses pretty fast. Faster than a beercan, faster than the 18-250mm. Even on an A100 it is pretty fast. Maybe they changed the gearing when they went to APO? Also, it isn't particularly noisy.

[David Kilpatrick]

It uses 7.5 turns of the focus screw, but the manual focus is very solid in feel - smooth but with some resistance - and the focusing sound is maybe not as raucous as the beercan, and the beercan uses 8 turns so it's nearly identical in gearing. But it feels so much smoother, like a balanced mechanism - it almost turns if you spin it, as if thereare bearings in there. The 100-300mm is damped by comparison and feels as if there are gears, not bearings. My 70-210 seems to focus faster but it may just be an impression given by the sound and feel.

David

[Glyn R]

Maybe my Sigma 70-300 APO DG was not such a bad buy, if it keeps going.



Exif in image.

[bakubo]

It uses 7.5 turns of the focus screw, but the manual focus is very solid in feel - smooth but with some resistance - and the focusing sound is maybe not as raucous as the beercan, and the beercan uses 8 turns so it's nearly identical in gearing. But it feels so much smoother, like a balanced mechanism - it almost turns if you spin it, as if thereare bearings in there.

Are you talking about the Tamron here? I am guessing yes.

[David Kilpatrick]

It uses 7.5 turns of the focus screw, but the manual focus is very solid in feel - smooth but with some resistance - and the focusing sound is maybe not as raucous as the beercan, and the beercan uses 8 turns so it's nearly identical in gearing. But it feels so much smoother, like a balanced mechanism - it almost turns if you spin it, as if thereare bearings in there.

Are you talking about the Tamron here? I am guessing yes.

No, I am comparing the Apo D 100-300mm with the beercan. The Tamron 70-300mm is like a combination of the two and focuses quite slowly, taking 14 turns of the screw, but covers a wide focus range with its 'macro' function.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

The Sigma can be a problem as the gears may strip - repeatedly - on some Alpha bodies. This is a known problem and it's hard to recommend it because of the number of people who have had several replacement Sigmas suffer exactly the same fault. You are lucky. We work closely with Sigma (our son Richard owns an entire system with all three of their digital camera bodies so far, and does some work for them) so I'm not knocking the brand; it's just that this lens has a problem, initially they blamed Minolta/Sony, now they are accepting responsibility.

David

[bakubo]

The legendary Beercan is a good lens, and I still own a fantastic copy, but it is no Sigma 70-300 APO DG. IF I am looking for extra sweet bokeh, or doing portraits, I may grab the 70-210..if not I am grabbing the Siggy. The Siggy handles ghosting, flare, and CA well, has a decent 1:2 Macro mode, and my copy is easily usable wide open and fully extended. While I don't own the 100-300xi I have a feeling it is not near the lens the Sigma 70-300 APO DG is. This DG Siggy works quite well optically on the digital bodies, and it really tough to beat at it's price point.

Is this the lens that so many people have reported gear stripping? Sigma over the years has made so many 70-300mm lenses I have lost track. Is your model one that is not subject to gear stripping?