advice on buying a sigma or vintage minolta

[cmantx]

i'm trying to decide if i should get the sigma 70-300 4-5.6 apo for about $244 us, or a used minolta 100-300 4.5-5.6 D APO for $350. i know some have had trouble with the sigma (especially with the a700 motor) and some have had no problem at all. it has a 1 yr warranty. the $350 is more than i would have liked to spend. if the IQ is much better i'll make the leap. really looking for more sharpness than i have been getting from my old sigma. i have a a200. thanks

[David Kilpatrick]

cmantx (and others) can you please not post the same question in two new threads while also posting it is as a reply in another thread (ebay and lens compatibility). I have deleted one surplus thread and will delete your question and my reply from the ebay thread, and place it here.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Common sense says get the Minolta 100-300mm. It is a bit slower to focus (some say otherwise) and much smaller physically. $350 is a very fair price for the lens. Quality is excellent especially wide open at the long end, where it is most needed. (This answer copied from the other thread your duplicated your question in).

I would not really call the 100-300mm APO D vintage - it is one of the lenses with Konica Minolta continued but Sony did not. The 70-300mm SSM probably explains why they did not.

David

[cmantx]

sorry David, i thought i was starting a new thread,but i was still in the old one. thanks for your assessment and info on the 100-300 apo.

[Dr. Harout]

Frankly, I would go for the Minolta. I might be subjective but I dislike the other brand. Today I saw people selling 3 lenses, 2 Sigmas and 1 Tokina. Though the range of the former was better but I just asked the price of the Tokina (regardless that I had that range).

[cmantx]

i went ahead and got the minolta. i had good luck with my old sigma also sinolta. i often couldn't get it to focus properly. i always gave up quick and switched to MF, but that was with my film 2xi. with my a200 it's been the same. if the warranty was longer like tamron's i would have been more inclined to take a chance on the sigma apo. the user reviews i've seen have the minolta a little ahead on sharpness,color, etc my other minolta lenses are in tip top working order from 1993 so this minolta should last me awile. besides David said it's the one he'd pick. hard to argue with his experience.

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, I have used the Sigma but not in Alpha mount. I do not 'hate' it and I have a fairly close business connection with Sigma through my son, who works for the UK company on a retained contract - we have loan access to all Sigma lenses and also own a comprehensive Sigma SD system, which he had entirely appropriated to himself though I paid for parts of it! I actually have a better working relationship with Sigma than with Sony, and Sigma offered to take over Photoworld magazine and fund it if we could not get Sony support. I felt that would not be appropriate as the readers had all subscribed to a Minolta-based mag.

I would pick the 100-300mm Apo because Sigma themselves confirm there is a problem - which they originally tried to attribute to incorrect operation of the AF motors in some Alpha cameras - and the UK company has replaced or repaired dozens of Alpha mount 70-300mms Apo Macros. I do not base my opinions on reports on forums; I was one of the first to learn of these problems, not through forums but through a Minolta Club member. I have followed forum reports with interest, mainly to find out whether any other Sigma lenses are affected.

I would appreciate it if you stopped making things up about me, for no apparent reason.

David

[David Kilpatrick]

Don, some of the individuals who have had problems with the Apo Macro DG are not forum members - have never posted anything anywhere, they have just contacted me as Minolta Club director - every member has my phone number, directly, no secretaries or switchboards these days, as well as my address and email.

Putting it very simply, if even two or three individuals have had issues, it is reason enough to advice against the Sigma. When Sigma themselves advise against buying it for use on the Alpha system, it would be totally irresponsible to recommend the lens. One UK user had three lenses replaced in succession and eventually obtained a cash refund, and also had to have his Alpha 100 (not a later faster motor body) checked by Sigma before getting the refund.

It was the persistent problem with the Sigma 70-300mm which eventually persuaded me to look at the Tamron. It is not as good a lens, optically, as the Sigma. But it works and has no known issues, and comes with a six-year warranty.

I have a Tamron, and I also have a 70-300mm SSM. I have not sold my 100-300mm APO D. That may give you a useful clue as to whether I think the APO D is worth having as a lens.

David

[cmantx]

holy s*** seems like i really started something with this post. don you are definitely sigma lens's biggest admirer. i really did get my moneys worth on the sigma 70-300 dl i have to say. 15 yrs ain't bad. It still works, it's just not that sharp at 300. it doesn't bring a very good price on ebay either. i wish sigma would have stuck their necks out a bit and warranteed the apo lens better than 1 yr. the price was very tempting. i really personally like the IQ of the few minolta lenses i own. so it was really my experience with minolta in the end. just kidding about David really knows what he's talking about (lol) if it goes bad i'd go for the sigma next. but with an extended warranty.

[KevinBarrett]

Since this would technically fall under the same subject (except the "vintage" part), what would you experts say to someone who was deciding on a 24mm prime? While I'm not immediately going to purchase one of these, I think a wide prime would be one of my next lenses. I've considered the monster Sigma 24/1.8 and the Minolta 24/2.8. I've also looked around for a Minolta 28/2 but, of course, nobody is giving up that lens.

[Vidgamer]

Normally, I'd agree with you in that when people post problems online, you tend to hear the problems and the negatives more than the positives. Even so, the number of reports of gear stripping can't be ignored. It seems to be an extremely sharp lens, but it's a chance I don't want to take.

As I expected...you can't post a public or private acknowledgment from Sigma that their is a problem beyond a QC issue,

Is this an admission that there is a QC issue?

I agree with you also that some other lenses have had QC issues -- you mentioned the CZ 16-80, which a lot of people complained about at first. But I haven't seen any such complaints lately, only positives.

and you have repeated some of what I have already posted. Even if you only manually focused this lens, it is still worth the money for many folks for general shooting, and would be a fairly decent buy just for the stellar 1:2 macro mode alone. (BTW, I have been using a lot of AF in macro to set initial focus point lately.)

DMF?

I would not purchase one of those Tammy's...the optics ain't nearly as good, and you know it! I don't have a problem with the 100-300 APO...but it is arguably not as good as the Siggy, and in my opinion it's a bit overpriced.

The Tamron isn't as good, but it is cheaper. The 100-300 APO D is overpriced. The non-D isn't too bad, but yeah, I think it's a bit much for a used lens. I did it anyways, because I'm just not happy with the other choices.

You pay your money and take your chances.

[David Kilpatrick]

Re the 16-80mm: my final good example is now 15 months old, and has not worn. It is used all the time; really, it's the only lens I use most of the time. The quality of the image is so far ahead of any other zoom I've got that it doesn't leave the camera. It does require CA correction but once corrected the result has very high resolution, as the different channel images are all (separately) very sharp. I've said this plenty of times in reply to people asking whether the 16-80mm has stood up OK. I have heard from two or three recent buyers with the original 'lump and clunk' faults and suspect they got first batch stock.

I have also bought the 16-105mm and can't recommend it as an alternative. It has exactly the same focus problems at 16mm on the A100 and D7D (no lens of this focal length seems able to focus accurately with them), but it is strongly varifocal and you can not zoom in to get focus, then zoom back - you end up with seriously unfocused images. The focus problems with the CZ were completely solved with the arrival of the Alpha 700, which has never needed the zoom-in/zoom-back method.

While the faults present in the CZ remain as noted - I have no reason to rewrite history - if these same faults had been found in a Sigma or Tamron I would not have remarked on them. Small uneven patches in zoom or focus, stiff spots in the action, slighty shifting of the image are part of life in a $200 lens. They should not be in a $1000 lens and I hope Sony/Zeiss re-issue the 16-80mm in a better made MkII version, just like Canon did with their 18-55mm. I also hope they revise the 18-70mm.

None of these faults prevent normal autofocus use of the lens (the worst annoyance is that focus with early samples could shift if you zoomed back from 80mm just a tiny bit to reframe the shot, but repeated AF restored it). The Sigma issue is one which destroys the internal mechanism of the lens and disables AF. It is disingenuous just to say well, it works fine as a manual focus lens. It is a risk which the buyer is free to take. The Sigma is optically excellent and the chances of the gears stripping may be 1 in 100 units or less.

I'm not aware of any issues with the 100-300mm but this does not mean they are non-existent. The similarly built 24-105mm Minolta has had wear and tear problems.

David

[aster]

Hi David,

How can I ensure that I am not getting a 'first batch stock' 16-80mm Carl-Zeiss? This lens has been around the market for a lenghty period of time now, so can I feel more safe about purchasing one nowadays? I can get them from Sony Store in Istanbul around October ensuring a definite new-make but there is also the offer as the kit lens with Alpha 700 as you all know. I am reluctant to get it in the same box with any alpha dslr that's on the shelf today, in case they may be from the same faulty first batch.
So what do you think, does October 2008 batch to be dispached to Istanbul ensure a better item in the make of this lens? Or should I just look into the better Carl-Zeiss lenses?

Thanks
Yildiz

[David Kilpatrick]

This topic is going to be locked. Visitors can judge Sonolta against me any time they like, and I have no need to remove this vituperative garbage. Over the past days (especially) I have received PMs asking me to remove Sonolta from these forums, and I have replied that it isn't my policy to remove someone because they decide to criticise me. I am locking rather than deleting this thread because Don's words now cross the line into defamation of my professional integrity and my abilities, qualifications or reputation in my work - legal grounds which stand up as well in the US as they do in Europe.

David