Minolta AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 or Tamron AF 70-300 F4-5.6 Di LD

[kelvinyam]

I already have a macro lens and I don't really need the macro ability from Tamron's. I'd like to know how's the lens quality in term of sharpness or PF. I'm using A300 and I'd use the lens mainly for birding and nature. I know 300mm is a little on the short side but this is only something I can afford (US$200~US$250).

Minolta:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=61

Tamron:
http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/detail.asp?IDLens=283

Thanks.

[David Kilpatrick]

The Minolta has better quality at 300mm wide open, and you will end up using it a lot at 300mm. The main benefit of the Tamron is that it is much faster in aperture. At 200mm, the Minolta is f5.6 and the Tamron is f4.5. This can make a big difference for low light, portraits, general shooting. It is probably a result of the Tamron using a much larger front element.

It is not bad at AF tracking or locking on to subjects rapidly -



Is shot at 300mm, f/10 on the 100-300mm. I do not think the Tamron is any better, both sound slow, but actually focus pretty well.

David

[Greg Beetham]

Hey David,
did you notice those square artifacts on the trailing edge of the wing and also along the belly? or is it only on my screen?
Greg

[Greg Beetham]

Hi Kelvinyam,
have a look at the "Give it Your Best Shot" forum, and the "Zoo" topic by JonathanK, there's some very nice 100-300APO shots there, if the Tamron can do as good as that it's doing ok.
Greg

[[SiC]]

Hey David,
did you notice those square artifacts on the trailing edge of the wing and also along the belly? or is it only on my screen?
Greg

I see it too...

/Z!

[Dr. Harout]

Hey David,
did you notice those square artifacts on the trailing edge of the wing and also along the belly? or is it only on my screen?
Greg

I see it too...

/Z!

Me too

[David Kilpatrick]

The full size original has those added to it to prevent copying on pBase. I have abandoned watermarking pBase images now, but at some stage, I may delete the entire pBase stuff. Image theft from large pBase images is common. Since for some reason birds are a popular thing for copying/downloading images, I mosaiced part of the original large image.

David

[[SiC]]

The full size original has those added to it to prevent copying on pBase. I have abandoned watermarking pBase images now, but at some stage, I may delete the entire pBase stuff. Image theft from large pBase images is common. Since for some reason birds are a popular thing for copying/downloading images, I mosaiced part of the original large image.

David

Quite understandable in that case...

/Z!

[kelvinyam]

Hi DK and Greg, just to clarify something, the Minolta AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 I was referring is the non APO version, which is priced at approx USD150. The "Zoo" topic by JonathanK was shot with the APO version of 100-300mm which is more than twice the price of the non-APO version.
Besides the focusing speed which I do not think there's any difference between the two versions, I'm more concern on the PF/CA. Pls advice.

[David Kilpatrick]

For $150 it may be worth trying. The last time I used the non-apo version was on film, and of course, it is impossible to say whether its OK performance on film would mean much on digital. The Tamron is a safe buy, because it comes with an excellent warranty and it has the benefit of the macro focusing. The aberrations it does have mainly show up at full aperture, long focal lengths and close focus. This is a typical set up when people photograph insects or flowers, and the results can give the lens a worse name than it deserves for 'dirty' full aperture imaging. At portrait to landscape distances, it's OK especially when stopped down one stop. The Tamron in the UK is about 15-20% cheaper than the Sigma, the Minolta non apo could be fairly hard to price up, but I would expect around the same price you are being asked - a bit cheaper still.

At least, if you buy the s/h early Minolta, it is worth the same as you paid to resell. The Tamron would lose 30% of its value at least if sold after just testing it to see whether the CA and softness issues are too much to work round - the Sigma I think would lose more, percentage wise (they would both be worth about $150 max s/h). There is no real risk in trying the Minolta, someone will want it on eBay if it is not quite good enough for you. You might even make a profit.

David

[xzulx]

Hi kelvin, if your are refering to the non APO there are two version of this lens Minolta 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 and Minolta 100-300 xi f/4.5-5.6, the rating of the xi version is better then the non xi at dyxum.com. For the Minolta 100-300 xi f/4.5-5.6 you can get in Malaysian market around RM500 which is USD150.

[01af]

... refering to the non-apo, there are two version of this lens, Minolta AF 100-300 f/4.5-5.6 and Minolta AF-xi 100-300 f/4.5-5.6, the rating of the xi version is better then the non-xi at dyxum.com.

Lens ratings on Dyxum.com are not worth the time it takes to read them.

Both the non-apo AF 100-300 and the AF-xi 100-300 are equally bad; don't waste your money on any of these. On film they were just so acceptable; on digital they are poor at their long ends. The Apo versions are significantly better, not so much at 100 mm but clearly so at 300 mm. In fact, the AF Apo 100-300 is very, very good at 300 mm and full aperture. The Apo versions come w/ and w/o (D) functionality. The Apo (D) version is better when using flash and when using image stabilisation at close focusing distances. The glass is the same in Apo and Apo (D).

-- Olaf

[Vidgamer]

I just got the 100-300 APO (non-D) for a bit more than $250, so that might fit your budget. The non-APO should be less than $150, IMO. I bought a 100-300xi (see older thread ) for $72, but it turned out to have problems. Anyway, I figured that it shouldn't be that much different than the other 100-300s in quality. I was never sure if the designs (optically) were the same or not.

For the 100-300xi that I had, I wasn't terribly impressed. I did get the occasional good shot, but it was a lot of work doing it, often times having to step down the aperture, which made it hard to use. For $72, it was hard to complain, though. The color was good, and I kind of liked the bokeh (although David K. pointed out that there was a lot of CA in the bokeh, I liked the smoothness). For printing 4x6, it was more than sufficient. However, I don't exactly need a 10mp DSLR to print 4x6 either. (One of my favorite/best BIF shots was with that lens! I just don't dare print it large, though. ) So, I decided to try again, and this time get the 100-300 APO. The results are much, much better, at least in sharpness and CA.

After my experience, I think I'd go for the Tamron or Sigma lenses before the non-APO 100-300. I would be curious to see if others can do better than I did with the 100-300 lenses.

Then again, if you only want to pay <$100, and don't mind stepping down the aperture.. and only using the lens when there's a lot of light (outdoors)... It is still a useful lens and may be worth it. Most people aren't going to want to (or can't) spend $800 on the new Sony.

I haven't used the 100-300 APO much yet, but with some 100mm-120mm shots, I'm satisfied. (Although, I guess the 100-300xi was not bad at 100mm....)

I have read that the 100-300 APO D also has a circular aperture, but at about 100mm, the bokeh seems round enough to me... ?? Looks like 9 blades, so maybe that's why....

[kelvinyam]

Actually I'm using the Sigma APO 70-300mm now and I'm so happy with the glass quality. Even with the hole opened wide, there's hardly any PF at medium contrast area. And it's only USD220 gray. But...... sigh