Minolta AF 75-300mm or Sigma 70-300mm APO ?
E. Gomozias
(f3.5-5.6) zoom lens.
As I am in need of a lens in the 70-300mm range, I narrowed my choices down
to the following:
1. Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (~$200)
2. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super (~$290)
Does the Minolta lens have any advantage over the more pricey and better
spec Sigma one?
Thanks in advance for your help.
--
V. Gomozias, calling from Greece
vagom...@shelman.gr (...delete nospam)
Jung Oh
optical performance in the whole range. Others I do not much
recommend. After taking photo with Minolta Maxxum AF 100-300 APO,
I obtained reasonably good photo in the whole range.
If I have to choose one of these two, I will stick to Minolta.
After buying Tamron, Sigma lenses, I eventually changed to
Minolta. Minolta one is still good for me. But Check, photodo.com
MTF curve carefully, And you may know what you really need.
Bill Tuthill
> As I am in need of a lens in the 70-300mm range, I narrowed my choices
>
> 1. Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (~$200)
> 2. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super (~$290)
>
> Does the Minolta lens have any advantage over the more pricey and better
> spec Sigma one?
The Minolta is higher rated, weighs less, costs less, and takes a smaller
filter. It doesn't have macro mode, however. The Minolta 100-300, because
of APO glass, will show fewer chromatic aberrations at telephoto distances.
If you want to make enlargements > 8x12, the 100-300 APO is the one to get.
If you need the 75-100 range, get the inexpensive Minolta.
focal length & speed wgt len cost close filter EZavg Photodo
Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6 525g 122mm $210 150cm 55 3.04 2.6
Sigma 70-300 f4.0-5.6 APO 584g 116mm $319 150 M95 58 2.60 2.4
Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 APO 436g 102mm $450 150cm 55 3.09 3.2
Hans Fischl
and was disappointed with the resolution at all focal lengths. While it was
relatively light and unobtrusive, it was not nearly as sharp as my Minolta
24-85 which I use a standard for measuring other lens in my system (the
sharpest lens that I currently have in my Minolta system is the Tamron 90
f/2.8 Macro).
About a year ago, I purchased the Tokina 100-300 ATX f/4 to replace the
Sigma 70-300. While the lens is a tank, the results are on par with the
resolution I get from the Sigma 400 APO f/5.6 - very sharp (I shoot mostly
slide film and edit with a 5.6x loupe). I use it with a monopod (at sports
events) or tripod (definitely not a hand-holdable lens). Also, it is more
expensive than either the Sigma or Minolta lens in that range.
One thing to keep in mind about the Minolta 100-300: it does not have
internal focusing - meaning the lens rotates as it focuses. This could be a
negative if you intend to use a polarizing filter with it. The Minolta lens
does have a higher MTF rating than the Sigma - it has greater resolving
power - and you will probably be much happier with it than the Sigma lens.
Hans
E. Gomozias <v...@g.com> wrote in message
news:8cusre$rdj$1...@ulysses.noc.ntua.gr...
> I have just bought a Minolta 505Si Super with the standard Minolta 28-80mm
> (f3.5-5.6) zoom lens.
> As I am in need of a lens in the 70-300mm range, I narrowed my choices
down
> to the following:
>
> 1. Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 (~$200)
> 2. Sigma 70-300mm f/4-5.6 APO Zoom Macro Super (~$290)
>
> Does the Minolta lens have any advantage over the more pricey and better
> spec Sigma one?
>
Hans Fischl
(~$450). Sorry for the confusion.
Hans
Hans Fischl <hans....@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:tT%I4.817$PV.4...@bgtnsc06-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...