minolta 75-300 4.5-5.6

me again with another lens question..:) ive looked at sample images on the web and the minolta 75-300mm looks much sharper than the sony equivalent.. would that be true ? i thought they were the same lens really.i dont find the sony sharp at all.

Minolta made 4 versions of the 75-300 f/4.5-5.6. The last two and the current Sony are the same - maybe different coatings on the Sony. I've seen nothing to indicate that the older Minoltas are any better.

Check them out at these sites:

http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/lenses.php#zooms

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

Check out the lenses mentioned here as alternatives:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=56920

and here:

http://forums.photographyreview.com/...ad.php?t=56906

TF

These photos were shot with an A200 with a Minolta zoom, either 75-300 or 100-300mm. Both lenses are f4.5 to 5.6, I use them on the digital and film bodies. I love my Minolta glass.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/4057729...7621704471727/

Phil

those photos are beautiful phil ! my sony would not take sharp photos like that. (ive got the A200 as well) what does your 75-300mm look like ? the ones ive seen are silver ?

The lens is black, which I prefer. It is at least 15 years old, probably older.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/40577299@N04/3805246127/" title="DSC00038 by PWhite214, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3805246127_b85da9f71d.jpg" width="334" height="500" alt="DSC00038" /></a>


Phil

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jodi

me again with another lens question..:) ive looked at sample images on the web and the minolta 75-300mm looks much sharper than the sony equivalent.. would that be true ? i thought they were the same lens really.i dont find the sony sharp at all.

---

As oldclicker pointed out - they are the same design. So, you should expect no difference. Looking at pictures from one and the other isn't always apples to apples. Say, comparing one shot at 135mm f/6.3 to the 75mm at f/4.5, you should expect different sharpness from even the very same lens. The sharpness will also vary from the wide to telephoto end, usually best in the middle, and at 1-4 stops down from wide open. Finally - some of the "sample images" are falsely labelled as they have been processed, and thus the image you see isn't what the lens produced, but what somebody enhanced in photoshop.

Point being, try them both, I seriously doubt you'd notice any difference. As such, I'd go for the minolta, simply due to the smaller price tag for the same product (forget all those 'dont buy used' nay sayers).

I will state the obvious though, make sure that you have some money back guarantee, whether you buy in person from a dealer or buy online. I like at least 7 days to evaluate the lens, some dealers offer up to 30 days. You can't be too careful.

Phil

for sure! I've found most ebay sellers are reasonable with lens, offering returns and very very open disclosure of condition (they'll report a hairsize scratch on the rubber zoom ring usually). Yeah, definitely no 'all sales final' deal.