Minolta 80-200 2.8 APO G or Sigma 70-200 2.8 APO EX IF?

[andrew_rose]

These two lenses cover the focal length I am looking for, the former being one I've been

recommended personally. The problem is price. The Minolta is nearly $1300 while the

Sigma is only $750. I would love to be able to get a more reasonably priced zoom lens

like the Sigma if its optics are as good or comparable. Does anyone have experience with

these lenses or perhaps other recommendations? Thanks.

[emaxxman]

The Sigma has a reputation for being a great lens. The Sigma is also internal focusing and zooming (length doesn't change). The Minolta is not. The Minolta has top notched optics though.

 

If you really want the Minolta, check out www.keh.com for a used one. I've bought lenses from them and their "excellent" rated lenses are in awesome condition.

[seth_hosler]

I used to own the Sigma 70-200. It is a wonderful lens indeed--no complaints whatsoever, as long as you don't mind the weight. As has already been pointed out, the front element does not extend or rotate--a very big plus. This is my biggest problem with the Minolta in my book, although everyone seems to agree that the Minolta also has top-notch optics.

 

One disadvantage of the Sigma is that it takes 77mm filters, whereas the Minolta takes 72mm. SInce I have a lot of other Minolta glass that takes 72mm filters (20mm, 85mm, and 300mm primes), having a lens with a 77mm filter was a significant added expense.

 

The reason I got rid of the Sigma is that since I usually only used it near 200mm anyway, I replaced it with the Minolta 200mm prime, which is considerably smaller and lighter.

 

It is a great lens, though, and given the cost difference between the two lenses you are looking at I may very well go with the Sigma.

[mark_k3]

I have the Sigma 70-200 EX lens. It is a very good lens with extraordinary sharpness. It is the best lens ever made by Sigma and I don't think optically it is less than Minolta. However, if I will choose again, I prefer Minolta because

1. better build quality

2. capability of USM for quieter and faster aF

3. The colour of white.

4. Longivity of the coating

[alex_gerner]

Well, I have the predecessor of the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8, the Sigma 70-210 F/2.8 APO and I am very pleased with it! It also has internal focussing and zoom and is completeley made of metal. This does make it a heavy guy to carry around but gives it that everlasting feel. If Sigma didn't change too much with the 70-200 (perhaps even made it better), I'd go with the Sigma. My lens is extraordinary sharp and even delivers very useable results with a Sigma 2x converter attached.

[robert_finucane1]

I have a Minolta maxxum 80-200 f2.8 APO(white version) lens that I picked up on Ebay a couple of years ago and it is a top notch lens. The lens weighs in at almost 3 lbs. It produces tack sharp pictures. Although handholdable I recommend a good tripod or monopod. The downside to the lens is that the tripod mount is nondetachable and the front element turns when it autofocuses which can really be problematic if you use a polarizer. Minolta released an updated 70-200 f2.8 SSM lens which addresses some of the faults of this lens and then added a silent wave motor albeit at a substantial cost(USD $1800), however if you can live with these two drawbacks this 80-200 f2.8 lens gets top marks.

I have never used the Sigma lens but from what I have read it addresses some of the faults of the Minolta lens and is also a sharp imager. Purchasing either would satisfy your photographic needs.

Bob

[m.l]

Does the sigma 70-200/2.8 also work on a Maxxum 7 body? I have heard that there could be compatibility problems.