fred_rice Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Which is going to give me a better quality photo? I'm more interested in telephoto aspects than the Macro. Is the Minolta 100- 300 any good? Thanks in advance. I've bought the 24-85 based on recommendations and it's been great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
magic1 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I used to own the 70-210/4 and it was a great lens. However it is slow focusing and rather large. I now own the 100-300 APO and its an even better lens. I'll try to attach a shot from it (hand held at 300mm)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manuel_garcia5 Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 You really can't go wrong either. What it really comes down to is size. The f/4 version is long (about the same lenght as a stardart zoom lens zoomed all the way out) but with a solid all metal construction. The f/3.5-4.5 is a standard compact zoom. I had the same lens question a while back but ended up going for the f/4 version. It's very sharp and very well made. The price difference between the 70-210 (both version) and the 100-300 APO lens is a pretty good one. And although you may think that extra 90mm of reach on the 100-300 sounds like alot it's really not. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bill_tuthill Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 I own both lenses. The 70-210/4 is sharper (and has far better bokeh = background blur) at the short end. The 70-210/3.5-4.5 is sharper at the long end, in fact as f/8 sharper than the 80-200/2.8 G according to Photodo.com MTF tests. I use the 70-210/4 for portraits and the other one for travel. But since your 24-85 takes size 62 filters, you might consider the Tamron 70-300/4-5.6 LD 1:2 macro to avoid buying a second set of filters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeow_teng_kuah Posted September 23, 2004 Share Posted September 23, 2004 Hi, I would recommend a 70-210 F4 Macro anytime of the day. I had all three lenses 70-210 F3.5-4.5 / F4 and the 100-300. In the end, I chose to keep the 70-210 F4 as it is the sharpest amongst all with great colour contrast. Personally, I find 70-210 F/3.5-4.5 and the 100-300 too light for my comfort. The body is already so light, coupled with a light lens, the stability is not that anymore as it will incur some form of handshake. I did not have handshake problem with my 70-210 F4, 28-135 f/4-4.5 and my 28-85 f/3.5 - 4.5 though, partially due to the weight of the lens. I will rather choose a heavy lens anytime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave_redmann Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 <I>Is the Minolta 100- 300 any good?</I><P> Realize that there are at least two optically different versions--the original, non-APO and the newer APO. The latter is supposed to be very good, almost as good as the Sigma and Tokina 100-300 constant-aperture f/4's, which are considerably bigger, heavier, and more expensive.<P> As for which 70-210, there are of course three (the third being the universally low-rated f/4.5-5.6). Personally I have the f/4 and like it a lot. The comment about bokeh is right on. I use this lens for portraits, typically in the range of wide open (f/4), f/4.5, or f/5.6, at 70mm or around 135mm. I like the results a lot. I can't comment on the f/3.5-4.5, except to say that it is a lot smaller and lighter (which you may, or may not, want, depending on what you want to do). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_rice Posted September 24, 2004 Author Share Posted September 24, 2004 I appreciate all of your comments. I'm still sorta up in the air right now. I think if $$$ wasn't the object, I'd get the 100-300 APO. It appears the 70-210 F4 is more suited to portraits than for what I'm looking for - panning Auto racing shots and basic scenery telephoto. Plus I like the appeal of the lighter 70-210 3.5-4.5. Maybe if KEH gets a lower priced 100-300 APO? Again thanks all & I'd still appreciate other personal choices, Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roman_kuznetsov Posted September 24, 2004 Share Posted September 24, 2004 100-300, APO version is a great lens. It is very lightweight and compact, lots of polycarbonate, but surprisingly survived rough handling on my last trip. Also sharp, and has generally pleasing bokeh (except some slight tendency to produse 'COMA-tose' out-of focus image when wide open on the short end). Focusing is slow, though. Even cheap 70-210 4.5/5.6 is not bad either. Some aberrations are evident, but they do not look nearly as distracting as those on low-end Sigmas. And 70-210 3.5/4.5 seems to be just a version of this lens with larger and better corrected front element. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg_kern Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 I am not a big fan of the 100-300/APO. Contrast is good, but sharpness is nothing special. The biggest advantage is the build quality (very good zooming an manual focussing). Also it is rather slow (5,6 starts somewhere at 150mm)and expensive, even used, and in my eyes does not justify the price difference. I had the 70-210/4 in MD (same optics), and it is a nice lense, but big, and really good only at 70-150mm. The 70-210/3.5-4,5 might be more versatile in general, and it has good colour contrast (the f/4 suffers from some colour abberations), and is the best of the bunch at 210mm. The 70-210/4,5-5,6 is indeed a very, very nice lens when you close the aperture to about 8-11, so it is manly useful when you do flash photography (with a strong flash) or work with a tripod (which I think to be a must with tele zooms). Regards Georg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_k3 Posted September 25, 2004 Share Posted September 25, 2004 I have 70-210/3.5-4.5 and also 70-210/4. I have also read some of very serious reviews about 100-300/4.5-5.6. To start with, I bought 70-210/3.5-4.5 many many years back with Minolta 7000 and later 7000i. It is a very compact and the images are very sharp. Here is one sample http://www.pbase.com/c_wong/image/3302482.jpg The 70-210/4 is compact and heavy glass which I seldom used until early this year I carried it with 24-50/4 for a trip. It is even sharper and the images are outstanding. I also tried a few macro shootout and here comes one http://www.pbase.com/herbridgemo/image/31415127.jpg Minolta 100-300/3.5-4.5 from Minolta is not that popular. Reveiws said it is not even comparable to one made from Sigma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred_rice Posted September 29, 2004 Author Share Posted September 29, 2004 Thanks again all for your experienced opinions. I am going to buy both the 70-210 F4 and 3.5-4.5, shoot pictures , compare and pick the best. Will let you know. Regards, Fred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now