Konica Minolta AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Lens 35mm Zoom

AF 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Lens

The Minolta Maxxum 75-300 zoom lens, a perfect lens for sports, portraits and all around picture taking.

User Reviews (7)

Showing 1-7 of 7  
Canuck935   Intermediate [Apr 24, 2003]
Strength:

For the money: Good focal length and image quality.

Weakness:

Autofocus hunts a lot, slow.

This was the first lens I bought when I first got into SLR photography. I don't use it much, but so far it has been able to satisfy my needs. It has excellent focal length for the price. It does hunt a bit to focus and it is a slow lens, but then again for the price of it you shouldn't expect miracles. I won't be looking to replace it for now, but in the future I will most definitely fork over the cash for something better.

Similar Products Used: Minolta and Sigma 28-80(Awful lenses), Minolta 50 1.4(awesome lens)
OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
5
bogun   Casual [Mar 15, 2002]
Strength:

Really inexpensive Focal range Relatively good speed for a long zoom Light

Weakness:

Tons of autofocus problems Picture quality not so hot Platic-feeling and cheap

Not the greatest lens in my bag. The 75-300 has more reach than most tele-zooms that I''ve used and the speed actually isn''t bad considering its range and filter size. It''s also really cheap compared to the competition. But a few things about this lens really bother me. The autofocus often has trouble at the longer focal ranges. The lens will slowly focus out to it''s max and then back without locking on to a subject. Manually focusing I''ve had better luck. Also the pictures I''ve taken with this lens don''t appear as sharp or saturated as other minolta zooms, even with a tripod. I''ve carried this lens for a few years and am finally giving and getting a higher quality G lens. I guess you get what you pay for.

Customer Service

n/a

Similar Products Used: Nikkor 80-200 2.8
OVERALL
RATING
2
VALUE
RATING
3
tboz   Intermediate [Nov 09, 2001]
Strength:

Smooth zoom action. Solid feel. Good optics. Low price.

Weakness:

Autofocus is loud and sluggish. The rotating front element did not take long to become annoying, especially when using a polarizer. Not much of a Macro lens.

This is a good first zoom lens for Minolta SLRs. It takes good pictures for the price.

Customer Service

NA

Similar Products Used: Minolta 24-105(D), Minolta 28-80
OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
4
Jan Saunders   Intermediate [Jul 14, 2001]
Strength:

Lens is sharp and easy to use.
Color reproduction good.
3 year guarantee
Light

Weakness:

The only complaint is that the macro focus reange is a bit far. Something like 1,3 meters or around 4 feet. I have used a 75 - 300 Sigma DL Macro previously which macro focussing distance was a mere 93cm around 3 feet. This makes a real difference in the reproduction ratio of the lens.

I got great results the previous year in Kruger National Park. Color reproduction is very good when used with Fuji Velvia and Sensia 100 ISO film. The lens is used in combination with Minolta Dynax 505si body. The combination is light and easy to use. I like the balance of the combination. Altought this is a great intermediate zoom and although I took graet pictures with this lens I have bought a Sigma 170 - 500mm f5-6.3. The 300 mm focal is just to short. I will keep my 70 - 300mm as the 170 - 500mm Sigma is a bit bulky and not prefered for hiking where the 70 - 300 is lighter and easier to carry. All in all I think that this is a great lens.

Customer Service

Have had mine for two years and did not have the chance yet to use their customer service.

Similar Products Used: Sigma 75 - 300mm DL Macro
OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
5
Justin Hookins   Intermediate [Jul 23, 2001]
Strength:

Light, good focal range, inexpensive

Weakness:

so-so optics

This lens does take good photos - no question. It does also have a handier range than my previous 2 telephoto zooms, however I was probably spoiled by my 1980's vintage 100-300 which was heavy and slow to focus but produced absolutely superb results, particularly with wildlife where one wanted to keep a safe distance. This lens just does not have the same degree of clarity and definition as I was used to.
In its defense though, if you are working on a budget and want to add a telephoto zoom to your collection, this one does seem to offer better peformance than some of the "all purpose" zooms on offer these days.

Customer Service

Never tried

Similar Products Used: Minolta 100-300 zoom, 70-210 zoom.
OVERALL
RATING
3
VALUE
RATING
4
Jason McGovern   Intermediate [Jul 26, 2001]
Strength:

Cheap price for the focal range
Decent speed with the autofocus

Weakness:

Even though they call it a macro lens, it really isn't. Minimum focusing distance is 4.9 feet. A sigma lens with macro function has minimum focus of 3.2 feet for about 40 dollars more.

This lens is great to add to your camera bag for the focal range. By no means is it a professional lens. You wanna play pro? Go buy an APO lens for the cost of a car, otherwise, this is a good deal:) However, do NOT buy this for the so-called macro function(because it really isn't macro). The sigma equivalent with macro function would better suit you. However, since I use the Minolta Maxxum 7 (their newest 35mm camera) I have problems using 3rd party lenses (Minolta only). I'm assuming that's a proprietary move.

Customer Service

No need

Similar Products Used: Quantaray(Sigma) Tech II 75-300 DL W/macro
OVERALL
RATING
4
VALUE
RATING
5
Showing 1-7 of 7  

(C) Copyright 1996-2018. All Rights Reserved.

photographyreview.com and the ConsumerReview Network are business units of Invenda Corporation

Other Web Sites in the ConsumerReview Network:

mtbr.com | roadbikereview.com | carreview.com | photographyreview.com | audioreview.com