I have just come across your web site. It is very informative.

I have questions in regards to buying a zoom lens. I own a Minolta Maxxum 7000 with a 28-85 AF Zoom lens. I am an "advanced novice" with a strong interest in outdoor/landscape/travel photography. I have experimented with a friends 100-300 mm zoom lens with sports/nature and would now like to purchase my own.

Question: I have seen Minolta zoom lens AF 100-300 mm 4.5-5.6, 100-400 mm 4.5-6.7 and AF 75-300 4.5-5.6. Which zoom lens is better than the other? For now, the price is not an issue and I would like to have an auto focus type zoom lens. Would I have to carry a tripod to use the 100-400 mm zoom?

Thank you for any help you can provide me. I appreciate your time in answering my questions.

Dave

-- David J. Voyt (davevoyt@Prodigy.net), December 28, 2000

Answers

I'm no Minolta expert, so I can't comment on the quality of those lenses. If at all possible, you are better off using primes. Most zoom lenses just don't give impressive quality, although there are exceptions. From my experience with a 75-300 zoom, 95% of the time I use it at 300mm. For this reason I'm planning to sell it soon, and buy a 300mm f4 to get the increased quality, and the extra stop of light. I hate to give up the convenience, but it is for the best, and something for you to think about.

As for having to carry a tripod, you'll find that it helps with any of these lenses. With zooms, or any lens for that matter, you will probably have to stop down a couple of stops to increase quality. When you are starting at f5.6, stopping down results in using the lens around f11, which can result in slow shutter speeds. Fast film, bright light, and tripods are all solutions to this problem, but remember that you should try to keep the shutter speed at least 1/lens focal length if you are going to handhold the lens. If you are careful, you can get away with slower speed if you have steady hands, but it isn't always possible.

Just remember that most zoom lenses are compromises. If you can live with the compromises, they are convenient. If you want ultimate quality, go with primes.

-- Brad Hutcheson (bhutcheson@iname.com), December 29, 2000.

I would recommend using a tripod as often as possible when shooting landscapes or any scenics where you can leave the camera in a stationary position (on the tripod) and it is not necessary to be moving quickly with the camera. No matter which lens you use, you'll probably want to stop down at least a stop or two in order to obtain better resolution and greater depth of field. With the camera mounted on a tripod, slower shutter speeds will not be a problem. Even at reasonably fast shutter speeds, you will probably get better resolution with the camera on a tripod. Many times when I shoot travel or nature scenics, I want to get the greatest depth of filed possible, so that everything is on focus, from near to far. If I stop down to about f16 or so, I'll often be required to use a rather slow shutter speed. This does not present a problem for me, since I usually use a tripod for such shots.

I have no experience with any of the lenses you are asking about. However, none of them will be quite as good as primes in the same range. But primes are not as handy either. Apparently the 100-300 APO has a pretty good optical reputation, is quite light in weight and is therefore easy to carry and use. The older non-APO 100-300 AF Minolta has a particularly bad optical reputation at the long end, so stay away from that now-discontinued lens. I would definately not expect the 75-300 to be very good at the long end, so I'd drop that one from the lenses you are considering. The sharpest Minolta zoom in that range is the 80-200mm f2.8 APO, but it is quite large, heavy and expensive. That's the one I would take, if money and weight are not a consideration. You might be interested to know that Sigma is coming out with what is supposed to be a very good 100-300mm f4 zoom. It will have four low dispersion elements in its optical design, so it should be pretty darn sharp. I believe it has an 82mm filter threading, so it's a rahter big and heavy lens to lug around. It would probably be campatable with the Sigma 1.4X EX teleconverter, giving you a good 140-420mm f5.6 lens.

-- George Rhodes (betsy@colormewell.com), December 30, 2000.

I've never been a Minolta user, so can't comment on specific Minolta lens features, but I have done plenty of outdoor/landscape/travel photography over 35+ years, all over the world, and I think you need to identify your needs more closely -- I can't imagine one lens really meeting all those needs well. You might eventually end up packing your bag with different lenses for different outdoors subjects. I own something like 30 lenses, but rarely carry more than 3 on any trip. I just decide ahead of time what I want or expect, and pack accordingly.

For example, MANY great landscapes use the wide end of the lens spectrum -- the more the camera takes in, the more majestic it can look. [Of course, many landscapists say nothing smaller than 4x5 format is suited for landscapes, but that's probably no longer valid, given modern emulsions, etc.] None of the zooms you mention will fit the bill for wide 'scapes.

And for many nature shoots, the longest lens you can focus quickly is best -- for wild animals, particularly. That leads to a prime lens, like 300, 400. But you won't be able to focus it close to catch an interesting flower or insect.

With long lenses, I agree that using a tripod is great -- but you can't always do it outdoors. Wild animals often just will not always sit still for you to set up and pose. I recommend LOTS of practice steadying your hand, and improving your ability to shoot without a tripod with your longest lens. Also, learn the tricks of the trade for "field expedient" camera steadying -- leaning on or against a tree, using a beanbag, using a window-mount [with the engine turned off if possible!], or a monopod [much easier to trek with!]. The fastest possible film, of course, helps, too. I'm not ashamed to use 1600 Fuji negative film in those circumstances, and I get pretty decent results. With a slower, finer film, and taking time to set up a tripod, I often wouldn't get any results at all, because the shot would be missed. And tripods get heavier with every mile when you're carrying them.

For general outdoor shooting, a versatile zoom can be great, at some cost in resolution, distortion, or contrast. You have to decide for yourself: (1) will there be shots that you CANNOT take with a single focal length, (2) will you miss them if you change lenses, and (3) do you care if you miss them? Personally, I hate to miss shots -- it's the photographer's version of the "one that got away."

If you KNOW ahead of time what your subject for a particular shoot will be, maybe you can choose a single lens for that shoot. But tomorrow, the subject may be much different.

By the way, one lens you will very often want to have with you outdoors is a macro -- the world presents lots of really fascinating tiny things if you keep your eyes open outside. I never leave home without it.

I hope these comments give you something to think about and help refine your needs. Enjoy!

-- Robert Swanson (swanny@RampageUSA.com), January 03, 2001.