Is the Minolta 80-200 still worth the investment?

I am on a hunt for a fast zoom lens for my A77.
I can't, and don't want to, afford the Sony G/Tamron VC 70-200, so I am looking in the "outdated line".

Some lenses to consider:

-Sigma OS/HSM (I believe the older one is a better investment on Sony?)

-Tamron without VC

-Minolta 80-200, white

Since I already had the Tamron on a A100 a few years ago, I am a bit worried that it will be still slow in focusing on my A77.

So back to my main question, should I invest the extra money in the Minolta? Is it as sharp and fast as the Tamron VC (or at least near..?)

Some say it's better to think about buying the Sigma over the Minolta? Any help?

I have the Older Sigma I like it for sports and macro. It is not as good on the A99 as the A77, I assume because the a77 uses the center of the lens. I have considered the 80-200 but being a big fan of CP filters not to mention Variable ND filters the rotating front end bothers me.

retrofuture said:

I am on a hunt for a fast zoom lens for my A77.
I can't, and don't want to, afford the Sony G/Tamron VC 70-200, so I am looking in the "outdated line".

Some lenses to consider:

-Sigma OS/HSM (I believe the older one is a better investment on Sony?)

-Tamron without VC

-Minolta 80-200, white

Since I already had the Tamron on a A100 a few years ago, I am a bit worried that it will be still slow in focusing on my A77.

So back to my main question, should I invest the extra money in the Minolta? Is it as sharp and fast as the Tamron VC (or at least near..?)

Some say it's better to think about buying the Sigma over the Minolta? Any help?

Click to expand...

I've had mine for 10 years and It just as fast as any new lens made and it's sharp! You won't regret it!

Goto this page


Select zoom, sensor type

Hello,



I have the 80-200 f/2.8 (white version). Focus is very fast, and the lens is very sharp.















--
Photography is about time, space, expression, and - ultimately - capturing light. This formula may sound easy, but actually capturing the "ideal" photograph is far more complex to accomplish as our own perceptions and responses vary according to each individual. Photography is inherently driven by human subjectivity, but the general feeling is that a superb photograph is widely appreciated, as it commonly depicts a striking and universal concept. I believe this process should be sought by many of us, who deeply enjoy capturing and sharing photographs that embrace life and depict what we are.

I too have the Minolta 80-200/2.8 HS and it is my favorite lens. It serves me very well for a long time already and still is an amazing lens. Nothing to complain about, the focusing speed (on my A900) is still excellent and both sharpness and colors are very fine.

I think it really depends on what $$$ investment we're talking?

Considerations are age of lens (how used are the parts/AF), ability to have lens repaired (and cost) and benefits of a more modern lens that may cost the same new as this one does used. (digital coatings, warranty, quieter AF, knowing it wont break down on you when shooting a wedding)

I had the black 80-200 for a while and while i really liked it, the AF what VERY noisy and I honestly was worried it was going to die on me being a 27 year old lens with unknown history. I had complaints about the AF noise at a music event. I've since traded up to the 70-200 Sony G and am VERY happy with it.

All the online praise for the 80-200 has pushed up used prices for it enough that I think 2014 lenses are a more sensible investment. That said, you'll very likely be able to sell a used 80-200 for the same that you paid for it. In that case, there's no harm in trying it out for a bit!

The first version ex apo 70-200 2.8 sigma is an excellent lens. A screw drive that is quite fast and dead accurate focus. Sharp all through even 200 2.8 not 'soft' till stopped down like many other 70-200's . The bokeh color rendition are very nice..

A sweet lens..Best of luck-brian

I have the 80-200 f:2.8 G. Fast focusing lens (you can actually "feel" it when it focuses), sharp (though corners might not be as sharp as newer lenses on Full Frame bodies). Nice bokeh. Good colors. Noticeable chromatic aberrations on high contrast scenes but this can be fixed in Lightroom when shooting RAW. Quite heavy but very sturdy!! Built like a tank. I mostly use it for concerts and I wanted a lens that could be bumped without being damaged. Really does the job. I like it. Hope this helps.

Some good comments.

My question is, since I have a crop-camera, is the Sigma HSM not maybe on par with the 80-200 fast and picture-quality-wise?

It costs half the amount, used.

Any ideas?

To answer this question, you will need to find someone having both lenses.

I cannot tell about the sigma, I do not own this one.

I have the Sigma 100-300 f:4 which also is a great lens and which you may find used on eBay. The Sigma 100-300 is very sharp! And it has a very useful range for wildlife on an APS-C body (though not long enough for birds for example). I have had some great images with this one.

But the Minolta 80-200 focusses faster and focusing is much more reliable, it also gathers twice as much light. All of this make it more useful for low light photography such as live performances. It is also a much better option for portraits. I always let the lens hood on, it is made of metal and really helps protect the font element!

As I said, I cannot tell about the Sigma 70-200 which may be a great lens. All I can say is that the Minolta 80-200 is still a very good performer. I bought it used for approx. 800 euros and I do not regret my purchase.

Good luck.

For a 70-200 class lens, tracking (AF-C) will be used a lot. I love my 85 f1.4 minolta, but in AF-C mode, it does poorly. I too am interested in this lens, but I'm not worried about optical quality. All my old Minolta lenses have great optics.

yes. that's why I ask for the speed. the tamron ist out because it's simply too slow.

what i have read so far:

-both similar fast

-minolta sharper at f2.8

-sigma and minolta on par at f4

now it really depends on those details like tracking.

retrofuture said:

yes. that's why I ask for the speed. the tamron ist out because it's simply too slow.

what i have read so far:

-both similar fast

-minolta sharper at f2.8

-sigma and minolta on par at f4

now it really depends on those details like tracking.

Click to expand...

Dyxum says in their Notes section on this lens: "The 80-200mm f/2.8 APO received a stronger focusing shaft which enabled better focus tracking, a rubber focusing grip for easier manual focus, and white paint finish."
"Better focus tracking" means as of 1993, when the lens was released. Things haven't accelerated significantly since that year I suppose (race cars are still going way fast, kids still run about as they used to 20 years ago). What I'm saying is what was good then is probably still good now. I have that lens (the white G version), and its mechanical, shaft-driven focus mechanism is very impressive. It's as solid and pro in build as they come. You can see my samples at http://hahn.zenfolio.com/minolta_80apo

Love my 80-200 probably why I shoot Sony. When my Minolta 7D died having this great lens is why I tried the A77. Its still is my fastest focusing lens I own. Yes faster than both of my CZ's. Super smooth backgrounds great Minolta colors. I do wish it was a 70 -200. my two cents