Minolta 100-300 APO vs 1988 version

[unpopular]

Doing some research on a couple lenses I just purchased I've found that the 100-300 4.5-5.6 came in two varieties, the later APO version and the older "non-APO" version.

The earlier lens is extremely inexpensive, while the APO is moderately more costly. I'm getting the non-APO version.

The non-APO version is often listed as 11 elements in 9 groups, while the APO-version is listed as 11 elements in 10 groups however, the two lenses look very similar and the schematics are identical. I haven't been able to confirm this disparity as the APO manual does not seem to be online, so it may very well be just something that's been regurgitated from source to source.

Given the identical construction, even down to the weird rectangular "hood" on the rear element, is it possible that these two lenses are, in fact, identical? Did minolta just brand this lens as APO. As far as I can tell "Apochromatic" in itself doesn't actually have any objective definition beyond "good at chromatic aberation and stuff".

And if not, what might be different? The APO version does get better reviews, though that gold "Minolta APO" badge and shiny finish might have something to do with that (and I gotta admit, it does look sexy). Maybe better coatings, or low dispersion glass, perhaps some minor optimization that can't be seen in the diagrams? Maybe the mysterious 10th group? Or is it more likely that the lens was always "apochromatic" but they just didn't know it until the mid 1990s when they started attaching abbreviations on lenses?

Any thoughts?

 

[Derrel]

lenses over 200 mm in length generally benefit from apochromatic Lens designs.

Back in the film day many people only saw their photos as 4 x 6" prints, and chromatic aberration was mostly overlooked. Today, that is not the case, and people often zoom in to 100 or 200% and scroll around an image.

Depending upon the resolution of the camera chromatic aberration may or may not be visible in everyday photos. When one looks at a 36 to 45 megapixel image, even fairly moderate chromatic aberration often looks bad Canon's old 75 to 300 mm zoom for example is pretty well known as the really bad chromatic aberration image lens

I used to own Sigma's 100 to 300 mm f/4 EX. As I recall it was an APO lens,and it was decent.

I still own a nikon100 to 300mm F5. 6, which is an excellent macro lens when paired with their old 6T close-up lens reverse mounted on the front of the lens. Although it's not listed as an apochromatic lens it does not really have problems with CA, so I think that very likely the Minolta non-apochromatic will perform adequately well

 

[Soocom1]

Having played with those lenses owning the non APO and almost buying one of the APO's, I can tell you that the APO DEFINITELY helps.

The lens (non APO) is mostly poly and has glass elements within it. The Non APO (to whit I owned for a period of time until it was stolen) performed reasonably well.
For film it was fine, but on a digital it gave this weird bluish-purple CA around the fringes especially when it was zoomed out. I used it a few time and had problems with some image quality on digital (Minotla 7D v my old Maxxum 3000). The APO made a difference but there was specific issue with sharpness at 300mm.

I eventually wound up with a G lens and left the lens in the bag most of the time. The G lens was also stolen in the same bag.

For Minolta's Low end and budget lenses its ok if not pro work. But if your out for wildlife and ESPECIALLY in bright sunlight pointing in the general direction of the sun expect the CA to pop up on long FL your best bet is to save up and buy a G lens.


The newer Zeiss "Sony A Mount" (old Minolta AF) I have no clue on.

 

[unpopular]

No. I'm not professional and mostly use longer lenses for field flattening, not magnification. My only other 200mm is an old Takumar from the 60s or 70s, and is an aberration abomination - OK, not really, it's an OK lens ... but had to take the opportunity to say "aberration abomination" - either way, i'm sure it will be sharper and more contrasty than what I have.

@Derrel not too worried about the pixel peepers.

 

[Derrel]

buy and try...more than just a phrase...

 

[unpopular]

well, for twenty bucks, including a second crusty 80-200 with a corndog integrated shuttered lens cap (like on a p/s) "buy and try" is pretty risk-free. Seen some pretty nice examples online, though my experience has been this can be deceptive since people tend to post images of lenses at their best.

I also got a 35-70 f/4 which by all accounts is a pretty decent zoom, especially on APS-C, in addition to a 50/1.7 and a 30/1.8 Sony DT plastic fantastic.

 

[Derrel]

corndog integrated shuttered lens cap


What is that???

 

[Soocom1]

corndog integrated shuttered lens cap


What is that???

This:

first used by the military to reduce glare from a set of binoculars to prevent a sniper hitting you in the eye.

 

[dxqcanada]

The Minolta AF lens manuals from Kurt Munger's site shows:

and

I have not found an image of the element/groups for the non-APO ... just the APO/APO D.

 

[unpopular]

corndog integrated shuttered lens cap


What is that???

This weirdness:

http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/May2010/3580scftclos3.jpg
http://kurtmunger.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/May2010/3580scftclos3.jpg
from what I understand, they're ridiculously bad, as such a feature would really only appeal to PeeWee Soccer photographers.

 

[unpopular]

The Minolta AF lens manuals from Kurt Munger's site shows:

View attachment 173885
and
View attachment 173886

I have not found an image of the element/groups for the non-APO ... just the APO/APO D.

Ahh! Ok. Yes. That should settle it then that it's a different design. Thanks!

There is a service manual on the non-APO on the web somewhere that has the schematic.

 

[dxqcanada]

Found it ... hmm, looks the same as the ones posted on Dynax for the APO and the APO D.
The first and last set look like a cemented pair... so, how did they get 10 groups with the same number of elements?

 

[unpopular]

Found it ... hmm, looks the same as the ones posted on Dynax for the APO and the APO D.
The first and last set look like a cemented pair... so, how did they get 10 groups with the same number of elements?

yeah. that's what I was looking at, couldn't really figure it out and just assumed the 11/9 vs 11/10 was a something being passed along. But if it's printed in a Minolta manual, I'm not sure.

Even still, wouldn't fewer groups be typically better, provided that the design is otherwise the same? Don't Apochromats usually use triplets? Maybe they added a floating group? That seems a bit unlikely.

If these drawings are accurate, is it plausible the two are essentially the same? Not to discredit first hand experiences...

 

[dxqcanada]

I could take my Minolta 100-300mm APO apart and find out ... hmmm, I don't think I am that curious.

 

[unpopular]

I could take my Minolta 100-300mm APO apart and find out ... hmmm, I don't think I am that curious.

For science!