Such sensors exist in many different variants depending on the manufacturer and camera model. APS-C size sensors are also used in a few digital rangefinders. Sensors approximating these dimensions are used in many digital single-lens reflex cameras (DSLRs), mirrorless interchangeable-lens cameras (MILCs), and a few large-sensor live-preview digital cameras.

It is therefore also equivalent in size to the Super 35 motion picture film format, which has the dimensions of 24.89 mm × 18.66 mm (0.980 in × 0.735 in) and Ø 31.11 mm field diameter. Tamron 70-300mm is another option I'm considering as I think we discussed in a previous thread.Drawing showing the relative sizes of sensors used in most current digital cameras.Īdvanced Photo System type-C ( APS-C) is an image sensor format approximately equivalent in size to the Advanced Photo System film negative in its C ('Classic') format, of 25.1×16.7 mm, an aspect ratio of 3:2 and Ø 31.15 mm field diameter. Sony Alpha mount 70-300G for E-mount (and add OSS)! Would benefit both APS-C and FF users. And BTW - I'm actually quite frustrated that Sony has not offered proper long zoom (like 70-300) solution to E-mount users.Must be relatively easy to convert e.g. Tamron is a bit sharper at long end (300mm, f/5.6) than Minolta 100-300 APO.Īctually there aren't many '70-300' zoom which wins (or can match) Tamron at 300mm, come to mind only Sony 70-300G and Canon 70-300 L-serie zoom. Any input on the Tamron vs the Minolta in terms of sharpness at 250mm-300mm? Tamron 70-300mm is another option I'm considering as I think we discussed in a previous thread. Any input on the Tamron vs the Minolta in terms of sharpness at wrote: Tamron 70-300 USD is very good choice, it's relatively sharp through focusing and focal lenght range. I had Minolta 100-300 APO once, a good telezoom, but not perfect, especially according to modern standards. Would you say the Minolta is equally sharp at 300mm as the Canon is at 250mm? Does the lack of IS cause issues often? Does it perform any better than the 100-300 APO, in terms of IQ?Ĭould you do a side by side comparison between the Canon 55-250 and the Minolta 100-300? I am currently using the Canon but am looking for something that can achieve equal or better sharpness with additional reach.

Constant f/4 and internal focus sound nice. But this was focused manually with MF assist, and there wasn't anything I could have done to get it any sharper.ĭoes anyone here have experience with these older Minolta AF telephoto lenses? I'm temped to get the 70-210mm 'beercan' for closer macro stuff. I don't know if you can zoom in to view the mantis at 100%, but if you could, you would see that all the fine detail is incredibly soft, like it's out of focus.

at 300mm but focused on a close subject) it just falls apart completely:

It seemed to have a good reputation for sharpness, and it seems capable of beating my usual tele solution (EFS 55-250mm IS II w/ canon AF adapter) with distant subjects, when there is really good light, when it comes to resolving detail at 50% or greater crop:īut in certain situations, particularly at the 'macro' end of the focal distance (so e.g. I got this lens for a good price and stuck it on my a6000 with an LA-EA4 adapter.

Minolta aps photo player