Evaluating the Minolta Maxxum 100-400 APO lens

Brownie

Legendary Member
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Followers
21
Following
1
Joined
Oct 22, 2021
Posts
4,895
Likes Received
3,778
Name
Tim
Country
United States
City/State
SE Michigan
I'm in the process of putting together an inexpensive EDC kit I can keep my vehicle and not worry too much about getting stolen or damaged. Lenses for this kit will be A-Mount, which can be had very cheap, perform very well if the right ones are chosen, and are fairly compact compared to most offerings. This will be used for grab shots, something I see along the road or on a walk at lunchtime, etc. I don't need ultra-fast focusing, and the vast majority will be in daylight. The camera will be a Sony A7R. 36MP FF with a great sensor. While it may be first gen. Alpha E FF, one in excellent condition can be had for $650. It will be coupled with a good used LA-EA4. Since I want to keep the kit compact I've decided on using only two zooms.

For the short/wide end I've settled on the 28-135 or 35-105. Both are fantastic lenses. The 35-105 is quite a bit more compact but has a narrower focus range. These two lenses will likely get swapped back and forth, but that 28-135 focal range is hard to leave behind.

On the long end, I decided on one of my favorite focal ranges, the 100-400. Most of these lenses are expensive and none are compact. After some investigation I decided to try the old Maxxum APO version of the lens. It's smaller and lighter than the Sigma or Sony (the latter by quite a margin). I found one in excellent condition with caps/hood on the other side my home state for $210, shipped. That makes it the third most expensive of my A-mounts, behind the 80-200/2.8 and 500/8 AF, but it's also inexpensive enough that if something happened to it, I wouldn't need to worry about spending $thousands on a replacement. Using this with one of the others covers everything across the range.

When I evaluate something like this for my own use, I test under the same conditions I would normally shoot using the same settings, upload, and process exactly like my normal shots. No remarkable or additional processing. I don't bother with charts or anything else, leaving those for the technical minded people. For me it all comes down to practical use.

The following shots are from a nature walk I did late yesterday afternoon on my way home from work. The lens has foibles. It doesn't focus as quickly as most of my others, but it's ok for the intended use. It hunts a bit when going from one end of focus to the other, especially in low light. Fringing is bad, like...really bad under the wrong conditions, so compositions is important. I had some shots of a squirrel against a bright sky that are unusable, unless of course you like squirrels with purple hair. None of that is earth shattering news, it's pretty much as expected.

As for IQ, it's about average for a lens of this age. Not as sharp as the best ones, but acceptable. Colors are great (not that there's a lot in the woods right now), typical old Minolta. Contrast is pretty good too.

A shot into the light. Nice contrast and color without being washed out.
52475547196_76fec33da1_k.jpg


A squirrel. This guy let me get pretty close, but this is a crop.
52475546721_61e4ed68ab_k.jpg


I think this is a Dark-Eyed Junco of the Slate variety. Not often I see those around here. This is a rather large crop and it held up pretty well. It would probably take a bit more if I wanted to. Note the bokeh is very smooth (what little there is!)
52476092623_cf4d682a9f_k.jpg


Oak Leaves. The light was great on this shot and the lens handled it well. Again, notice the bokeh. Ridiculously smooth and creamy, evidently one of the lens' strong points.
52475546996_e7c3060c19_k.jpg


So what's the verdict? The lens is adequate. Not great, but not awful. It's capable of good photos and I'm sure once I spend more time with it to wring out its idiosyncrasies, it'll fine for the task at hand.
 
Looks good Tim I would like to see metadata, which camera is this on?
 
Looks good Tim I would like to see metadata, which camera is this on?
A7M4.

Not sure why they didn't show up in the gallery? Maybe not from this forum?

Here's the Junco again, linked from my Flickr page. If you click it you can click around the page and see detailed Meta for all of them.

DSC08381 by telecast, on Flickr
 
Ok so first shot 200th sec shutter speed that lens will be much sharper with higher shutter, and shot 3 is really good considering shutter is only 80th of a second if you zoom in the bird is looking good, plenty of scope to dial these in Tim. I don't want to hijack this thread, but I went looking for a shot of when I was testing the Minolta 400 4.5 I purposely shot this shot as lower shutter speed as possible although resting on a fence rail lea-4 adaptor
tiger min 400 4.5 2.jpg
  • ILCE-7M3
  • 400mm F4.5
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/10
  • 1/60 sec
  • ISO 500
tiger min 400 4.5.jpg
  • ILCE-7M3
  • 400mm F4.5
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/10
  • 1/60 sec
  • ISO 500
 
These are all handheld, free standing, no bracing. I won't make special exceptions when test shooting. I need to know how it does under normal use, so it either stands up or it doesn't. The lens is fairly slow, 4.5-6.7 and I wanted to see how well the combo might do on its own with no lens stabilization in a darker environment. That shot was at 100mm and 1/200th, which should be more than fast enough for a sharp shot. The Junco was shot @ 400mm and 1/80th, which should've been a massive failure, but it's not.

So, what are the differences? In one case I was in one of my custom settings with the bird eye focus activated and AF-C. In the other I was in full M with AF-S and no recognition selected. I was probably being more careful with the bird and snapped more hastily on the trees. The other thing I notice is shooting into the light in the tree shot, and the light coming from behind me on the bird. The old lens had a harder time with backlit subjects than when directly lit. Possibly the aperture was too open on the tree shot, too.
 
These are all handheld, free standing, no bracing. I won't make special exceptions when test shooting. I need to know how it does under normal use, so it either stands up or it doesn't. The lens is fairly slow, 4.5-6.7 and I wanted to see how well the combo might do on its own with no lens stabilization in a darker environment. That shot was at 100mm and 1/200th, which should be more than fast enough for a sharp shot. The Junco was shot @ 400mm and 1/80th, which should've been a massive failure, but it's not.

So, what are the differences? In one case I was in one of my custom settings with the bird eye focus activated and AF-C. In the other I was in full M with AF-S and no recognition selected. I was probably being more careful with the bird and snapped more hastily on the trees. The other thing I notice is shooting into the light in the tree shot, and the light coming from behind me on the bird. The old lens had a harder time with backlit subjects than when directly lit. Possibly the aperture was too open on the tree shot, too.
Did you use ibis if so what did you opt to for focal length wise?
 
Did you use ibis if so what did you opt to for focal length wise?
I didn't make any changes to the camera compared to my other lenses, whatever mode it was in is how it was used.
 
I didn't make any changes to the camera compared to my other lenses, whatever mode it was in is how it was used.
Tim what sort of cost are these lenses in the us? they seem to be giving them away here cost wise
 
$210 shipped. It's in the OP.

I have seen them for less, but mostly from Japan with 'free returns'. It'd cost me more to return it than it's worth and they know it. I opted to get one from a known seller on Dyxum, I was just more comfortable.
 
$210 shipped. It's in the OP.

I have seen them for less, but mostly from Japan with 'free returns'. It'd cost me more to return it than it's worth and they know it. I opted to get one from a known seller on Dyxum, I was just more comfortable.
My local shop seem to have lots of Minolta lenses in part ex some seem very cheap they have a 70-210 right now for £ 35.00 I guess that 40 dollars Us, so I will you buy the a7r camera? or will it depend on further testing
 
Will likely get the camera. The other Maxxum lenses I have are no-brainers, and the 100-400 is plenty usable, just need to get to know it.
 
Will likely get the camera. The other Maxxum lenses I have are no-brainers, and the 100-400 is plenty usable, just need to get to know it.
I looked at your flicker page and I like the 28-135 the images are really nice great colours
 
It’s an amazing old lens. The 35-105 is actually rated higher, I need to shoot it more, but the 28-135 is such a fantastic focal range it always seems to get the nod. The 28-135 cost $70 and the 35-105 was something like $35.
 
Last edited:
I have the 70-210, affectionately referred to as the Beer Can. It was free, I bought it in a Maxxun kit and sold off what I didn’t want. Nice lens but I rarely use it with the 80-200/2.8 HS G in my bag. I can also see the 75-300 setting more with the 100-400 here. That lens cost me $14. The thing is neither one has enough value to bother with selling them, so may as well keep both for the heck of it. I’d be more likely to give them to another like-minded local photographer if they could get some use.
 
Last edited:
Did you use ibis if so what did you opt to for focal length wise?
I didn't make any changes to the camera compared to my other lenses, whatever mode it was in is how it was used.
I didn't make any changes to the camera compared to my other lenses, whatever mode it was in is how it was used.
Does the exif include fl stabilizer setting? I was testing an old 100-300 Apo/D with ea3 adapter, and would like to confirm that ssi is doing the right thing.
 
Does the exif include fl stabilizer setting? I was testing an old 100-300 Apo/D with ea3 adapter, and would like to confirm that ssi is doing the right thing.
Which camera body are you using
 
I'm using A7.ii
 
Did you use ibis if so what did you opt to for focal length wise?
From Sony. This is for the M4 and LA-EA5 with the 100-400 APO

LA-EA5

  • Available with a Mount Adaptor.
  • Operation sound of the diaphragm is recorded with the internal microphone.
  • Outside the A (Aperture priority), S (Shutter priority), and M (Manual) modes, the shutter speed and the aperture can not be adjusted during the movie recording.
  • The [Lens Comp] (Lens Compensation) function does not work.
  • Depending on shooting conditions, the brightness of the picture may not be even.Set the [Front Curtain Shutter] function to [Off].
  • If you attach the [A-mount lens] using the Mount Adaptor, MF assist function does not work automatically when you turn the focus ring. You can enlarge the image by selecting [Focus Magnifier] function or [MF Assist] function to any key in the "Custom Key Settings".
  • Touch Shutter does not work.
  • Shake compensation is available with 3-axis(Pitch/Yaw/Roll) by SteadyShot INSIDE.
  • Although you can perform auto focusing, it is sometimes difficult to focus on a subject using this function when you are shooting dark scenes or when a subject is located at the corners of the screen or is significantly out of focus.
RED: After some reading, it appears that Steady Shot is automatic as long as the lens sends the FL information back to the camera. In this case, the camera knows the FL. Probably why the bird shot worked @400mm and 1/80, that's just about 2-1/2 stops so it makes sense.

YELLOW: This is what I experienced when shooting in the woods. I thought it was the backlighting, maybe it was just the darker scene.
 
It seems to make sense and I guess for us both you happen to have taken 2 differing shots that show it in the real world
 
Did you use ibis if so what did you opt to for focal length wise?
Well now, ain't I a dumb ass?

I went out yesterday to play a bit more with the lens. About halfway through the walk I remembered to activate the animal/bird eye, which had been turned off during the Karate shoot. I went through several menu items to check everything else, and when I got to IBIS...it was set to manual. WTF? Now, I have no idea when I shut it off. I can't recall any time I would have mounted a lens that wouldn't talk through the adapter, with the possible exception of the 500AF on the 1.4TC. Is it possible I've been shooting with it like that all this time? 🤷‍♂️

I'm going to dump a bunch of these options into my favorites so I can quickly check.

Anyway, given the fact that I may not have been using IBIS, or at least it may have been set to some specific FL (I'll check), I'm fairly surprised at the output.

DSC09039 by telecast, on Flickr

DSC09030 by telecast, on Flickr
 
I've continued to investigate this lens and believe it's finally sorted. It occurred to me that the lens was performing worse on the LA-EA4 and 7RM3 than with the EA5 and the M4. Also, most of the images I was having trouble with were closer while distant images seemed to be much more consistent. This made me think that DOF was playing a huge part and that the lens may not be focusing properly with the SLT technology, which wouldn't be an issue with the mirrorless.

Here are some distant examples.
DSC04592.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/3200 sec
  • ISO 640
DSC04659.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/400 sec
  • ISO 200


Same image as above, cropped
DSC04659a.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/400 sec
  • ISO 200


DSC04665.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/250 sec
  • ISO 200


Same image as above, cropped.
DSC04665a.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/250 sec
  • ISO 200


Here are some close examples.
DSC04616.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/125 sec
  • ISO 400
DSC04662.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/400 sec
  • ISO 200
DSC04663.jpg
  • ILCE-7RM3
  • 100-400mm F4.5-6.7
  • 400.0 mm
  • ƒ/6.3
  • 1/640 sec
  • ISO 200


I made my own AF test kit by downloading and printing an AF target and building a ruler stand. Testing revealed that the lens was back-focusing. An adjustment of -4 resolved it.

The lens is acceptable for the intended use, but it's also clear that it's never going to be pin sharp, and I guess I shouldn't really expect it to be. It wasn't a pro lens in its day and using it on a higher resolution sensor is going to reveal faults. It's not a fast lens and at full extension has a wide-open aperture equal to 7.1 when mounted on the SLT adapter.

I also learned that at least with this lens, the e-front curtain shutter is the better option. Testing was done on a heavy-duty Vanguard tripod with IBIS off and a remote release. It wasn't difficult to see the difference between the two shutter selections. Now, these were rather slow shutter speeds and how it may do in bright sunlight and faster shutters remains to be seen.

Fast shutter speeds and good light will be the order of business. For an inexpensive EDC it'll be fine. It's never going to be a fine detail lens, but if that's the need for the day I have those covered. Still a bit disappointing in that this is the first Minolta Maxxum lens I've bought that gave me trouble, but it also occurs to me that it's the first one I bought that wasn't one of the original issue or pro-grade. Another reason to stick with the originals.
 
I've continued to investigate this lens and believe it's finally sorted. It occurred to me that the lens was performing worse on the LA-EA4 and 7RM3 than with the EA5 and the M4. Also, most of the images I was having trouble with were closer while distant images seemed to be much more consistent. This made me think that DOF was playing a huge part and that the lens may not be focusing properly with the SLT technology, which wouldn't be an issue with the mirrorless.

Here are some distant examples.
View attachment 28578View attachment 28579

Same image as above, cropped
View attachment 28580

View attachment 28581

Same image as above, cropped.
View attachment 28582

Here are some close examples.
View attachment 28583View attachment 28584View attachment 28585

I made my own AF test kit by downloading and printing an AF target and building a ruler stand. Testing revealed that the lens was back-focusing. An adjustment of -4 resolved it.

The lens is acceptable for the intended use, but it's also clear that it's never going to be pin sharp, and I guess I shouldn't really expect it to be. It wasn't a pro lens in its day and using it on a higher resolution sensor is going to reveal faults. It's not a fast lens and at full extension has a wide-open aperture equal to 7.1 when mounted on the SLT adapter.

I also learned that at least with this lens, the e-front curtain shutter is the better option. Testing was done on a heavy-duty Vanguard tripod with IBIS off and a remote release. It wasn't difficult to see the difference between the two shutter selections. Now, these were rather slow shutter speeds and how it may do in bright sunlight and faster shutters remains to be seen.

Fast shutter speeds and good light will be the order of business. For an inexpensive EDC it'll be fine. It's never going to be a fine detail lens, but if that's the need for the day I have those covered. Still a bit disappointing in that this is the first Minolta Maxxum lens I've bought that gave me trouble, but it also occurs to me that it's the first one I bought that wasn't one of the original issue or pro-grade. Another reason to stick with the originals.
Looks fine Tim you just need to remember that the lea-4 is very limiting 15 focus points only or as few as one and of course its own primitive focusing system from the a65 I think, so all things considered you probably are not far away from the best you can get from the combo, maybe worth assigning dof to a button for preview purposes. Interesting that you realised the back focus issue. a side note the sensor on the a73r needs a blow mate the blue skies always show the dirt. 😊
 
Looks fine Tim you just need to remember that the lea-4 is very limiting 15 focus points only or as few as one and of course its own primitive focusing system from the a65 I think, so all things considered you probably are not far away from the best you can get from the combo, maybe worth assigning dof to a button for preview purposes. Interesting that you realised the back focus issue. a side note the sensor on the a73r needs a blow mate the blue skies always show the dirt. 😊
Yeah, I've blown it off several times. It needs a wet cleaning.

I'm hoping now that the back focus is resolved and I understand the parameters, the results will be more consistent.

The differences between the EA4 and EA5 are astounding. I understand why people warned me off trying to use the screw-drive lenses for my main kit. At the time the EA5 was new and there was little experience with it. Now that I have both it's crazy how much more capable the EA5 is. I wish Sony would break down and come up with a firmware update for the earlier bodies to use the EA5.
 
Yeah, I've blown it off several times. It needs a wet cleaning.

I'm hoping now that the back focus is resolved and I understand the parameters, the results will be more consistent.

The differences between the EA4 and EA5 are astounding. I understand why people warned me off trying to use the screw-drive lenses for my main kit. At the time the EA5 was new and there was little experience with it. Now that I have both it's crazy how much more capable the EA5 is. I wish Sony would break down and come up with a firmware update for the earlier bodies to use the EA5.
Yes, so do I as you know I have all the Minolta primes up to 400 4.5 waiting for me to use them on my next body upgrade, I was offered a sigma 300-800 5.6 the other day from my friend who owns a camera retailer and I blinked, and it's gone. no brainer if I had one of the few bodies Sony graced with lea-5 screw drive option
 
Well, I'd say it's sorted. Doing the AF micro-adjust made a big difference. I am pretty happy with the results. Interesting to note, this was with the e curtain off and compressed RAW. Good enough!

Cross posted to the Red Bellied thread
DSC04743 by telecast, on Flickr
 
Back
Top