It seems that I am one of the few users of this lens so let me put in some comment.
I acquired this lens for backpacking/moutaineering purposes. The feel of this lens is really good (zooming even better than the 70-210 or 100-300) and it's tiny and in my case more versatile than the even smaller MD 135/3,5. A moutaineering package may consist of a (24+) 35/2,8 + 75-150, or 35-70+75-150.
The optical performance is excellent. I can't see a practical difference to the fixed lenses in the range with exception of aperture of course.
Two drawbacks:
I have a test report from swiss magazin Photographie were they tested all the 75-150 zooms of those days (early? 80s). An oldfashioned test with dozens of photos and not only a believe-it or not chart. All lenses were considerably better than the 70(80)-210(200) zooms (famous Oly, Canon, Nikon E 75-150, ....) and the Minolta was one of the best. (Maybe the best if vignetting is not considered, there from I have my scruples). All 75-150 were much better than the 70-210 in terms of distortion.
Construction: 12 elements in 8 groups. Minimum focus 3.9 feet or 1.2 meters. Minimum f stop: 32. Filter zize: 49 mm. Weight: 445 grams or 15 and 11/16 oz. Dimensions: 2 and 1/2 by 4 and 7/16th inches.
The lens is excellent for travelling. I took it to France and England this year. The zooming action is first rate with no slop or creep. The images are excellent but not quite as sharp as my Tamron SP 70 to 210 zoom.
A week ago was the question about the 85/2.
This was the first accessory lens I bought for Minolta ('83 and used. That lens looked 'well used' when I got it, but in the next 15 years no more scratch; I don't know what people do with their equipment.). And since that it is one of my most used. Tiny and a fine handling. On a (back country?) ski-tour I made one of my Adams memorial moonrising pictures. We were in a hurry, because it was almost dark and we were high above the valley. So no tripod, f2 and 1/30. It is perfectly sharp at 30cmx40cm (Tmax100) and hangs on the wall since then. So the optical quality is very good. If the 1,7 is better like indicated here, it will be hard to see in the photos. A very fine combination is this lens together with the 28/2 or MC35/1,8.
The 200 2.8 is an interesting lens. Given it's high speed I was expecting it to be heavy but it feels quite light. The elements are glass not plastic. At wide open this lens is comparable to a much less expensive 200mm telephoto. The best f stop is f8. If you use a decent tripod you can get results at this setting which are comparable to a high grade macro lens. I would recommend this lens but only for use at the smaller f stops. In American magazines this lens sells for about 450 dollars but I picked mine up for under 300 Canadian dollars which are worth far less.