Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Mon Nov 24, 2014 1:25 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 9:26 am 
This is one of the lenses that I think makes the a-mount a great place to put your money. This lens is from the series of the first Minolta AF lenses from '85 and even though it's over 20 years old it will most likely outlive my camera. And then it’s cheap – or at least it was cheap, it seems like there is a rising demand for this lens and if you have tried it you know why.

Pros
* Build quality - all metal body and build so you can service it yourself
* Great Minolta colors
* Really sharp compared to price and zoom range
* Amazing bokeh
* Cheap
* Internal zoom

Cons
* Heavy
* Not internal focus
* A bit slow AF

Sample shots:
210mm @ f4
Image

120mm @ f5
Image

The lens:
Image


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 26, 2007 10:53 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 3:32 pm
Posts: 9975
Location: Queenstown, New Zealand
Nice shots Rune!

I also recently got hold of the CZ 16-80mm, so look out for a full review coming soon...

Gordon


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 27, 2007 8:53 am 
Thanks :) Can't take full credit for the first one which was taken by my wife.

Can't wait for the 16-80 ZA lens review :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 04, 2008 7:23 pm 
This looks like a good lens. Is there anything you need to watch out for when buying or looking after one due to its age? I have read things about mold and because its all metal does it suffer from rust or anything?

What is the quality and sharpness of the images like in comparison to the 70-200 f2.8 and the 18-70, 75-300 kit lens?

Does the weight differ much from the 70-200 f2.8 lens?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jul 05, 2008 1:21 am 
You might find this article helpful

http://reviews.ebay.ca/How-To-Detect-Fl ... 0001005542

There is another review written specifically on Beercan.

http://reviews.ebay.ca/Maxxum-70-210mm- ... 0000751723


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:12 pm 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 6:30 pm
Posts: 6953
Location: The Netherlands, Ridderkerk
tobywuk wrote:
What is the quality and sharpness of the images like in comparison to the 70-200 f2.8 and the 18-70, 75-300 kit lens?

Does the weight differ much from the 70-200 f2.8 lens?


The 70-200 from Sony weighs over 1300 grams, the 70-210 weighs just under 700. So yes, there's a difference. Remember, the 70-200mm F2.8G SSM is a professional piece of glass, this is/was much more consumer orientated. That's also why the difference in final quality between the 70-200mm and the 70-210/kitlenses will be significant.
You really shouldn't be comparing these lenses to the G glass from Sony, because they're on a whole different level. It would be like comparing a Ford car to a Bentley. Both can suit your need perfectly, but the differences between them are so huge, they can not really be compared.
That's what I think at least. I'm not saying (or typing) that any of these lenses are bad, not at all. However, they're not as good as G glass. Why else would that be so expensive? :?

- Bjorn -

_________________
Street and documentary photographer | Google+ | Twitter

Leica M9-P (my article on Camera Labs) | Leica D-Lux 5 | 50mm Summilux


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Sep 02, 2008 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:56 pm
Posts: 268
Location: Arkansas
I purchased the Minolta 70-210 f/4 at one of the auction sites to replace my 70-210 f/2.8 Vivitar. Although I had read how frustratingly slow it could be, it was so much faster than my previous lens that I was thrilled. It does not "hunt" nearly as much, and I can actually shoot with it on auto focus, instead of manual. Woo-hoo! No, it isn't fast, new, Sony glass, but it creates wonderful bokeh, rich creamy color, and I have not had a moment's regret.

_________________
Sony Alpha 700, Minolta 70-210 f/4 and some other stuff


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 03, 2008 5:01 pm 
Nice review.
I find the beercan a lil bit too heavy and opted for the tamron 70-300 instead.
The IQ on the beercan is superior though...


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 11, 2008 1:47 pm 
I've recently bought a Beercan, good wide open but so much better if you close even just a little...


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 01, 2009 7:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 12:18 am
Posts: 40
Location: canada
sure the lens is older, but it produces really nice photos. i had a Sigma 28-300 D 3.5-6.3 lens, but traded it in for another lens. the Beercan photos are alot sharper than those taken with that Sigma lens. (maybe it was my copy?) anyway, i have no regrets getting the beercan. it's my best lens .... on a budget of course :D


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 10 posts ] 

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group