Minolta AF 100-200 F4.5  reviews

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: warpedwoof   review date: April-09-13  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
55-200 on the A77

price paid:

65 USD (used)

positive:

Sharpness
Size
Weight
Price
Focuses more reliably than the Beercan.

negative:

None

comment:

My copy of this lens is excellent. It's sharpness wide-open on the A99 is at least equivalent (if not better) to the Beercan. I believe many people miss the potential in lenses like this when they don't adjust their in-camera settings properly or use a program like Lightroom to draw the contrast and resolution out of the RAW image. I highly recommend this inexpensive lens to any A99 user. You'll be very pleased at the detail it reveals. Even at f4.5 on the A99 you still have a lot of leeway into low-light conditions with the camera's high-ISO tolerance.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: homeranger   review date: February-03-13  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

N/A

positive:

Sharp
Build Quality
Minolta Color
Size
Value
Hood

negative:

Not much to complain about with this lens.

comment:

Image quality is on par with the Beercan. I really liked this lens. Excellent value for the price. Would recommend this lens if you can't get the 70-210 Beercan.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: topdogmex   review date: November-22-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 macro

price paid:

100 usd (like new)

positive:

Minolta colors
IQ
Metal construction
useful range for APS-C

negative:

AF noise

comment:

Very good mid range zoom, the colors out of this lense are outstanding, it's very sharp too, at f/4 is dead sharp. All metal, and good quality of construction. This glass is old, but very capable. Get one if you can.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: eddieitman   review date: August-20-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 F4
Sigma 70-210 F2.8
Tokina 70-210 F4.5/5.6
Tamron 70-300LD

price paid:

50ukp

positive:

Great size the ideal track side partner where you dont need excessive zoom

negative:

Minimum Focus Distance

comment:

What can i say this lens has to be the perfect track side companion.
Small light and has fantastic build quality.
If you can get trackside with 5-7m distance its the perfect lens so sharp, that cropping is not an issue.
The focus speed is very fast and does not hunt like the beercan, I dont think this lens ever failed to focus on the action even when taking superbikes, etc .
the colours are vibrant and typical minolta,
I love this lens and is always on my camera for track days

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: Pirate   review date: July-17-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 'Beercan'
Minolta AF 28-135mm F4-4.5 Macro
Sigma AF 55-200mm DC
Minolta AF 70-200mm F2.8 APO HS G
Tamron AF 70-200mm F2.8 Di LD (IF)

price paid:

£0.00 (Bundled)

positive:

Size
Lightweight
Build Quality
Focal Length
Lens Hood
Size
Price

negative:

MFD

comment:

This is the alternative cheaper option to the venerable F4 'Beercan'. Whilst it's not considered to be one of the 'must have' lenses from the Minolta back catalogue, it does have a useful focal range and doubles up fairly well as a walkabout lens mainly due to is weight.

IQ is acceptable whilst not being stellar, but is far better than some other optics in the short/medium zoom category.

An alternative to more expensive glass that covers the same range, it's well built and is lightweight. A generous lens hood stops flare and overall a nice little lens to have at hand. Maybe one that's overlooked in favour of others, but it doesn't have the kudos like the F4 'Beercan'. It's very affordable but don't let the price fool you. I produces nice bokeh, classic Minolta colours and very acceptable IQ.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: chriseen   review date: May-26-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

24mm f2,8
50mm f1.4
35-70mm f4
70-210mm f4
50mm Macro f2,8
100mm F2,8 macro
80-200mm f2.8

price paid:

90 euro

positive:

-Excellent sharpness and total quality.
-Compact size light weight
-Excellent optical performance for the price
-Fixed aperture all the way
-49mm (cheap) filters
-Nice bokeh for an f/4.5
-Robust build
-As sharp as the beercan
Even wide open at 200
-Build to last
-razor sharp when stopped down at f6-f8,
-very nice colors.
-relatively fast AF

negative:

1.9m Minimum Focus Distance

comment:

Image quality is like the 70-210/4 in a smaller, lighter package, the sharpness is great at 100mm and still good at 200mm.
No complaints at all about sharpness, fringing, aberration or vignetting.
complementing the kitlens, 24-85,
Very attractive for example "street photography"
Bokeh is very nice across the board,
the point is that this lens can definitely produce some very, very good results.
amazes me each time
Looking for a not to expensive quality lens ... this is the one to buy.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: jamo spingal   review date: May-15-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210mm f4.5 (I)
Sigma 75-300mm f4 APO

price paid:

55 GBP used

positive:

Awesome colours
Build
Sharpness
f4.5 from 100-200mm
Bokeh
Weight

negative:

Nothing. Why the negatives on the MFD, it is what it is.

comment:

Really nice, well built lens from the same time period as the bigger 70-210mm Beercan. Rated sharpness 4.5 but 4.0 would have been too low for the others (no 4.5 option). The best aspect of this lens is the speed at 200mm (same as 100mm). It's a nice size and weight compared to the 70-210mm Beercan (but similar to the 70-210mm f4.5).

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: cicaro   review date: May-15-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Big Beercan (Minolta AF 70-210 F 4)
Sigma - 75-300 F4.5-5.6 APO
Minolta AF 75-300 4.5-5.6 Macro

price paid:

10 USD(Fleet market)

positive:

- Sturdy build
- Nice colors
- Decent sharpness

negative:

- Odd zoom

comment:

I seldom use this lens, however that may simply be because I both have the big beer can and my favorite sigma tele. This is sort of the odd fella in the lens family and spend most of its time at home due to the lack of macro and lesser zoom range than my other telies...

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: andyken   review date: May-11-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron SP 70-300 f4-5.6 USD
Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan
Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 APO
Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6 N
Vivitar Series 1 100-400 f4.5-6.7
Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6
Sigma 70-300 f4-5.6 APO
Sigma 75-300 f4.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6

price paid:

£40 (used)

positive:

Excellent IQ.
Small and light.
Amazing value.
Low CA.
Sharp even at full aperture.

negative:

Slightly limited range on APS-C.

comment:

This is a quality lens.

Having accumulated rather more lenses than I actually need (or use!) I decided to do a shoot-out before deciding which ones are expendable. The Minolta 100-200 f4.5 was the cheapest of all and I expected it to come mid-field at best. I took numerous comparative test shots, primarily at full aperture and f8 and then did an A-B comparison on screen at 100%, looking at both centres and corners.

As expected the Tamron SP came first in every test, but then it is virtually a 'G' class lens and cost more than the lenses in 2nd, 3rd & 4th places combined! In second place (and the cheapest of the lot remember) came the Minolta 100-200 f4.5, just ahead of the Beercan, due to much lower CA (double the price) and the Minolta 100-300 APO, which was the tiniest bit less sharp (three times the price).

This lens is very sharp at full aperture and extremely sharp at every other aperture, as well as being small and light, but at the same time well built. None of the shots showed any significant distortion or flare. Colours were superb.

For the price you can pick one of these gems up for, it ought to be in everyone's collection, in my opinion. Incidentally, my 'compared to' list is in order of excellence. This obviously only reflects my personal findings and opinions. I have to say also that the top 4 lenses all produced excellent results, with a noticeable drop in quality from the bottom 3.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Thatguyfromvienna   review date: April-25-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan

price paid:

50 € 65 $ mint

positive:

Incredibly sharp
Great colors
Hood is effective
Really fast AF
High quality build

negative:

Could be faster but what do you expect for this little money?

comment:

I am totally in love with this Minolta gem.
It's a very solid yet quite light lens.
What really impressed me is the AF speed - I didn't expect it to be that fast.
This lens is without any doubt a keeper for me.
Sure, f/4 would be nice and a smaller MFD too but I love it the way it is.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: witee.w   review date: April-16-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f4 beercan

price paid:

126 usd used

positive:

light weight
compact size
beautiful model

negative:

not as sharp as beercan
soft at 100 and 200
MFD

comment:

MFD of this lens is super annoying. you can't even shoot portrait of your cousin across the table!

I love the looking, size and weight of this lens.

very satisfied with the IQ.

As beercan give slightly sharper image but compare to the weight and size that we have to carry I think this lens could become a tempting choice.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: ChapelThrill23   review date: March-27-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 55-200

price paid:

$80

positive:

Sharp. Extremely well built. Small

negative:

Terrible MFD. Middling range.

comment:

I like the lens for its compact size, great build quality, and excellent image quality. I do not use it much anymore however because i've found that the 55-200 has equally impressive IQ while packing much better range. That combined with a horrible MFD has all but stopped me from using the 100-200. If you can find one at a good price it is worth considering but otherwise go 55-200.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: pureaxis   review date: March-26-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Carl Zeiss 16-80
Minolta 28-105 RS

price paid:

130 USD (Mint)

positive:

-Very sharp wide open!
-Small and light
-Good colors
-No zoom creep!
-Clip-on hood better than I thought

negative:

-None as long as you understand its imitations
-Would be my perfect lens if it was constant F4!

comment:

Wow this is honestly one of my favorite lens period. Just the portability makes it worth it compared to other telephotos, and it doesn't look as obscene as a Beercan when mated to a A65 :). I find the range perfect for outdoor events or going to the zoo.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: digitalsniper   review date: January-24-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 F4 Beercan
Sony SAL 75-300 F4.5-5.6

price paid:

SGD 100 (used)

positive:

Very portable
Excellent colors
Creamy bokeh
Battleship grade construction

negative:

MFD (Not a big deal)
Soft at 200mm

comment:

Bought it from a Minolta lens collector who decided to change system. I was searching for a replacement to my beercan and Sony SAL75-300 and I came across this lens selling quite cheap. I decided to give the beercan to my daughter as she is crazy about the IQ of her shots everytime she uses my beercan. I decided to buy the Sony 75-300 but after my trip to Italy I decided to sell this lens as I am totally disappointed about the colors of my photos with this lens.

This mini-beercan has lived up to my expectation as a replacement as I was specifically looking for a lens that is portable yet with comparable IQ to my beercan. The beercan, though produces excellent IQ doesn't seem to look good in my Sony Alpha 77 because of the long but slim barrel. It just makes my @77 look ugly! This beercan is almost the same length with my SAL1650F28 and looks cool in my @77!

Compared to the SAL75300, my mini-beercan just stepped on it in every category except of course in the focal range which, I don't really give that much importance. The almost 2 meter MFD actually makes my models feel more comfortable during photoshoots!

Thanks to the engineers of the beercan series lenses and the Sony Alpha 77 as I am able to take photos with a quality of a professional photographer!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Rusty   review date: January-10-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
MinO 135/2.8

price paid:

90 USD

positive:

-light
-compact
-constant f/4.5
-sharp

negative:

-range
-MFD

comment:

I got this as a compact alternative to my beercan. I would say performance is really close to the beercan overall, AF seems fast (fast enough for a screw-drive of this generation). My copy does not have a hood, so flare is always a consideration.

The aperture difference with the beercan is negligible, but I rarely shoot my zooms wide-open. The MFD is sometimes restrictive at almost 2 meters. Would really enjoy it more if it was in the 1 meter range, like the Beercan.

A very capable lens for the price.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Gavno   review date: December-19-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta Beercan
Minolta Baby Beercan
Sigma 70 - 300mm

price paid:

$30.00

positive:

Cheap!
Small and light weight
Quite sharp!

negative:

WHY couldn't it be an F/4 ???

comment:

First off... I have two copies of this lens. The first was from Ebay ($30.00). The second, with case & hood incidentally, came in a box of stray lenses encountered at a swap meet ($10.00)!

I shoot Roller Derby. A Beercan is WAY too much lens for an indoor venue. It's too big & heavy, and is too slow to autofocus.

A Baby Beercan is a MUCH better choice for the job... but sometimes you can use just a bit more ability to reach out.

If the light at the arena is good enough, then the 100 - 200 comes into play; as was previously pointed out, the lighting in gyms and arenas isn't always the right playground for this lens. For safety reasons I shoot with existing light ONLY (I don't want to risk distracting hurtling skaters in full combat mode with a flash), and that extra half F stop in the Beercan makes a world of difference.

It "points" a whole lot more easily than the Beercan, and autofocuses a WHOLE lot FASTER.

Even wide open, it's a quite sharp lens, and the color rendition is excellent, even under the usual mercury or sodium vapor arena lights.

My only complaint... WHY couldn't Minolta have engineered this one as an F/4 ??? If they did that, it would be almost the PERFECT lens for me.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: bebgsurg   review date: November-22-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 Beercan, 70-210 f3.5 to f4.5

price paid:

90 USD used

positive:

sharp, light, small

negative:

less range, f4.5 is not great for indoor gym level of lighting

comment:

I was going to get rid of this lens in favor of the Beercan which I also owned for a period of time. The beercan was slightly sharper and slightly faster with an F4 lens aperture, but I found those differences to be too slight to make up for the weight and size of the bigger lens. This lens also blew away the first copy of the 70-210 f3.5 to 4.5 zoom, so I sold that one as well as the beercan and have just bought another 70-210 f3.5-4.5. We will see if it challenges my 100-200, which so far is the victor in my cheap zoom competition!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: ciupo35   review date: November-15-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MAF 100-300 APO D,
MAF 135/2.8

price paid:

130 USD (used, mint)

positive:

Compact size and weight,
nice colors,
good bokeh,
cheap

negative:

vignette,
f/4.5,
too large MFD

comment:

Good travel-zoom lens, small and well build. At f/8 gives results similar to more expensive lenses. Too big focus distance sometimes is annoying.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Ratsters   review date: August-12-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta (Beercan) 70-210mm
Sony 18-70 kit lens

price paid:

40 USD (Used)

positive:

Build quality, as solid as the Beercan
Light even if it's all metal
Sharper then most kit lens
Filter size 49mm
Good sharpness even at f4.5
Excellent value for market price
Good walk around lens

negative:

CA in high contrast situation
AF a bit noisy
Soft at 200mm

comment:

I bought this lens used at eBay cheap,under $40.00 US in excellent shape, got it mostly to complete my AF Minolta lens, but was very surprised at the built quality, all metal and light. It's a good walk around lens for candid shots in any downtown city, because of it's size nobody will notice you. F-Stop are of the old type from the film days, no thirds. AF is a bit noisy and moderately fast, but again it all depend on were you're using this lens, downtown at 5'oclock nobody will notice. As far as sharpness goes, f8 to f16 are the sweet numbers with a minimum of CA at ISO 200, no worst than a kit lens. All in all, for the price paid, you get a good lens with a metal body, that should last a long time, probably longer then plastic bodies. Good point, filter size 49mm, can be bought cheap everywhere.

As with any Minolta AF film lens, CA will alway be a problem, but nothing that cannot be easily fix in Camera RAW. Bokeh is not it's strong point, but then again, F-Stop start at f4.5, even fully open you get good sharpness but stay away from 200mm, I find that 180mm gives the best result.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: August-10-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 75-300 f4.5-5.6 (Original)

price paid:

45 GBP

positive:

Sharp from f5.6
Superb colours
Lovely bokeh
Lightweight
Value for money

negative:

Minimum focus distance
Noisy AF

comment:

Very sharp from 100-180, At 200 sharpness drops off a touch (but not soft)

Needs hood to combat flare, but so do most of the Minolta lenses of this generation,

Nice lens to carry around when not wanting to carry around Big Beercan and you dont need the extra reach.

Highly recommended in view of the current price level

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: StefB.   review date: May-23-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- beercan 70-210mm
- Tamron 80-210mm

price paid:

20 Euro

positive:

- compact and light
- nice color
- constant apertue @4.5
- large hood

negative:

- Huge MFD !!
- focal Range
- AF speed (specially in low light condition)

comment:

- Flare is not so bad but only with the hood!

I've got the lenses in a package.

I used that lense with my SONY Alpha 55
- Do not expect to use it to record video. The AF is too noisy!!

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: danymoris   review date: April-05-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Pentax 60-250mm

positive:

- Size

negative:

- Focal range
- Contrast
- No modern coatings
- AF speed

comment:

I would love nothing more than to love this lens and give it high marks. Because i love the size, i think every mid to long range tele should be no longer than this lens.

Yet the range limited. Wish it starts around 80mm instead, which i feel is a more usable range for indoor portraits. F4.5 is not bad, but not fast. Also not too big of a difference to other zooms that are around f5.6 in their mid-long sections.

The contrast is mediocre, about the same as the 75-300 lenses which does have a larger range. That lens also have better AF speed.

I get to play with a friend's Pentax K-5 with 60-250mm lens. That's a long, heavy, expensive yet modern zoom lens. Clear difference in contrast and sharpness and AF speed. I wish there was a quality zoom like that for Alpha mount.

My whining aside, this is a mediocre lens. Given the chance, i would get something else with better AF speed.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: crappybokeh   review date: March-06-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

70 Euros

positive:

- Stunningly sharp results for such an old and inexpensive lens

negative:

- Large minimum focus distance (but i don't care about that)

comment:

Already quite sharp at 4.5, nearly flawless from 5.6 on

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: dcad10   review date: March-06-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-200mm f4 (beercan)

price paid:

$40 USD

positive:

fixed f4.5 aperture
small size
image quality

negative:

long minimum focus distance

comment:

Compared to the beercan, this lens is nearly as good and costs less than half the priced (used). I find myself grabbing it more often than the beercan thanks to its small size and low weight. One downside is that the minimum focus distance is rather long, so it can make shooting awkward in certain situations.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: jon3453   review date: March-05-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 18-70
tokina 19-35 F3.5 4.5
min 50 F1.7
min 28 F2.8
min 35-105N
min100-200 F4.5
min 100 F2.8 macro
+various M42

price paid:

£70

positive:

sharpness
Size
colour
Build
hardly needs stopping down
bokeh

negative:

MFD
limited range

comment:

Cracking little lens, especially for the price. Have taken some great shots with it.A good pairing with 35-105old.Never seen any flare/CA.As with all of this generation min. lenses minimum focus distance is pretty terrible, but outside in good light it produces wonderful images

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Velectron   review date: December-25-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 F4
70-210 F3.5-4.5
75-300 F4.5-5.6 "II" & "D"

positive:

Very sharp wide open, small and light, good build

negative:

MFD

comment:

Small and light lens but it is nothing to scoff at. Very sharp wide open, especially at long end. Smaller and lighter than Beercan with comparable image quality and build. MFD is a bit limiting sometimes.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: JCB3   review date: November-13-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Good sharpness and color. lightweight, and inexpensive especially on APS-C, 49mm filter

negative:

Limited range on FF, zoom creep

comment:

For the price and on APS-C this lens is a keeper.

On FF does not perform as well but still a good lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: rdtindsm   review date: September-25-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

100 macro
beercan
big beercan
25-105

price paid:

about 100 usd

positive:

Very sharp at f8, great color

negative:

noticiably soft at 4.5

comment:

Warning: This review is not base on extensive testing so I can't comment with any authority on distortion and flare. But I finally took it out comparing it to the macro, the beercan, and the big beercan after buying it because of the generally positive reviews. I took test shots at the closest aperture to f4 and and f8 at 100, 200, and 300mm according to the ability of the lens.

The macro was good across the board, the beercan had good center sharpness and good color while the big beercan was sharper at the edges.

Simply put - this lens rocks. Both the color, the saturation, and the sharpness were noticiably better than the others at f8. I also have the 50 f1.4 and the tamron 17-50. All of these lenses are generally well regarded and I've always had to look closely to find marginal differences.

The picture that I got at f8 was not marginally better. It was a whole lot better in sharpness and particularly in color and contrast. At 4.5, it was noticeably softer. The colors were flatter, but still good,.

I've never used the lens knowing the reputation of the lenses I had. It will start spending a lot of time in my bag.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: dumbasadoorknob   review date: September-15-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 7-300G
Min 70-210

price paid:

usd 61 used

positive:

Size
Clarity
Minolta Colors

negative:

None at all

comment:

This is a wonderfully inexpensive full frame lens. It doesn't have great range -- except that it takes a 1.4x and produces superb quality at an effective 275-300mm. It's not as good as the 70300G but it is a whole lot smaller. It's my idea of a perfect travel lens.

My preference is for primes, and then single aperture zooms. The 4.5 here is not really slow anymore, since one can push the ISO in a way that could not have been done on film, so it becomes in many ways a 2.8 in practice.

It's an old lens, and one can find many small niggles -- but it is always a pleasure to lock it on, and the images it produces are always attractive.

$60 for this lens, and $600 for the 70300G is a very big difference!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Ovas   review date: August-27-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210f4, 70-210 f3.5-4.5, 70-210 f4.5-5.6, 75-300 f3.5-5.6,

price paid:

184 USD

positive:

Small and light to carry. Small front takes picktures through fences. Reversible hood, dont need fumblesome rubber hood. No distortion at 100mm.

negative:

Could have had some more range to the lower end.

comment:

This really shines on my 7D, and makes a very good walk-around lens on my A450. Gives very little distortion and a very good range as aps-c is concerned.

On my A900 it is also good but not super. It is not entirely sharp all over wide open, but as a walkaround telezoom I prefer it due to its lighter weight, as I have to admit the Beercan 70-210 f4 gives a better result on FF.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Argote   review date: June-11-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SAL 1870DT
SAL 75300
Minolta 70-210 f/3.5-4.5
Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8-4.5 DC OS HSM

price paid:

25 USD (used)

positive:

- Lightweight
- Sharp Wide Open
- Bokeh
- Has focus range window

negative:

- Front rotates on focus
- Build quality is OK, but I don't like the shiny finish
- MFD

comment:

**** DISCLAIMER ****
- My copy has a small scratch on the front element's coating (not noticeable in the photos though)
- My copy "grinds" slightly when I turn the zoom barrel

********************

I got this in "bad shape" for a really low price, it is a very nice lightweight lens with decent zoom power. It is sharp when wide open. I'd say i recommend it.

The bokeh from this lens seems rather nice, though the MFD is a bit too long IMO.

I have since sold it due to overlap with my Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Cauldfield   review date: May-27-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Maf 75-300
- Canon 70-200 Usm L F2.8
- Nikon 70-200 2.8 N (limited)
- Sigma 70-200 2.8 EX Macro

positive:

- Very sharp
- Beautiful bokeh
- Excellent build quality

negative:

- not a perfect focal range, it's a fact

comment:

I tried many lenses at this focal range. Míybe.. my favourite.
T have to say, that this lens can compare to the "legendary" Canon 70-200 F2.8 L, which is about four times more in cash. The Minolta 100-200 is a lightweight, but very "bulky" (tough) built lens.. an "eternal" piece in my collection. For macros it's useless, it's a sad fact. But it's not for macros, it's so simple :) For telephoto.. walk around lens - perfect.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: plokko   review date: May-03-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 70-300 apo macro
Sony 18-70
Minolta 28-105/3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-70/3.5-4.5
Cosina 19-35

price paid:

75€(like new)

positive:

FAST AF
Sharp(sharper than the beercan)
lightweight
compact
great build

negative:

minium focusing distance!!
rotating filter

comment:

a GREAT lens,sharp(sharper thant the beercan),lightweight and compact with a fast autofocus and awesome colors!

I compared the sigma 70-300 apo macro with the 100-200 and the 100-200 is a lot more fast and easy to use(light and fits your hand like a glove).

The flare control is perfect and also the colors,the boken is great but with his low max magnification ratio it's not so visible.

It cost also less then the other beercans but it's better in sharpness,CA and it's more lightweight and usable,a great lens!

The only thing negative on this lens is the minium focusing distance but the AF speed and the other great things about this lens make you forgive that,simply keep in mind you can't be too close to your subject.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: StormK   review date: April-30-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
55-200 SAM

price paid:

53 GBP

positive:

OK Sharp at F8
Lightweight and small compared to beercan

negative:

A bit too soft at F4.5
CA
MFD(though an extender takes care of that)

comment:

Got this to replace my beercan because of the size and weight and used it more because the greater portability though it isn't nearly as sharp as the beercan. I wouldn't use it below F8. I then lacked something in the range from 50 to 100mm so I got the 55-200 SAM based on the reviews and that made me sell both beercan and 100-200m though they are very beautyfull lenses and i'd love to have them sitting on the shelf :-) The SAM does everything better. Except it's slower but then again I wouldn't really use the old ones under F8 and the SAM is way sharper wide open.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: almassengale   review date: April-26-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

90 USD

positive:

Sharp, small, cheap, and well built.

negative:

Awful minimum focusing distance.
extremely awkward range. Those combine for limited usefullness.

comment:

I wanted a smaller zoom than my 70-300G and it came down to this and a 55-200. I was on an old Minolta lens kick and went this way. My copy is perfect and does whats advertised but I made a mistake and rarely reach for the lens anymore. The greater range and much better MFD of the 55-200 would have made it a much more useful lens. Its a nice little lens that takes nice pictures but it hasn't combined as well as i'd like with my 16-80 in creating a great combo for hiking. I think i'll probably get rid of it and get something with a useful range.

Edit: I switched to the 55-200 and am very happy that I did. It has much better range, isn't that different in size, and has surprisingly good IQ. I find that while the 100-200 almost always stayed home the 55-200 comes out with me a lot. I'd recommend that one to people who are shopping both.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: snajper   review date: April-08-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan

price paid:

USD55

positive:

Nice Bokeh
Very small and light
Minolta colours

negative:

MFD
@200mm not very sharp even at F8

comment:

I bought this lens to see how similar is it to the beercan. It is very sharp even Wide open and very similar IQ and sharpness to the beercan. BUT aproaching 200mm beercan is way better.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: aplmike   review date: April-02-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f/4 "Beercan"

price paid:

85 USD Used/EBay

positive:

Compact, light, well built, sharp

negative:

odd zoom range

comment:

Maybe not quite as sharp as beercan if you put both on a tripod and use a cable release and the 2-sec delay, or if you can shoot at 1/500th or faster; for nornmal handheld use, even with antishake, there's not much to choose between them. Pairs nicely with the 35-105 old-style zoom to give normal-to-fairly-long range. Doesn't have a lot of personality, but get its job done.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Maddogg   review date: March-28-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210mm F4 (Beercan)

price paid:

200 USD

positive:

+ Sharp
+ Great bokeh
+ Light
+ Classic Minolta built
+ Metal + Glas
+ Cheap

negative:

- MFD

comment:

I got this for a very nice price in original case in Mint condition from a swedish fellow. I have compared this with Beercan, since they are more and less in the same class and generation.
I have had 2 Beercans and both had issus with CA. This I haven't seen a bit with this lens. Beercan is way overrated. This lens is as mentioned sharp and produce great colors. Not heavy like Beercan, wich is quite nice, when you walk around for a day with your camera.
If you can live with the 1.9m minimum focus distance, then buy it. You will love it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: hashbrown   review date: March-25-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan
Minolta 75-300

price paid:

L150 GBP (used)

positive:

Sharp
Compact and light - fits in a small bag

negative:

It's not a macro

comment:

This is the one lens that goes everywhere my camera goes. It is so small and light that it fits easily in a small camera bag. This means I always have a good telephoto lens should I need it. Performs similarly to the Beercan but is so much more portable. I also have a Beercan but this hardly gets used as it just isn't as portable. It's even a full frame lens so I won't have to part with it when I eventually upgrade. I have taken some f my best pictures with this lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: brororn   review date: March-13-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 80-200/2.8 HS APO G

price paid:

60 EUR (used)

positive:

Small, lightweight, optically good (especially for APS-C)

negative:

Close focusing distance

comment:

A very good tele zoom for APS-C, bokeh a bit busy. Works also for FF if you need a lightweight option. A bargain.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: firtha   review date: March-07-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 100-300
Min 70-210/4.5-5.6
Sig 75-300 APO (older version)
Sig 70-300 APO (newer version)

price paid:

75 CDN (used)

positive:

Solid build
Very sharp
CA is good to very good
Small size

negative:

Long mfd
Limited zoom range

comment:

This is an extremely sharp lens! Slightly better than my Sigma 70-300 zooms at equivalent apertures. Miles ahead of the Minolta 100-300. Unfortunately, I don't yet have a 70-210 beercan to compare with though.

CA is minimal except for one test shot I took at 200 mm f4.5, which showed GREEN CA.

Disadvantages are as stated in other reviews - the MFD can be awkward and the zoom range is limited compared to bigger lenses.

This lens is vastly underrated! Price is still reasonable on used market.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: hrstrat57   review date: March-06-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 75-300
Minolta 35-105
Minolta 28-85

price paid:

bought new

positive:

Colors, 200mm is big on A 700 sensor.
Small size, tank like build.

negative:

Minimum focus distance.
Limited focal length, but doesn't bother me, it is what it is, super quality glass with long reach in a compact size.

comment:

I am the original owner, bought this with a Maxxum 9000 kit of 2 cameras and motor drive.
Some of my best photos ever where taken with this lens, fabulous Minolta colors. It performs equally nicely on my A 700....small in size but big in quality. The best bargain zoom for alpha you can find IMHO often avail in great condition for under $100
- - -
Get one!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: alphaPDX   review date: January-28-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 Macro, 70-210 f/3.5-4.5; Tamron LD 70-300; Sigma 18-200

price paid:

$40 USD (used hard)

positive:

Sharp, light & compact, f/4.5 fixed

negative:

min. focus distance; flare is very destructive

comment:

Considering the condition it came in, this lens is amazing. Tests showed it to be as good as the 70-210, but beat it handily shooting wide open. It also outperformed the Tamron both with and w/o a generic teleconverter attached to it. Color, bokeh, sharpness: this lens does what I want very well! The Beercan is too large and heavy to justify, but this is ideal and is worth carrying along.

Like all early Minoltas I have seen, shooting into the sun demands protection from flare. I also find myself getting too close to my subject & being inside the MFD; one step backward and I'm fine. Two problems, both with easy solutions: it's a great lens, I will own one as long as I shoot Alpha.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: 12AMS   review date: January-24-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Tokina 24-200mm f3.5-5.6
Sony 55-200mm SAM

price paid:

40 USD (used)

positive:

Sharpness
CA control
Size/weight
Bokeh

negative:

Range (sort of)
MFD

comment:

I just love this lens. It handles great and gives you excellent images. It's built as well as the Beercan and Tokina, but is much lighter. I find it so much more convenient to use than the Beercan, which I find too long.

It's sharper than the Beercan with significantly less CA. It blows away the Tokina. It's bokeh is as good as the Beercan, and I don't miss the 70-100mm range like I thought I would.

The only real let-down is the MFD - almost 2m!! But I use this as an outdoor lens where this really is a non-issue.

I had this lens for sale, but after doing more head-to-head, real-life testing against the Beercan, I have decided to keep it.

UPDATE 11 June 2011: I recently obtained the Sony 55-200mm SAM, and it is at least the equal to the 100-200mm in every aspect. Since the MFD and min focal length are MUCH more useful on an APS-C sensor, I'll be reluctantly selling the 100-200mm.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Pygmy   review date: January-22-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300

positive:

Nice colours and contrasts
Decent sharpness
Well controlled CA
Beautiful lens

negative:

comment:

Nice colours and contrasts, no corner softness whatsoever, and decent sharpness even wide open. Almost no CA. I got a like new condition of this lens and I love the metal beercan build, and the fact that it's still relatively small and light - wouldn't trade it for the beercan.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Alcides   review date: January-10-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

$40

positive:

Excellent color

negative:

range

comment:

lente ótima ,pena que o range muito curto 100-200 ,mas pelo preço que paguei ,foi uma excelente compra.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Bob Socko   review date: January-05-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6
Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8
Minolta 70-210mm f/4

price paid:

40 USD (used)

positive:

49mm filter size fits through chain link fences. Dirt cheap. Constant aperture. Solid build. Much smaller than the Beercan.

negative:

Slow focus. Not particularly sharp wide open.

comment:

This is a peculiar little zoom lens. In terms of its practical performance, it is comparable to Sony's 55-200mm f/4-5.6 - good, but not great. The build quality is fantastic, a simple all-metal design that looks and feels like it could survive a nuclear blast. Despite the sturdy build, the lens is small and reasonably lightweight.

The only reason I have this lens is because the 49mm lens diameter is just small enough to fit through a chain link fence, which is nice for a few shots at the zoo. Outside of that, I never use this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: derekw   review date: December-17-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5
Beercan
Minolta 100-300 APO

price paid:

L59 mint

positive:

Sharp when stoped down
Beautiful colours
Build... is it metal???

negative:

Minimum focussing distance makes it an outdoor lens

comment:

My third attempt to get a good copy of this lens, due to numerous excellent reviews. First two copies were ok, this is better but if price is a consideration I would go for the 70-210 f3.5-4.5 everytime.

In truth though you have to nit pick to rate these lenses against one another. All excellent. Love Minolta glass.

EDIT - if you purchase this lens, make sure you get a hood for it

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: reddy   review date: December-01-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony - AF DT 55-200 F4-5.6 SAM
Sony - AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6
Tamron - SP AF 24-135 F3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF Macro
Tamron - SP AF 70-200 F2.8 Di LD IF MACRO

price paid:

USD 90 ( Used )

positive:

Build is soild all metal contruction. Constant apeture is a plus.

Sharp at it's widest. At maximum reach of 200mm have to step down abit to get better results.

On a full frame this little fellow shines.

Light weight and very portable.

At 100mm f4.5 sharpness as good as the tammy 70-200 but cost only a fraction of the tammy.

Forcusing definately not as fast as those ssm lenses but good enough.

Produces nice colors.

negative:

slight flare issure, but none to worry about.

100mm on a crop sensor is way to long and the minimum forcus is too long.

If you can live with both than this is a nice sharp lens to have it's current 2nd hand pricing make it more attractive.

comment:

Great lens overall. A real bargain lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: ghmcs   review date: November-02-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300 APO D f/4.5

positive:

very sharp, small size, light weight

negative:

CA control is only fair

comment:

This has been my main telephoto for over 20 years and, even today, it nicely complements Sony's 16-105mm in my kit. With image stabilization, no problem shooting hand-held at 200mm. In my view, this is a better lens than Minolta's 100-300 APO D zoom. It's sharper up to f/11 and you can get f/4.5 over a longer zoom range. Chromatic aberrations are worse but certainly manageable under real-life conditions.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: jarnoshen   review date: October-04-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 70-210 F4

price paid:

$85 (used)

positive:

Very worth for money.
Perfect portrait lens on film camera.
Excellent skin-color output.
Light but solid build with metal.

negative:

A little too long focal length on APS-C camera.

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Ezoter   review date: October-03-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210mm/4 (Beercan)
Minolta 75-300mm/4,5-5,6 (Big Beercan)
Sony DT 75-300 (Kit Lens)

price paid:

3990 CZK - like new

positive:

+lovely old minolta colors
+good contrast and sharpness
+low weight
+compact size
+solid build
+49mm filters
+relatively fast AF on A700 (hey,it´s the lens from 80s, 20yrs.old)
+perfectly works on my Dynax 500si and A700(v4 firmware)
+remains me a nostalgia of Minolta Beercan times

negative:

-MFD - 1,9m (not very suitable for portrait)
-a little bit noisy AF on A700 (much noisier on A200, much less on Dynax 500si)
-AF hunts on A200 (see my comments below)
-ok, low zoom range for nowadays
-mediocre flare control
-some CA at 200mm

comment:

Very solid lens, in case of using it on A200 I was completelly disappointed with (but as I see it could be a problem of my concrete sample of A200, I´m really glad taht I replaced it A700). I have never had any problems using it on my old Dynax. That´s the most suitable place for that lens and the place it was originally made for - 35mm SLR. If I compare it to both Beercans, it looses one point for sharpness. But it produces much much much better performance in all aspect than Sony DT Telephoto Kit Lens. I highly recommend this 100-200 to everyone who is looking for excellent optical quality in that compact size.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Gianni-xxl   review date: July-23-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

16/105 - 50 - Beercan - 75/300New

positive:

Colore - Contrasto - Costruzione - Nitidezza - Peso piuma - Poco ingombrante.

negative:

Mette a fuoco da 3 metri - Problemi di riflessi se puntato contro fonti luminose - Se usato con APS-C i suoi 100mm di partenza sono un pn limitanti, appunto perchc se paragonato ad un 35mm equivalerebbe ad un 155.

comment:

Un'ottima lente, con una costruzione realmente ragguardevole. A differenza del fratello maggiore (Beercan) regge molto meglio l'Aberrazione Cromatica pern soffre di Flare. Rende bene anche alla massima apertura (positivo). I lati negativi sono elencati nell'apposito spazio sopra.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: terrylloydsmith   review date: July-09-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Bearcan
100-300 APO D
80-200/2.8 Maxxum APO

price paid:

$90 USD Minty

positive:

Compact
Very Good Optics
Build quality
Inexpensive

negative:

Minimum Focus too long

comment:

This lens produces fine images while still being compact and lightweight. I love the build quality. A perfect small telephoto zoom for backpacking, biking or anything. Just as impressive as the Beercan in a much more compact size. I actually sold my Maxxum 100-300 APO D because this lens is excellent!

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: 9000AF   review date: July-05-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5
- Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 APO
- Minolta 135 f2.8

price paid:

50 USD (used)

positive:

- compact and relatively light
- sharp up to 160mm f5.6+
- uses 49mm filters
- solid build quality
- constant aperture

negative:

- CA very pronounced above 150mm
- minimum focus distance 1900mm
- limited zoom range
- sharpness wo weak

comment:

Decent lens with bullet proof build quality. Zoom range not very practical, CA bad at 160-200 mm even at f8. In my comparison worse than 70-210 f3.5-4.5 across the range. There are better options available.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: soken   review date: July-03-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan 70-210 F4
Big beercan 75-300 F4.5-5.6
Minolta 35-105 F3.5-4.5

price paid:

150SGD(used mint)

positive:

light weight, compact tele, classic Minolta color,good for portrait. good IQ, color is warmer than other Minolta lenses I have

negative:

hood not very convenient. not as sharp as beercan and big beercan

comment:

I bought this lens as an alternative of bbc, as it's only less than half of the weight of bbc, it's quite convenient to carry it around.

The color is a bit warmer and I think it's good for portrait, more over, it's cheaper than the beercan.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: dca1213   review date: June-22-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan
Sigma 70-300 APO

price paid:

$40 USD

positive:

Small, lightweight, reasonably sharp when stopped down.

Quick focusing.

negative:

MFD

comment:

This is my second copy of this lens, the first was soft but based on other reviews here and a $40 price tag I decided to give it another try.

This copy is still a little soft wide open, but stopped down it sharpens up quite a bit. The beercan is still sharper but this lens is sharper than the Sigma across the entire range. Colors are typical vintage Minolta. I have not yet seen any noticable CA with this lens which is more than I can say about the Beercan. This lens also focuses faster than the Beercan and the Sigma.

All in all it's a nice lens, when paired with my 35-70 Minolta it makes for a nice light weight kit.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: OisinP   review date: June-02-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300 APO
Minolta 70-210 F4

price paid:

60 GBP

positive:

Light/Portable
Good rich saturated colour
More than adequately sharp

negative:

Long min focussing distance

comment:

This lens got more use than the 70-210 f4 simply due to it's smaller size and the fact that not much was being sacrificed in terms of picture quality. It's a very good solution to getting to 200mm without being weighed down and encumbered. Great value.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: FarmerJohn25   review date: May-31-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan

price paid:

80USD

positive:

low cost
Sharp
Excellent colors
light

negative:

would like more range

comment:

Both the 100-200mm and the beercan are great lens, I would recommend both to anyone. I love both lens and got them for a good deal and you can too if you look hard enough.

Beercan: I paid 300 for 2 beercans, but sold one for 180.
-pros: slightly Sharper(not by much), Superior bokeh, love the macro even though it isn't true macro, wider zoom range, F4
-cons: more expensive, and heavier

100-200mm: Paid 80 bucks for a like new copy.
-Pros: cheaper; lighter; better for long hikes; Sharp; I think this lens produces better colors then the beercan, but that could be b/c I got a good copy.
-cons: would like more range. Thats about it, not many negatives.

Don't let the price fool you, this is a really excellent lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Shootist   review date: May-31-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan 70-210
Little Beercan 100-200
Big Beercan 75-300
75-300 “New”
Sony 55-200

price paid:

$85

positive:

Size (if you care)

negative:

Soft wide open compared to the others in the beercan family.

comment:

I did a somewhat formal shootout of these 5 lenses; prices are with shipping/tax/all costs included:

Beercan 70-210 paid $140
Little Beercan 100-200 paid $85
Big Beercan 75-300 Paid $180
75-300 “New” Paid $120
Sony 55-200 DT Bundle lens (The Tamron re-labeled) included with my A350

I went through a bit of trouble in doing this but am not sure there is really enough differences to report or if those differences are just due to my copies. That said, here are my results shooting on a tripod at f5.6 and 250 shutter on a new Alpha 350:

1. Big Beercan won for Bokeh and took 2nd place in sharpness
2. The “New” 75-300” surprised as noted around here a few times…1st in sharpness and 2nd in Bokeh. Nice and light, the sensible choice but…you got to admit the beercans have that beercan “thing” about them…Also – I paid $120 for this lens so…they’re not the big bargain they once were.
3. The Beercan came in 3rd in sharpness, but it must be said that the top 3 lenses were nearly identical in sharpness. This lens took best photo “feel” and color though – and strangely – it may be the one I keep, go figure. I know, not very scientific : ( This lens really does live up to its hype. Mine is all beat up and looks like hell but WOW – those dings did NOT touch the IQ!
4. Little Beer Can…after reading here I guess this lens is soft at f5.6 so….take what you want from this. Still, I did plenty of shooting and this lens marked the only consistent and true drop off from the pack. You could almost take your pick of the top 3 and maybe never know the difference. This is the only one I’m sure to sell. It’s small size doesn’t do me much good – if I’ve busted out the camera bag and the a350 then I’m committed to being encumbered – and I certainly, certainly wouldn’t pick THIS lens as my walk-around shooter…hah.
5. Well, the SONY DT is obviously outmatched here but…it’s sharp really. My main issue with this lens is how cold it’s photos are. Yeah modern lenses kill flare and fringe and tweak the light around but…unless you’re a soccer Mom (I’m a classically trained armature photographer) the best results from this lens are just ho-hum. That’s tantamount to preaching to the choir on a site like this, I know ; )

That’s it….take what you want from this and feel free to contact me. I’m selling off a few of these because it’s kind of expensive owning them all (and a bit greedy since they overlap) so I won’t be able to do this again probably.

1/12/2010 - UPDATE - I don’t want to take back my review but; I did get a new copy and liked some of the results. Also, this lens is convenient and very light so; it’s not as bad as I thought, in retrospect. I’m keeping this one – since they’re so cheap I’m sure I’ll find an application though I honestly do NOT keep it in my bag to this day….

-Shootist

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: leohendriks   review date: May-30-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Mi APO 100-300
Mi 135/2.8

price paid:

80 euro (used)

positive:

sharpness, weight, size cheap secondhand

negative:

minimum focus distance

comment:

Not much to say. Cheap secondhand.
With 2 mtr minimum foscussing distance this definitely is a telelens in all aspects. ;-)
I think the sharpness of my copy is as good as my APO, and comes close to the 135/2.8.
For the rest: it's an old days Minolta and performs as such.

It's a keeper.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: JoeyBoy   review date: May-23-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Minolta 24-105mm

price paid:

60 Euro (used)

positive:

Light,very nice colors

negative:

MFD

comment:

I sold my Beercan because I found that one a bit on the heavy side plus its contruction although well built is also longer that it does not fit my bag. I was looking for an alternative solution and came across this lens. Got it for 60 euro, a steal for what you get back.
My first impression, very nice color indeed. I did not notice any difference from the shot that i made with the beercan and with this one. Stopped down till F8, it did not disappoint me. It is also wel built though not so heavy as the Beercan.I'm gonna keep this because it's light enough to carry around and it does compliment my other lens, de Minolta 24-105mm.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: dsoulsticec   review date: May-21-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100mm Macro F2.8
Minolta 28-135mm F4.0-4.5 XX's Crossed
Minolta 135mm F2.8
Minolta 70-210mm F4.0
Minolta 50mm F1.7
Minolta 100-200mm F4.5
Minolta 35-105mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-70mm F4.0
Sigma 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Minolta 100-300mm APO F4.5-5.6
Sony 18-70mm F3.5-5.6

price paid:

110 USD (used)

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: andyxx   review date: May-04-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan 70-210

price paid:

100 USD (used)

positive:

Beercan build
Constant F4.5
Cheap

negative:

Minimum focus distance
focal range

comment:

Alternative to beercan 70-210mm. Lighter and cheaper yet can produce almost the same pic quality as beercan.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Vancouver   review date: April-29-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 35-70/4
Min 70-210/4
Min 35-105
Min 50/1.7
Min 24/208

price paid:

45 CAD

positive:

Light
Compact
Sharp and fast focus
IQ is really on par with beercan but much cheaper

negative:

Like others say...minimum focusing distance will drive you crazy

comment:

If you cant find a bargain beercan. Get this. Truly underrated lens. Too bad mine isnt very clean copy. But it still give very very nice pictures. Try it. You will like it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: saxbike   review date: April-26-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135
Minolta 50 f3.5

price paid:

76 USD

positive:

Sharp
Compact size
Light weight
Strong build
Excellent color

negative:

Needs good light
Not as useful for action
Not a close focus option

comment:

When the light is good, this lens is outstanding. In my tests, f8 is the sweet spot with excellent sharpness corner to corner. Even the contrast is very close to the 50mm f3.5. The best thing about this lens is its compact size. It equals its sister, the 70-210 Beercan, in IQ and is smaller and lighter. I tend to like the 28-135 for its range, but the IQ is similar. The only weakness in the 100-200 is its slow speed and lack of close focusing capability. I have tried to use this lens for action shots at sporting events but have had little success (probably due to my lack skill in this area). Overall an exceptionally good value.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: wolfy   review date: April-26-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Min80-200HSG

price paid:

60USD (used)

positive:

Light
Sharp
Small
Cheap

negative:

Bit slow
Some CA and flare

comment:

Not as sharp as the lenses compared to, well not wide open, and has some CA and flare. But after f5.6 it gets real sharp, comparable to beercan, and CA also reduces.

But I bought this for its compactness. On days with good light, this is an awesome lens for street photography, so discrete and unobtrusive. Also great for traveling light when used with a 35-105/3.5-4.5 and a100.

Would give sharpness between 4-4.5.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Niethan   review date: April-03-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 kit lens
Minolta 28-80 xi F4-5.6
Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 50 f1.7
Minolta 28 f2.8
Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2

price paid:

100 GBP(mint/new)

positive:

-Sharpness and color on par with Beercan
- Light
- exceptional when used for nature shots and outside portraits

negative:

Price is going up
Range a bit limited

comment:

If you think the Beercan is overpriced(I do) then get this one...it's the next best thing.Lighter,as sharp as the legend, only 1/3 of the stop aperture difference, same superb Minolta colors.

The only thing the Beercan has on this one is the bokeh on the tele side which a bit under the Beercan but not by much and only addicted pixel peepers will notice the difference. Stoop it down to 5.6 and you have the Beercan.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: scary_perry   review date: April-03-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

50mm 1.7
28mm 2.8
Tamron 35-135 f3.5-4.5
SAL1780

price paid:

cheap

positive:

Nice color
Sharp
Good Bokeh
Well made

negative:

150-300 mm effective focal length with crop factor

comment:

Took 300 shots today - love this lens

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: markdv   review date: February-04-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 f/3.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210mm f/4

positive:

Sharp
Good color
Light
Small
Fast focusing

negative:

Minimum focusing distance
100-200mm range not as useful as 70-210mm

comment:

A great lens. It was a nice lens to take with me when I did't want to take the big heavy beercan with me. I found the minimum focusing distance drove me crazy but it also made a faster focusing lens over the beercan. The sharpness seemed on par with my beercan. I sold this lens to help fund my Sigma 10-20mm and found I used my beercan more.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: gipper51   review date: January-02-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135
Beercan

price paid:

$60

positive:

Very compact
Constant f4.5
Solid build
Has a hood
Decent bokeh
Dirt cheap

negative:

My copy is a bit soft till f8
CA typical of old film lenses
Long min. focus distance

comment:

This is a great little lens and for the price is a no brainer. I often take it when I don't feel like lugging the beercan and the light is good. My copy is a little soft until f8 and then it's very sharp even on a 10mp sensor. By soft I don't mean 'unusable' but pixel peepers will be disappointed. It's well suited for portrait work as it makes flattering images at wide apertures.

If top IQ on a budget is what you're looking for the beercan is a better lens but is double the price and much bigger and heavier. For a good, dirt cheap combo pair this lens with the Minolta 28-85mm.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: DarkScribe   review date: January-02-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan, Big Beercan, Sony 70-300, Sigma 70-210/3.5-4.5, Sigma 70-300/4-5.6, Tamron 70-210/3.5-4.5, Tamron 70-300/4-5.6.

positive:

Sharp, constant 4.5, great colour, good build quality, small size.

negative:

None that are valid when comparing apples with apples.

comment:

This lens was not designed or intended to be an all purpose zoom. It was, as Minolta stated at its release, a lens specifically for photographers who often had need to work in the 100-200 range - a smaller, lighter, purpose designed fixed aperture lens. As such it performs brilliantly with an IQ that matches or surpasses the Beercan at all comparative focal lengths. It can still be purchased at a price way below its potential, although recently those prices have, like other high IQ Minolta lenses, been rather rapidly climbing. One of the few bargains left among the quality early Minolta lenses. It complements the Minolta 17-35 F2.8-4 and the Minolta 35-105 F3.5-4.5 beautifully, giving the photographer three relatively low cost, original Minolta AF lenses that will produce brilliant, high quality images at any common focal length.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Dynaton-DK   review date: December-05-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF100-400APO
Minolta AF100-300
Sigma AF70-300
Sigma AF70-300APO Macro
Cosina AF100-400
Sigma AF18-200

positive:

Sharp
Fast autofocus
Light

negative:

Long minimum focus distance

comment:

As already said - an underrated lens. This lens is easy to carry (light weight), much faster than all (the othervise good) Sigma AF70-300's that I have owned and produces images that have a sharp "feeling" with nice color, nice bokeh and good contrast.

Only disadvantage is the long minimum focus distance.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: awa54   review date: November-15-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 18-70 "kit lens"
Minolta 35-70 f4
Tokina 19-35 F3.5-4.5

price paid:

$75 used

positive:

Small and light for the reach
sharp
great color
nice boke

negative:

slightly gray cast to colors
occasional zoom creep
long minimum focus distance

comment:

I may not use this lens as much as my shorter lenses, but when I want true telephoto perspective it obliges with quiet competence. Though lacking macro capability it is *much* smaller and lighter than the vaunted "beercan" and delivers great images. Minimal but detectable distortion throughout the range and slightly softer at the long end.

**extended use notes**

Having taken a few shots with my brother's beercan, I think that the 100-200 (at least mine) is sharper at 200mm...it isn't as legendary, as fast, or as cool, nor does it cover as much range or have a macro feature, but in terms of sharpness and handling it wins out over its big brother in my book.

I think some of the perceived softness in images from this lens may be due to slightly lower contrast than the other lenses in my kit. Also, my 100-200 4.5 has proven to be a CA free lens, even out of focus backlit tree limbs show only the slightest trace of color fringing.

This lens feels "quick" for a telephoto, due to both size and rapid precise autofocus.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jedidentite   review date: October-25-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Mino 24-50 f4
Sony kit lens 18-70

price paid:

65 new

positive:

Cheap. Light. Great Bang for the Buck.

negative:

6 ft minimum focus distance

comment:

Being how inexpensive the lens was, I was surprised at how nice the pictures came out. Nice bokeh, but a little choppy. Definitely more than adequate. Very small and light for a tele. Worth keeping as a travel light tele lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: wahgongzai   review date: October-17-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 28-70
Sigma 100-300
Minolta 35-105 old
Minolta 75-300 Big Beercan

price paid:

S$140 used

positive:

Light
Sharp
Beercan type construction

negative:

Minimum focus... 1.8m

comment:

I bought this lens for collection purposes. Reason being it share the same "Beercan" construction design. Great for people who want to shoot portraits from a distance.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: 5thElefant   review date: September-29-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

75-200mm F4.5 Rokinon,
100-300mm F4-5.6 Minolta xi

price paid:

L50 (used)

positive:

Great results,
Small

negative:

100-200 is a small range to work in

comment:

Great zoom lens. Goes nicely with my 28-105 as a combined package.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: godsakes   review date: September-05-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan
sony 18-250mm
tam 55-200mm

price paid:

L55

positive:

minolta colour
cheap
compact & light

negative:

1.9m min focusing distance
soft wide open

comment:

i'm sure the 1st copy i had was a bit better...

nice colour, compact, cheap but it's soft wide open @ 200mm (not quite as bad @ 100mm) and needs to be stopped down to f5.6 for it be acceptable however beercan's sharpness clearly beats it.

CA control seems a little better than the beercan and if you're shooting at 5.6+ it's not an issue. AF is faster than the beercan but it comes at the cost of a long MFD of 1.9m which is limiting for indoor use.

don't get me wrong however, this lens has all the x-factor qualities the beercan does in a more compact travel friendly size and takes a real nice picture. APS-C user would be be better off with a aony/tam 55-200mm IMHO but it s worthwhile compact telephoto option for FF users.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: LECHER   review date: August-03-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Everything I have

price paid:

68 USD

positive:

Bokeh
color
sharpness
build

negative:

comment:

This lens was not designed to do close up work. It was made to take those shots from the Opera Pit. Constant f/4.5 is fantastic.

The filter turns when focusing, well how many times do you use a polorizer from an Opera Pit. Jethro Tull Pics from the balcony.....EASY.

sharpness: 2 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: CreativityPlus   review date: July-09-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Minolta 75-300mm
- Sigma 28mm-200mm zoom
- Minolta 28-100mm
- Minolta 100-200mm
- Sigma 105mm macro

price paid:

75 USD (used)

positive:

- has a clever feature for clipping on the lens hood
- small and light
- no distortion visible, but distortion is not expected much in this focus range.
- inexpensive

negative:

- considerably less sharp than expected, given the "rave" reviews here.
- Won't focus closer than two meters
- I get better results from less highly rated lenses
- slightly slow auto-focus, even on a blazing Alpha 700.
- noticeable purple fringing at the edges of the frame.

comment:

I spent over an hour testing the lens at various focal lengths and apertures. At 100mm, I couldn't get close enough to have my detail test card fill the frame. I've never had a lens of this focal length with as frustratingly long close focus range. I expected much more of the lens, and I'm returning it or getting rid of it ASAP. I figured with the fairly easy parameters of a 2X zoom (100-200mm), that it would be designed to be very sharp at the 100mm and 200mm mark. In fact, my other lenses did much better at both the 100mm and 200mm marks in terms of sharpness and color fringing. And both my older Minolta lenses, though designed for digital cost me less (refurbished).
Stick with the newer technology. Great strides have been taken in lens design since this one came along. If you want me to post some of the test results, please let me know.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: madecov   review date: July-07-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 DI LD
Minolta 75-300 f4-5.6 Big Beer Can
Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan

price paid:

$50.00 USD (used)

positive:

Small, great color. sharp images. Almost as nice as the Beer can series

negative:

As mentioned, long minimum focus distance

comment:

Really a nice sized lens for travel. My copy seems to be sharp.

Color and Contrast on par with the Beercan, really the equal to the 70-210 f4.0 with only 1/3 stop difference. The size is very nice allows you to be more discreet.

It would be nice if the lens had closer focus, but I suppose that would have raised the price.

This is a real sleeper and is bound to go up in price as the other lenses increase in price.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Derek   review date: July-07-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5

price paid:

62 GBP

positive:

Lightweight
Colour
Reasonably sharp

negative:

Close focus distance

comment:

Very competent lens, nicely built

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: condellm   review date: July-01-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tamron 75-300

price paid:

50

positive:

light
sharp at 100mm
great colour

negative:

softer at 200mm

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: bonoT   review date: June-21-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony DT 18-250 f3.5-6.3
sony DT 55-200 f4-5.6
minolta 70-210 f4 beercan
sigma 28-200 f3.5-5.6

price paid:

120USD used

positive:

Sharp
Color is remarkable
light
HIghly unrated
since is a FF lens on APSC camera the sweet spot is there.
constant f4.5

negative:

wish it was a f2.8.
the drawback filter rotates when focusing making CPL filters attachments hard.

comment:

Had is for almost 4 months, loving every usage of it.

some people mention about the focusing noise I find it perfectly nice not loud.

focusing speed is much faster when use on the A350 and A700, bringing it on par with Sonys other lenses. Not the latest ssm models.

Is really a under-rated lens. Much lighter than the beer can and as sharp as the beer can when stop down.

Color and bokeh wise is holds true to traditional Minolta trade marks.

Comparing it at 200mnm to sony 18-250, 55-200 and the sigma 28-200. It produces sharper pictures than them. Pitting it next to the beer can it is on par if we step down.

Overall a cheap and worth while lens to have.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: fogfire   review date: June-12-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
SAL 18-250

price paid:

80 USD

positive:

Shaper than Beercan at 200mm and wide open
VERY fast focusing

negative:

Not a Macro has a minomum 2 meter focuse distance

comment:

This is a dark horse bargain lens.. This is what I would take to a sporting event until I can afford a G zoom.
At f4.5 this is like the Beercan stopped down to F7.1 or F8

And its design makes it one of the fastest focusing lenses on my A700.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: photomind   review date: May-07-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210mm f/4
75-300mm 1st version

positive:

light and small 200mm zoom lens
quality metal contruction
Sharp
Excellent colors
inexpensive

negative:

Long minimum focus distance - 1.9m
Unattractive 100-200mm range

comment:

This is a sleeper lens.

This lens has about the same IQs and colors as the Beercans but it is less expensive. The catch? I guess it has a not so attractive 100-200mm range and it lacks the macro function. 100mm is too long sometimes for portrait and 1.9 meter minimum focal length is not very convenient either. I often used the bigger (regular or big) Beercans instead. If you can live with the above cons this is the best valued mid-range zoom lens available.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: vsldk   review date: April-13-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

very sharp
small and light
fast AF
constant aparture

negative:

long minimal focusing distance

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: jvandegr   review date: April-11-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 135mm AF f/2.8
Minolta 70-210mm AF f/4.0 (Beercan)
Minolta 80-200mm AF f/2.8 APO
Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S

price paid:

125 (near mint)

positive:

Sharp at f/4.5
Good build quality
Compact
Light weight
Great Minolta colors
Inexpensive
Fast AF

negative:

1.9 meter minimum focus distance.

comment:

This lens is known as the "small beer can" and it is one of Minolta's most under-rated lenses. It is sharp wide open at both 100mm and 200mm. Edge sharpness is similar to center sharpness through most of its focal lengths and apertures. Sharpness does improve slightly beginning at f/5.6, but f/4.5 never disappoints. Zoom action is smooth, fast, and accurate, but not up to the standard of the Minolta 80-200 f/2.8 APO G. On the Sony Alpha 350 and A700, autofocus is fast and exhibits good low light accuracy. Focus speed is almost as quick as the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 AF-S. However, this Minolta's color rendition is much better, it is less than half the size, a fraction of the weight, and fifteen times less expensive. Compared to my Minolta 135mm f/2.8, it is almost as sharp and focuses almost as quickly. Compared to the 70-210mm f/4.0 Beercan, the 100-200mm is slightly sharper at all focal lengths, focuses more quickly, and is much easier to use and transport. Color characteristics seem to be similar to the beer can.

Chromatic aberration is not nearly as much of a problem as I thought it would be, but it is slightly worse than the Minolta 135mm AF f/2.8. It is most noticeable at f/4.5 and becomes much better controlled at f/6.3. I have yet to have any flare problems with this lens, but I'm careful to use the lens hood when a bright light source is near the field of view. Distortion near the edges is very well-controlled and never to objectionable levels. A mostly metal barrel and fairly tight tolerances make for very good build quality that is on-par with the Minolta 135mm AF f/2.8. Despite years of hard use, this lens is no worse for the wear.

To best this lens, you need either a fast prime, such as the Minolta 200mm f/2.8 APO, or a fast zoom, such as the Minolta 80-200mm f/2.8 APO. Both of these lenses are noticeably sharper with better contrast and even better colors. If these aren't in your budget, the Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 is your best bet.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: KoMica   review date: October-29-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony SAL 100mm f/2.8 Macro
Kitlens

price paid:

50 € without lenshoo

positive:

Not soo heavy, quite nice for travelling. Measurments ar quit as the kitlens!!!!
Build quailty is gorgeouse, and the colors of that lens are just minolta like, very nice!!!

negative:

The range of that lens it not soo nice on digital aps cameras. But if you get used to it its fine.

comment:

I made some testshot as i received the lens and first the pictures seemed very bad to me, but then i noticed that the af is often working wrongly thats why the sharpness was not soo good as I expected. So I made it manually what worked quit well, and the pictures that I made manually were great! Maybe its just my lens that had many signs of used, White paint drops. It looked like it was just lying around in a painters house. But the glass had no signs of use!!! So I cleaned it with a liquid for my glasses and It looked like new after ;-)
A very nice lens for that money! I WILL DEFINATLY KEEP IT AND TAKE A LOOK AT ONE OF THE BEERCANS!!!! (I am not rating disrortion because I dont have a lens hood!)

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: eddyizm   review date: September-13-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan, 75-300, sony kit

price paid:

90 USD (USED)

positive:

very lightweight!
good minolta colours
price
sharp throughout range
bokeh

negative:

range is a little limited
CA very noticable

comment:

my 2nd lens i purchased for the sony alpha and my first telephoto lens. at first i didn't know what to expect and kept it at home for a while, pulled it out, got blurry shots and thought what the hell, why is it so hard to shoot steady? I thought it was the focal length that i was just not accustomed to. so after one day i took it out to santa monica pier and just shot and shot, man was i happy! the lens was so sharp, so much detail, such colour, and it is so light.
After picking up many other lenses, its light weight was very lovely, carrying it around and holding it on the body just makes such a big difference. i ended up selling it to a friend so i wouldn't have too much overlap after picking up the beercan and 75-300 - but nothing wrong with it and definitely worth keeping, its value is high and size convenient. hardly any flare and i shot in the bright day at the beach often, CA was far more noticable but for the price, how can you complain? highly recommended for anyone looking for a nice length tele at a very affordable price.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: gvknight   review date: August-10-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tamron 100-300
sigma 75-300 apo

price paid:

45 GBP

positive:

small
light
sharp

negative:

usual problem with old zoomsPF and CA

comment:

i was looking for a small tele zoom this fitted the bill.
I haven't been disappointed sharp at 4.5 at 100 and at 200 when stopped down a bit, did i mention it's small?

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Belfast   review date: April-14-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 17-50
Minolta 28-135
Minolta 70-210 (Beercan)

price paid:

49 USD (used)

positive:

Decent Sharpness
Great Color
Good Zoom Range

negative:

Speed

comment:

For the price, a great little lens. However, on my A100 10MP sensor, it is stretched a little thin. I would not plan on printing much beyond 5x7 inches (125x175mm) with the sample I had, which was purchased from KEH used. Compared to the 28-135 and 70-210, my example fell short, though I am demanding and expect to be able to print 8x10 inches (200x250mm) and bigger.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Turerkan   review date: April-12-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

beercan

positive:

- ultra small (for 200mm)
- ultra light
- handles well
- sharp stopped a lot down at tele
- sharp at wide

negative:

- too much CA
- too much PF
- soft at tele
- long minimum focus distance: 1.9m

comment:

If you don't want to carry a lot of glass and want a tele just 'in case' you need it, thats the perfect one:) its REALLY small and light, and shoots good pictures. beware of the minimum focusing distance, it can be a real show stopper.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: bracket   review date: February-19-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210/4

price paid:

approx. 50 EUR

positive:

cheap, small, light

negative:

soft wide open, limited zoom range, long minimum focus distance

comment:

Bought this one in a kit with 7000 body and 50/1.7 for a total of 120 EUR. So maybe for the lens I paid around 50 EUR.
It is not as sharp as the beercan (70-210/4) wide open but gets close once stopped down a bit. It also a little bit slower than the beercan, but not really worth to mention. The relatively long minimum focus distance make it not as usable for portraits indoors or for close-ups outdoors as the beercan. It is much lighter and smaller though, so I prefer to take it if I want to carry light or for street photography, where I don't want to point the big beercan into everybody's face. It combines very nicely with the 24-85 for a light walk around package. For the price, you can hardly beat this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jvc2000   review date: February-16-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 old
Minolta 50mm F1.7 old
KM 18-70mm F3.5-5.6

price paid:

80 USD (old)

positive:

Small, light weight, Good sharpness and colour, cheap

negative:

Small aperature, slow AF, 1.9m minimum of focus distance

comment:

I like this lens very much mostly because of its light weight and sharpness. Although i am not keen at telephoto, i usually bring it with my 24-85.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: recnahne   review date: February-05-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan (AF 4/70-210)

price paid:

70 EUR

positive:

Compact size, good sharpness (especially at the short end), inexpensive

negative:

Starts only at f/4.5, front element moved by gravity when vertically oriented

comment:

As I don't have a "real" high quality tele zoom, I was searching for a light carry-on intermediate solution. The 4.5/100-200 perfectly fits my needs. It's light, sharp and well usable under daylight conditions. At the long end, it shows some minor distortions. A direct comparison to the legendary beercan showed me that heavier is not always better.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Silver surfer   review date: January-14-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 70-300mm blah blah cheap
Tokina 28-210mm f3.5-5.6 slide

price paid:

70usd second hand

positive:

light weight
reproductive performance
amazes me again and again

negative:

slow af and old rusty design

comment:

One of my first budget lenses to cover the medium zoom range. What it lacks of constructive performance, it makes up with amazing image quality.

No complaints here about sharpness, fringing, abberration and vignetting. I mean really come on, 70 bucks!

Only time is taking its toll. The lens house design is all plastics and the af mechanics are old and outdated, probably as old as I am! I would not be surprised if today or tomorrow the af mechanica or the plastic house breaks. KM really should have also made a RS version of this lens.

When it breaks down I'll probably replace it with a new KM 100-200 f4.5 or a beercan! These older cheap KM performers and the other well known cheap KM performers such as the 50mm are very handy when travelling, because I'm very keen on my expensive glass, that I will be able to leave at home when travelling.

Pros versus cons.

Pros:
-Light weight with average dimensions. I walk all day with the lens on the 5D, yet the weight is hardly a burden.
-Sharpness and colours are great, when you have enough light. Outside in the garden or in the streets this lens reveals its full powers.
-The zoom range seems awkward, but when you know what this lenses strong points and weaknesses are, you'll find yourself very comfortable with its zoom range. Its versatility reaches from portret to street to rural and everything in between.
-Wide aperture through whole range. Well, not wide enough for outstanding low light performance, but good enough to produce nice shallow dof and bokeh. Especially outdoors on clear to sunny days with its typical colour temperature this lens produces very VERY nice images.
-Price. Every ones who owns a slr with KM af mount should try the lens for one day. No one would regret it!!!

Cons:
-Rule one and general rule for all time: get a sun hood. This lens makes no exception, yet it's just a rule.
-the lens house is a very old design: plastic lens house, outdated ergonomics and materials. Well, not very interesting issue here.
-AF is really slow. Let's say with this lens I'm not interested in AF. With this lens I'm on manual focus all the time.
-Minimal focus distance unusual long. Get used to it and you will never ever complain about it.

Sum: get one. Now!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Frenske   review date: January-09-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Sigma 70-300 APO

price paid:

Very little

positive:

- Very sharp when stepped down a bit
- Price
- Bokeh

negative:

- Zoom range
- Small aperture

comment:

This is a fantastic lens. It is lighter and smaller than the very bulky Sigma. Therefore I take it on holidays were I don't expect to use the extra zoom I get from the Sigma. It is well built and does not exhibit any noticeable distortion. The zoom range is a bit limited and perhaps a bit slow, but the prices on eBay are very very low.
Looking for a cheap quality lens ... this is the one to buy.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: aostling   review date: October-27-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

This lens is the third leg of a carefully selected kit, complementing the 16mm Fish-eye and the 24-105mm zoom. I love each of these lenses for unique virtues. The fisheye on the A100 has a field of view equivalant to a 19mm lens (NOT a 24mm) on full format; the middle zoom stays mounted on the camera when it is in the bag, ready for whatever comes; this 100-200mm is for careful composition on a tripod.

positive:

With its 49mm filter thread I can use my infrared filter, on this AND on my 28mm f2.8.

negative:

none

comment:

At f8 on the A100 I found corner performance as sharp as at the center. I posted results on the Lens Talk forum to prove it.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: damian.bradley   review date: October-16-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- 70-210 f3.5-4.5
- 200/2.8 APO G HS
- Sigma 70-210/2.8

price paid:

50 usd (as new)

positive:

- small
- light
- good build
- sharp
- bokeh

negative:

- zoom range
- min focus distance

comment:

I really like this lens! Well most aspects of it. It is a really good backpacking / hiking lens, as it weighs almost nothing but doesn't have too many sacrifices in the quality department. It's also cheap, so if it gets dropped or scratched it's no problem to write off or replace.

Although I can't compare to the beercan, the sharpness is great at 100mm and still quite good at 200mm. Bokeh is very nice across the board, and it seems to have rather high contrast.

The main down side the the min focus distance. For hiking, it's nice to be able to get some closeups / detail shots of small things...plants, insects, etc. Unless you're carrying closeup filters, it's just not going to work with this lens. In this situation I miss my 70-210 f3.5-4.5 for it's decent 1:4 magnification.

Other issues might be the range. Because it's a 150mm equiv. at the short end you will want a second lens with you...it's a 2x, not a super-zoom.

To date, some of my most highly rated shots have been taken with this lens...scary when the 200/2.8 costs about TWENTY TIMES as much as this lens. Don't get me wrong...these lenses are in a different ballpark. But the point is that this lens can definitely produce some very, very good results.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: china   review date: October-15-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tokina ATX 80-200
minolta 70-210 f/4

price paid:

150 USD

positive:

very sharp
small and light
relatively fast AF
constant aparture

negative:

long minimal focusing distance

comment:

what a great lense, at f/8 it is as sharp as the beercan
only at 200mm f/4.5 it is not at its full sharpness and relativelty less sharp then the beercan

but it is so small and compact that its worth having

it has great colors and is very sharp
also filter size is only 49mm so it easy to put filters on it

if you get the chance to buy one buy it !!!!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: dogears   review date: October-06-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan

price paid:

90

positive:

Color!

negative:

comment:

Based on my unit...
I just love the color from this lens - compared to 50/1.7[O] and beercan.
PF - very similar to my 75-300D.
Flare - haven't really tested yet. Will edit given the chance.
Will keep it for its weight and the color output.

Edit 06Feb2007: Used it last weekend and was impressed with its sharpness wide open on outdoor shots. A very effective portrait lens at wider apertures at any focal length with good bokeh.
At 200mm though, it can't resolve fine details anymore even at f8 - I observed this when I shot some birds and monkeys.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: gian   review date: September-15-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 20/1.8
Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 200/f2.8
Minolta 28-75/2.8

price paid:

40 EUR (used)

positive:

Lightweight and very small, sharp when stopped down at f6-f8, very nice colors.

negative:

I had not the original hood, so I had some problems with flare and CA. It is not very sharp at f4.5
Minimum focusing distance

comment:

The perfect lens to use in a sunny day when you don't need f2.8 and it's better to travel light. I consider it an entry level lens, very nice for who is starting with photography, and an interesting alternative to actual consumer zooms. I've replaced it with a Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS, and now I would not recommend it to an advanced photographer. Colors are very nice, and contrast is good. Sharpness is not impressive at all at f4.5 but at f6-f8 is much better.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: ewsnc   review date: September-09-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75 f/2.8(D)

positive:

-Picture quality
-Size and weight
-Build to last

negative:

-none

comment:

Picked up this lens to couple with the 28-75 that came as kit lens with 7D. I was on the edge to buy the Sigma 70-300 APO but realiezed I don't shoot in that range often. So, got this one because of the price. I did some in-door testing against the kit lens and was surprised by its image quality. Many times I couldn't tell which lens was used but had to check the file property. AF speed/accuracy are also comparable to the kit lens. The weight and size make it a perfect carry-around lens. I didn't test the flare control so gave it a 3.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: mudslinger   review date: August-27-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 75-300/4.5 - 5.6 II
Minolta 24-105/3.5 - 4.5

price paid:

$70 USD (Used)

positive:

- Good build quality
- Light weight
- Sharp wide open at 200
- Sharpness

negative:

- None so far

comment:

I purchased the 100-200/4.5 to compliment my 24-105/3.5-4.5 and to replace my 75-300/4.5-5.6 II. I was pleasantly surprised at the sharpness of this lens. It was far better than the 75-300/4.5-5.6 II and just as sharp as my 24-105/3.5-4.5. Colors were great and the lens even gave a nice bokeh. I'm surprised this lens is selling for under a $100! If you need a lens to fill this range, I highly recommend the 100-200/4.5. I'm rating the sharpness of this lens at 4.5, as I'm sure the primes and APO lenses in this range could produce a sharper pic.

UPDATE: I have since purchased the Minolta 100-300 APO; however, I love the 100-200/4.5 lens so much, I just can't get rid of it! :-)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: dekie   review date: August-11-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f4, 100-300 APO D

price paid:

40 USD(used)

positive:

As sharp as the beercan
Compact

negative:

None

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: tmoreau   review date: July-03-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 18-70 kit lens
Minolta 50 f/1.7
Tamron 90mm f/2.8 Macro
Tamron 28-300 XR
Tokina 17mm f/3.5 ATX Pro

positive:

CHEAP, light, compact, very good image quality

negative:

No close focusing, limited zoom range

comment:

Superb 'old-school' minolta build quality. Manual focus is easy with this lens, though it does have the small focus ring. Good performance wide open with nice colors, contrast, and bokeh. Has a certain POP similar to my Tamron 90mm macro when conditions are good. Compact and light lens can ride along without complaint in the camera bag. Leauges better than the 7-210 4.5-5.6 which I had for a short time, no comparison.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Maurus   review date: June-23-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210/4.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210/4 (beercan)

positive:

Small and light
Very good optically
Nice bokeh
Robust
Cheap second hand

negative:

Limited Range
No close focusing

comment:

Although the range is limited, this lens performs significantly better than the equally cheap 70-210/4.5-5.6. Sharpness is fine (although a bit better at the short end on my copy), colors and contrast are very nice indeed. Focusing is not the fastest but accurate. Build is very good.

For its intended use (normal telephoto shooting in good light, e.g. outdoors) the lens is not just convenient but actually quite sweet. For those who (like me) prefer a small and light-weight kit the lens is a real bargain. A pity it doesn't do close focusing.

Addition April 2008: Meanwhile I compared this little gem with two copies of the famous 'beercan'. Interestingly, in terms of sharpness it came out right between the two copies. It was better - even in the corners - than one of them, slightly worse than the other. Both beercans looked perfectly OK otherwise. Given the much smaller size that's a remarkable result. Remaining quibble: Min focusing distance, see above.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: seagr112   review date: April-22-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 f/4

positive:

Compact size
Excellent optical performance for the price
Fixed aperture
49mm (cheap) filters
Nice bokeh for an f/4.5

negative:

Rotating front element
Slow AF, hunts in low light and is a bit noisy

comment:

I purchased this lens in the late '80's as an affordable alternative to the f4 and used it exclusively as my telephoto for about 15 years. It never failed me and I took many memorable photos with it. The build quality is excellent, being a 1st generation metal bodied lens. Never had a problem with flare (the hood is substantial), and I recall taking numerous sunset photos with it without detriment. The color and sharpness were very satisfactory.

Overall, I'd recommend this lens to anyone who can't afford the "beercan" f4 as it offers great value for its price and performance. It is significantly smaller than the beercan, and would make a great travelling lens if weight is an issue. It is no longer in production, but is readily available on ebay and other sites. Like another reviewer, I replaced mine with the newer 100-300mm (APO) as I found I could have used more reach while on a Safari a while back. I still managed to get tons of great photos with it on that trip and enlarged several with good results.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: natamambo   review date: February-24-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tokina 100-300, Minolta 100-300APO.

positive:

Good value for money, has made the transition to digital well.

negative:

Bit slow to focus.

comment:

Picked up this lens only for sporting events where they limit lenses to 200mm (quite common to do that here in Oz). However it's become a firm favourite of my daughter as well, nice effective reach on her 5D and very sharp for the bucks. Well worth it as they can usually be picked up fairly cheaply. Leaves the Tokina 100-300 for dead, not as good as the 100-300APO but neither it should be, the price of the latter!

sharpness: 4 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: ajm80031   review date: December-21-05  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-300

positive:

Good, cheap, pretty sharp.

negative:

Slow, really a bright-light only lens.

comment:

Purchased one of these in '88 or '89 and used it for about a decade. I'd rate it as excellent value for the price, even more so now that good used ones are available so cheaply. Replaced it with a Minolta 100-300 for the extra reach, but remember the 100-200 fondly as it was definitely sharper and seemed to have less issues with flare.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: HotDuck   review date: November-14-05  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210/4

positive:

Cheap! Excellent sharpness and tonal quality.

negative:

Discontinued. A bit slow.

comment:

Image quality on par with the 70-210/4 in a smaller, lighter package. Can be found for rediculously low prices.