Minolta AF 100-200mm F4.5 A-mount lens reviews
 FoxiaFox#47061 date: Jan-22-2025 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -minolta 28-105 NEW |
| price paid: | 20 USD MINT |
| positive: | -size -price |
| negative: | -front element rotates -MFD of 1.9m is ridiculous -49mm filter thread = vignetting |
| comment: | Overall a great lens. I like to use it on my A7s with the LA-EA4, as the small aperture of f4.5 and long focal length requires a fast shutter speed and ISO. The fact that it is a constant f4.5 is very much appreciated. As I previously said, this lens works great on FF a7 cameras. the same cannot be said about crop cameras, for example my A500 and QX1. When used with my A7s indoors, I find myself constantly having to push the ISO, often to above 10k (assuming a shutter of 100-200). Sharpness is good but not great, especially at about 135mm-200mm. At 100mm it is sharp. Build is very good, zoom ring is very well damped, no focus creep on my copy. |
; 10MP| skm.sa100#45742 date: Jul-9-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-200/2.8 Beercan. Minolta 80-200/2.8 |
| price paid: | 50 USD (used) |
| positive: | Light. Small. Cheap. Price. Very good performer for its price point. Minolta colors. Well built. |
| negative: | Not super sharp. Some CA but that's common to almost all AF lenses of that era. 1/2 mile MFD! :) Don't expect prime level sharpness or sharpness similar to a 70-200/2.8 zoom. |
| comment: | I got mine pristine for USD 50 including the leather case. What I like about this lens is that it is a good bit smaller than the beercan and can fit into a bag easily. For me, the only serious shortcoming is the rather long MFD. Other than that it's a pretty nifty lens and the f/4.5 isn't too slow, especially on a sunny day. |
| Miranda F#45661 date: Mar-11-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 dt SAM II Sony 18-250mm dt Sony 55-200 dt SAM II Sony 55-300mm dt SAM Sony 30, 35, 50m and 85mm SAM primes Minolta 18-70mm Minolta 24-50mm f4 Minolta 24-105mm Minolta 28-80 (several) Minolta 28-100mm (several) Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-105mm Minolta 50mm f1.7 (orig. and RS) Minolta 50mm f2.8 macro Minolta 70-210mm f4 Beercan Minolta 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Minolta 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 75-300mm f4-5.6 Minolta 100-200mm f4.5 Minolta 100-300mm Minolta 100-300mm APO Minolta 500mm f8 Reflex Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4 and a few other Sigmas Tamron 90mm f2.8 Di LD macro Several other AF and lots of MF lenses, and now a few E-mount too. |
| price paid: | £40? |
| positive: | Solid build, lovely appearance, one of the early Minolta designs. Sharp wide open |
| negative: | MFD is just too long for most of my uses Not f2.8, not f3.5, not even f4. Can't understand why Minolta insisted on a 49mm filter thread for so many lenses when 52mm or 55mm would have improved the corners. |
| comment: | The Minolta 100-200mm f4.5 is one of those lenses that leaves me conflicted. It's a very good example of the beautiful early Minolta designs that were solidly built, attractively styled, and great to hold. It's the kind of lens you pick up and want to play with, to stick it on your camera and take it for a spin. And when you do, it still feels right. It's constant aperture like all the best zooms, though a disappointing f4.5 instead of f2.8 or f4, but on the other hand it's a useful size, being much shorter than the original beercans and more toward the size of the lovely 135mm f2.8. It gives a clear image, very sharp wide open, and with lovely Minolta colours and smooth rear bokeh. But it has its downsides too. I picked it up cheaply some time on my travels with the A58, and though I liked it a lot, it stayed in the cupboard because on APS-C the Sony 55-200 was always the more sensible choice - valuably wider zoom range, much closer MFD and useful magnification for nature pics. Also shorter and faster (f4) to 100mm. When I wanted a good long-ish prime the Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro did the job, or the dinky little 85mm f2.8. And when I did relent and take out a Minolta tele zoom, it was usually one of the 70-210mm or 100-300mms. On the A7Rii the lens makes a lot more sense, and on the right subjects it is an excellent lens to have, but the range of subjects are so few because the MFD is just too long. Weddings? MFD and not wide enough. Portraits? MFD again and it's too slow. Honestly? An f2.8 prime in the 90-100-135mm range is so much more useful most of the time, which is a pity because it's a nice lens. Looks great in the cupboard, though, and when I take it out to play with it. |
| Dotsch#44297 date: May-17-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24/2,8 Minolta 28/2,8 Minolta 50/1,7 Minolta 100/2,8 Macro Sigma 300/4,0 Minolta 28-35/3,5-4,5 Minollta 35-70/4,0 Minolta 70-210/4,0 Sony SAL 70-300G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Good build - Sharp, but not as sharp as Sony SAL 70-300G - Nice colors - Great build quality! |
| negative: | - Slow AF - Large minimum focus distance (1,9 meter) |
| comment: | A great light weight alternative to the 70-210 beercan. But, a little bit less sharper than the 70-210. |
| Handseye#44212 date: Jan-22-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Contax 70-200 f/4 Sony E 55–210 mm F4.5-6.3 OSS Tamron FE 28-75 Di III RXD Sony FE 28 f/2 Sony FE 35 f/2 Minolta AF 17-35D f/2.8-4 |
| price paid: | USD 20 used |
| positive: | After buying the A7iii, the first I tried in the 70-200 range was the Contax 70-200 f/4. Manual focus at 200mm was a pain. I also did not want to carry around something that heavy. So I tried the APS-C Sony E 55–210 mm F4.5-6.3 OSS, small and easy to carry, but images were soft even at f/8. So I decided to try the Minolta. I have been using the Minolta on an A7iii with LA-EA4. At first I thought my copy was soft, but after calibrating the LA-EA4 images were consistently sharp. At 200mm and f/4.5, the images have a "glow" and contrast is lower, but stop down to f/5.6 and the frame is evenly sharp. Sharper than the Contax 70-200 and Sony E 55-210. I wouldn't say that the Minolta AF 100-200 is as sharp as the modern FE Tamron and Sony FE primes, but images are sharp to my taste and colors are just as wonderful. Plus it's small enough to always have room in the bag. For the life of me, I don't understand why Sony can't make a small full frame zoom in this range. |
| negative: | Using this with the LA-EA4, I have to focus/recompose. But this is a deliberate limitation baked by Sony into the LA-EA4 so as not to cannibalize sales of E/FE lenses. Still, beats manual focus any day. |
| comment: | I paid USD 20 for this lens after some haggling (make an offer in eBay). Both the Contax and Sony go for around USD 200 used. I would pay more than that for this Minolta. |
| Phil Wood#44115 date: Aug-13-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Multiple versions of older non-G Minolta 80-200, 70-210, 75-300. |
| price paid: | GBP 20 |
| positive: | Solid metal build, fast accurate focus. |
| negative: | Awkward range on APS-C, MFD. |
| comment: | This is a beautiful lens, built to last forever and a delight to use - but it is not a very useful lens. Even on FF its range is very limited, on APS-C its 150-300mm equivalent is not one that is likely to attract many. Despite this it would be a 'must have' if it had the macro capabilities of most of its 1985 stablemates - but it doesn't. Its MFD of 1.9m is very disappointing. Such a shame as it is a superb lens that can be bought for peanuts, I would never get rid of mine. Sharpness is good for a zoom, color is Minolta, build is rock solid metal construction, distortion is barely relevant these days as its so easy to correct and flare control is better than most lens of its vintage. PS I have no idea how another reviewer can criticise it as 'plasticky', were they reviewing the right lens? Update: Spent a day with this lens on my A900, my first extended use on FF - and I love it even more! If only it had some macro capability! |
| Meister_Bing#44114 date: Aug-11-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 D Minolta 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO Sony FE 24-105 F4 G |
| price paid: | 30 USD used |
| positive: | Super fast AF Decent Sharpness Large and constant aperture 49mm filter size very common for E-mount user Light weight and compact size |
| negative: | Color rendition is not 80-200 G class Bokeh is not G class level either MFD as many people complained No FHB(Focus Hold Button) |
| comment: | This is an incredible lens based on the price I have paid for. As a main E-mount user, you could only dream to get such quality lens for $500. I own three sony Full-Frame camera: a900, a7 and a7RII. For this brief review, I mainly compare this lens to 80-200G, due to similar focal length. I also try to compare the difference between a 1985 optical performance against the latest Sony FE24-105G, which has a similar focal length and aperture at 100mm F4. I mainly use it as casual outdoor walking around lens. Sharpness is a mixed-bag. It's not like 80-200 G you can see softness/blur at 100% peeping, but rather low resolution-related hard edges at 100%. Minolta 75-300 currently costs about the same, but is significantly worse than this 100-200mm. Since it's a telephoto lens so I don't care about corner performance, but it seems to be performing quite well. Color rendition and bokeh are not like 80-200G, which is a stellar performer in both terms. This lens is pretty light, which is a great deal for taking it around. But my first few shots at 200mm were somewhat motioin blurred. (Sony a7+LA-EA4, set at 1/250s) I guess it might related to the light weight of the lens. After I cranked up to 1/400s, 200mm seems to be decently sharp. Auto Focus is incredibly fast, almost instantly spot on, way better than 80-200G(famous for its brutal and fast AF) and at the same level as the newest Sony 24-105G which has DDSSM to boost its AF speed. (24105G has blazing fast AF even on my first generation a7) Build quality is quite plasticky, but nothing is wrong with it. It does not have FHB(Focus Hold Button), it might be an important thing now because you might be able to customize that button with A99 Mk2, and give you more freedom while shooting.(Not sure such old lens can activate eye-AF) Overall I am very happy with this lens, worth every penny I paid for it. |
| Matt#39941 date: Sep-22-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G |
| price paid: | € 45 (Used) |
| positive: | * Compact * Cheap * Constant aperture |
| negative: | * CA when used wide open * Long MFD |
| comment: | Nice little zoom lens, cheap to get and delivers good pictures. Compared to the famous beercan, this lens is a little slower (F4.5 vs. F4 of the beercan), but in most situations, that is not a problem. Optimal sharpness already at F5.6 (with the beercan, you need F8). Bokeh of the beercan is considerably better than this lens, and the beercan has a much shorter MFD. AF speed is reasonable, what you would expect from a lens like this. Compared to the Minolta AF 80-200mm F2.8 HS APO G, this lens seems like a joke, but so does the price as it costs only a fraction of the price you pay for the 80-200mm F2.8. There is visible CA when used wide open. Nothing out of the ordinary. It produces less CA than my beercan. All in all a nice little zoomlens that you can get for next to nothing. It performs at least as well as the beercan, with the exception of the bokeh and the MFD. |
| transiently#36831 date: Apr-12-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300 "big beercan". At the time (early 90's), I found that the images I shot on film (back to back, in a reasonably controlled test) with the bigger lens had better contrast and a look which pleased me more, good as the 100-200 was. |
| price paid: | I cannot remember |
| positive: | Good sharpness. Small size. Light weight. |
| negative: | Very long minimum focus distance. |
| comment: | I had what the shop called a "show stock" example of this lens, boxed as new, during the early 90's. I liked it, but I didn't love it. Images were sometimes a bit flat-looking, even when they were sharp. Based on some side-by-side testing I did in the early 90's, my example pleased me less than the 75-300 "big beercan", so I sold or traded it. From what people are saying about it now, my preference for the bigger lens's imaging qualities is not typical. Maybe I will revisit this one. I have not used one for about a quarter of a century! It is almost certainly as good as the 70-210 3.5-4.5 which replaced the beercan, despite probably retaining for less then half its price when new. I think they compete well on size and weight, too. I can't really remember much about the distortion or flare performance, so have guessed a little with those. |
| Go1#32722 date: Dec-3-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 100-300mm F4.5-5.6 Tamron AF Di LD 70-300mm macro |
| price paid: | 60 USD |
| positive: | -Build -Sharpness -Value |
| negative: | This one is not negative but , lens is very small for A580 or bigger bodies . |
| comment: | AF speed is good with A37 . Lens is really heavy despite its size . Hood is connecting / removing easily . |
| stefpix#28616 date: Jun-30-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 f4 (beercan) Minolta 100-300 f4.5-5.6 APO (and non APO) Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 30 USD used |
| positive: | Sharp, lightweight, nice color, solid metal built, 49mm filters. Works well on Sony A7ii and LA-EA4 adapter. Great deal, very good quality and low price and size. Way better than 100-300 APO, IQ really really close to the 70-210 f4 beercan (some images are better with one or the other) |
| negative: | main gripe is the long MFD (minimum focus distance). Some pincushion distortion. |
| comment: | I was looking for a telephoto for travel for my Sony A7 / A7ii. The beercan once mounted on the LA-EA4 is very long and does not fit in some bags. I tested this and the other lenses. In some photos the beercan has slightly more detail, but the 100-200 seems more uniform all around. Probably with hand held shots it would be hard to tell the difference. I have not tested the bokeh. I actually feel people will soon get tired of this fad of shallow depth of field (maybe this style is just a reaction to the deep depth of field of camera phone images). It is way way better than the 70-210 f4.5-5.6. It is also sharper and a lot more uniform up to the corners compared to the 100-300 APO. I think I will sell the beercan and look for another very good copy of this 100-200. I will keep the 100-300 for shooting wildlife as it has more reach (but the 100-300 quickly goes to 5.6 max aperture at about 120mm). The 100-200 is better to shoot buildings, where detail to the edges is important. Great lens without pretense. delivers sharp images and it is nice to have a small zoom that is still f4.5 at 200mm |
| liapin#26523 date: Mar-17-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 F4 aka beer can Tamron 70-300 F4-5.6 Minolta 100-300 APO Tamron 70-200 F3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5 Minolat 35-135 |
| price paid: | 50USD |
| positive: | Sharp, very small, good color |
| negative: | no, exept bokeh and flares |
| comment: | As sharp as "beer can", may be even more sparper at opened diaphragms. The sharp throughout the zoom range. Very compact! Indispensable road telephoto lens. Very chip! Traditional Minolta color. Bokeh not so good as "beer can", but size and weight more useful in traveling. I bought it in mint condition. Strongly recommend. |
| QuietOC#18370 date: Oct-8-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-200 RXD Tokina AF 35-200 SD Sigma 50-150 F2.8 EX DC HSM II Sony DT 55-200 SAM Tamron 70-180 F2.8 VXD Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO Vivitar S1 70-210 F3.5 I & II Sony FE 70-200 F4 G OSS Canon EF 70-200 F4 L USM Minolta AF 70-210 F4 Minolta AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 80-200 F2.8 APO G Tokina 80-200 AT-X Pro Vivitar 85-205 F3.8 Canon EF 200 F2.8 L USM Minolta AF 200 F2.8 APO G |
| price paid: | 22 USD (used) |
| positive: | Size and weight Flat focus plane at 200 mm Hood is also useful for the 35-70 F4 |
| negative: | Poor performance at close focus Curved focal plane at 100 mm Pincushion distortion Busy background bokeh Cheap build, especially the focus mechanism Sunken, hard plastic focus ring Rotating + extending barrel/filter threads |
| comment: | I've bought 4 copies of the Lite Beer Can on eBay. The bottom of one copy had some scratches and the shiny enamel is chipping/peeling in one spot. The second copy is in much nicer shape and came in the original packaging with a price sticker from 1988 for $153.00. The third copy looks much the same. This lens was half the price of the 70-210 f/4 or 35-105 and one fourth the price of the 28-135. It was the second cheapest lens in the entire Minolta AF lineup after the 50 f/1.7. At close focus the wide 100 mm end is longer than the 105 mm ends of the shorter, internal focus zooms. The 16-105 in particular is much wider at its 105 mm setting. However it matches up quite well with the DT telephoto zooms at their 100 mm marks. It has noticeably pincushion distortion, though less than the 55-300 and 55-200 SAM lenses. Unfortunately, it doesn't match the center sharpness, contrast, or AF accuracy of the SAM zooms or the older 70-210 F4 or even the slightly newer 70-210 F4.5-5.6. Surprisingly, the focal plane at 200 mm is actually flatter than the 70-210 F4. Unlike the 70-210/4 the background bokeh at 200 mm is quite busy, but foreground bokeh is quite smooth. I notice some aliasing at moderate distances of fine detail. The more worn lens noticeably wobbles at full extension. AF accuracy was poor at close distances, but at least better than the 28-105. The AF reduction gears are visible inside the mount side of the lens when the lens is zoomed out. Lens wobble, short focus throw, and general looseness of the focus mechanism makes precise focusing more challenging. At least the focus control ring remains in one location on the lens instead of extending out with the barrel as on the 70-210 f/4, and it doesn't have slop like the DT 16-105. This is obviously not a lens designed for close focus. Closer to infinity it works pretty well. Background bokeh is quite harsh. It is a nice size and weight to carry around, and the zoom mechanism is nicely weighted and smooth. |
| Freddan_6#12137 date: Feb-17-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210/4 Tamron 55-200/4-5.6 Minolta 75-300/4.5-5.6 BBC Minolta 100-300/4.5-5.6 APO Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-85/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 462 SEK = 55 $ |
| positive: | Colors are wonderful, and build is sturdy. Sharpness is good, only 2:nd to APO and 75-300 BBC. Small lens, perfect size for hiking together with 28-85. |
| negative: | Flares so bad that you need a hood, long MFD. A bit stirry bokeh. |
| comment: | The three medium-size lenses 28-85, 35-105 and 100-200 has approx the same size, and the same long MFD. However the 100-200 more sensitive to flares than the other two. Amongst the Tele lenses I compare sharpenss to it is second to 100-300 APO and 75-300 BBC. After this the Tamron 55-200 comes, and last the 70-210/4. But the 70-210 has the best bokeh so sharpness is forgiven. |
| JeanChristophe#12008 date: Oct-24-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Normal Minolta 70-210 (not beercan). |
| price paid: | 50 EUR |
| positive: | Simple lens, metal built. Sharp at least at f/6.3. Great colors. Excellent image quality for portrait, especially between 100-150mm focal distance. Leightweight and compact. Screw size for filter : 49mm. |
| negative: | Flare when shooting against light, easy to have poor image quality. Minimum focusing distance. Restrictied zoom range (X2). Soft at 200mm. Low speed lens : dont use it below f/6.3, f/8.0 is optimum. Not built as a high quality lens : be careful of sand and dust ! |
| comment: | Excellent lens for portrait, don't forget it in your bag ! For me, the result for a portrait is equivalent to a prime lens, the subject is sharp (at least at f/6.3) and clearly detached from the background (good and strong Bokeh). Inexpensive, a "must have" for an affordable price. |
| KirkB#11944 date: Aug-11-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 SAM, 18-70 Sony kit, Sony 55-200 SAM, Minolta 50mm f1.7RS, Minolta 28mm f2.8, Minolta 75-300mm II, Minolta 35-105 Macro original, Tokina AF 210II 70-210, Sigma 70-210 UC II. |
| price paid: | $60 U.S. |
| positive: | Sharpness, color (!), NO fringing, build, size and weight. |
| negative: | MFD is long. |
| comment: | When Minolta released this lens, they described it as a low-cost alternative to the beercan-NOT for portraiture, but for those needing a dedicated telephoto lens for the range of 100-200mm. That's why the MFD is allowed to be long. The designers let go of the need to be close and concentrated on other qualities of the lens strictly for bringing stuff that's over there to over here. If you look at Munger's review of the lens, you'll see the direct comparison with the beercan at the end. The 100-200 is consistently sharper at equivalent stops. The little lens exhibits LESS chromatic aberration than the beercan, and the color is the same delicious Minolta color that all the '80s vintage stuff produces. The beercan has nicer bokeh, but then it's more geared to do wonderful things at that range between 70 and 100. The 55-200 is somewhat sharp (although animal fur, even shot close, doesn't resolve as nicely as it does on my Minoltas even when the animal is very still) and resists flare better than the 100-200, but the colors are cold and flat, and at about 150-175mm, it goes soft. I don't know about you, but when I buy a lens that goes to 200mm, I care MOST about how it performs AT 200mm. This lens outperforms everything else I've had at 200, with the 75-300 II running a close second at 200. Of course, at about 275, it starts to go a little flat in color and ever-so-slightly soft. I don't care about the MFD of the 100-200 being long, after all, I love my 35-105 macro Minolta also, and its MFD is just as lengthy. If I want to get all that close, then they're both the wrong lenses anyway. There's a lot of hype and mythology surrounding some old Minolta glass, some of it deserved (although the "secret handshake" fable is just plain silly). The beercan is a very good lens, but if your needs are simply for telephoto and you've got something else for portraits (like a 50 on APS-C), the 100-200 is as much bang for the buck as you'll find. The 49mm filter size is the same as the 50 and the 28, so I'm all set there. Mine came without a hood, so a collapsible rubber hood works great. Mine suffers from a little bit of lens creep, but it's never been a problem in use. Some of my favorite shots have come from this lens, on film and on digital. I think the 55-200 SAM will go with my present camera as a bundle when next I upgrade, but for the price and the image quality, the 100-200 will probably never be sold, since it's so small, light, and easy to haul-and sharp. Let's face it, we're not talking about G-type pro glass here, and for A-mount cameras, there are not a lot of lenses that will give you sharp images at 200mm and afford you f4.5 in the process. |
| flyingscot4#11248 date: Jul-13-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | beercan, little beercan, baby beercan, big beercan, 28-85mm, 50mm 1.7, 100mm 2.8 macro, 70-210mm 3.5-4.5, |
| price paid: | 40 USD EXC |
| positive: | Sharp Pretty quick AF Not too slow aperture Build Quality (tank) Fairly light Contrast range Flare (?) |
| negative: | limited range CA MFD |
| comment: | This lens does not measure up to many other lenses. It has limited range, some CA when looking into the sun (like many old lenses), it is not as sharp as other lenses (but 1/10th the price), it's a bit heavy in comparison to many of the new lenses, but it's built like a tank and never very far away from me. It is, to me, the best bargain in my Minolta zoom line-up. I can't say why this lens is on my cameras so much, but I have great confidence in the results. If I can ever afford a Minolta 80-200 F2.8 HS APO G or the Minolta 70-200 F2.8 APO G D SSM, my little, slow 100-200mm will be the last to go. |
| ithinkso#11174 date: Jun-2-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 3.5-4.5 Minolta 100-300 4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | £40.00GBP (used) |
| positive: | light small sharp wide open reasonable fast focus for it's age. |
| negative: | minimum focus distance is just under 2 meters. wide open is not that wide |
| comment: | Oh dear. I bought this out of curiosity - and only because the retailer had a manual focus lens I really wanted and was prepared to negotiate on the asking price if I bought both. My rational brain was telling me that I already had a lens that covers this focal range and i didn't really need it but I thought it would be interesting to compare the performance of this metal "beercan" era lens against it's later plastic barrelled stablemate. Perhaps unsurprisingly it out performs it's younger sibling, the 100-300 in every sphere save for maximum focal length and minimum focus distance. Shows markedly less CA, is significantly sharper and colour is more saturated. Focus speed is not noticeably different. I've not had the opportunity to compare it side by side with the 70-210 on the same camera but I feel that the 70-210 would win out given the better minimum focus distance and faster max aperture, although edge sharpness maybe not so good. The out of focus areas can be a bit busy - not the smoothest I've ever seen, so care needs to be taken with backgrounds. The 70-210 is much better in this respect in my view but bare in mind my experience with that lens is with a different camera (a100). I ought to try this lens out with film. If I get round to that I'll post an update. To sum up. I won't say this lens is a must have but could fit the bill if you don"t already have a zoom in this range and have limited budget. Don't pay over the odds. Update. now that i have the opportunity to use this lens on full frame digital I have to say that it seems much more at home on that format (than on aps-c). Frankly, having this lens available already made full frame digital viable for me. Perhaps I should say this is a useful (if not quite indispensable) tool in my arsenal. As before, care needs to betaken with backgrounds as out of focus areas can be somewhat "busy". |
| warpedwoof#11026 date: Apr-9-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| homeranger#10904 date: Feb-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | N/A |
| price paid: | missing |
| 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. |
| topdogmex#10720 date: Nov-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| eddieitman#10461 date: Aug-20-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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 |
| Pirate#10387 date: Jul-17-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 Macro 'Beercan' Minolta AF 28-135mm F/4-4.5 Macro Sigma AF 55-200mm DC Minolta AF 70-200mm F/2.8 APO HS G Tamron AF 70-200mm F/2.8 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. |
| chriseen#10239 date: May-26-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| jamo spingal#10211 date: May-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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). |
| cicaro#10206 date: May-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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... |
| andyken#10188 date: May-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| Thatguyfromvienna#10145 date: Apr-25-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| witee.w#10125 date: Apr-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| ChapelThrill23#10060 date: Mar-27-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 130
- sharpness: 4.37
- color: 4.71
- build: 4.57
- distortion: 4.44
- flare control: 4.04
- overall: 4.42
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login