Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 (beercan) A-mount lens reviews
 Snegren#46922 date: Jan-17-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony FE 70-200/4. |
| price paid: | EUR 50 |
| positive: | Snappy AF on LA-EA5 and A7RM4. Very decent performer, sharp enough and nice bokeh for a zoom lens. Internal zoom. |
| negative: | Rotating front element, but this is no game stopper. It's a big one. |
| comment: | Got one out of curiosity and was pleasantly surprised. |
| AVLB#45823 date: Jan-21-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-200 f2.8 |
| price paid: | £53.00 (used) |
| positive: | Solid build Sharp Good hood Good rendition |
| negative: | Nothing |
| comment: | I was curious as to why everyone was praising this lens in online reviews, until I got my hands on one. I was not expecting too much really, but the first time I used it, I almost thought about selling my 70-200. The sharpness is stunning, even wide open, at all focal lengths. and it beats the 70-200 at f4. I will very rarely rate lenses this good, but maybe I lucked out and got the most perfect copy made by a genius! If I want a couple of lenses for the day, my 35-70 f4 and this lens make the perfect partners. |
| fong2k#45796 date: Dec-13-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony a99 with Minolta AF 24mm F2.8 Minolta AF 50mm F1.4 Minolta AF 85mm F1.4 Minolta AF 100mm F2.8 Macro Minolta AF 24-50mm F4 Minolta AF 35-70mm F4 Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 (beercan) Minolta AF 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 40 USD |
| positive: | 1.內變焦 2.恆定光圈F4 |
| negative: | 1.對焦系統(對焦馬達&聲音) 2.輕微紫邊 |
| comment: | 價格便宜(eBay)，接在sony a99機身上重量適中，人文旅遊鏡頭。恆定光圈好用，內變焦鏡頭美觀。 |
| Kopipapa#45586 date: Sep-17-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 75-300 Minolta, 50-500 Sigma. |
| price paid: | 70 USD |
| positive: | Sharpness, bokeh, feeling. |
| negative: | Color. |
| comment: | One of my favourite lense. Excellent shaqrpness and beautiful bokeh. The weight and size is comfortable, with the lense hood the flare is not a problem. For that prize a must keep. The colors of my version are not the best, but it is easy to adjust on lightroom. |
| A68noob#44549 date: Jul-11-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 18-270 Sony 70-300G SSM Tamron 70-300 USD |
| price paid: | basically few euros |
| positive: | + built to last forever + 1:4 macro mode at 1,1m + good colours and magical touch + literally no zoom creep + smooth bokeh + sharpness isnt the best, but beyond F5,6 good and F8 excellent IQ + small 49mm filters + the feel of knowing, that this lens will never let me down ++ bargain |
| negative: | - quite a lot CA, obviously - all the general vintage lens jazz: filter rotating, small MF ring, AF noise (i personally like it after all the usage now), dated coatings, little hazy @ F4.. nothing extraordinary if you know about it and know how to control it |
| comment: | I read that this is the most reviewed lens on this site.. so i will tell you instead why this now 35yo lens is still valuable on modern 24MP sensors and overall fun to use! This lens literally has no zoom creep, because it is all built in metal(beercan) that doesnt extend.. resulting in the most amazing zoom usage i have ever experienced. I can operate the zoom easily from 70 to 210mm with a single finger.. without being a loose zoom - it just runs buttersmooth - it is a pleasure and feels amazing! It gives good 1:4 magnification at 1,1m just like most 70-300mm zooms do.. but with more DOF, less light required (for stopping down, as it is F4 + less shutter speed as it is only 210mm = ~1/200sec). Overall better to use. On distance objects the difference between 210 and 300mm aint gigantic either.. I recently took a picture of a wasp with this and a way more modern, premium Sony 70-300G SSM lens. If i would show both pictures to a random person i bet they couldnt see the difference, as its just tiny/marginally. I can also only distinguish them at pixelpeeping (slightest CA).. and checking file data: 210mm to 300mm ;D Overall an amazingly fun, but not perfect (obviously) lens. If you are using it right it can deliver beautiful portraits, excellent landscape and animal pictures. Next to my 16-50 2,8 SSM always in my bag. Absolutely recommended, i love this lens. My favourite. Some tips for better usage and pictures: *Use slow AF mode for better hitrate and more correct fine tuning - now this lens is almost always on point in AF-S mode. AF speed seems only to be considerably slower when hunting - use camera in built focuslimiter to eliminate this from happening. *Use hood to manual focus to overcome the narrow MF ring *Contrast, saturation and sharpness arent the BEST on old lenses.. i used to use Landscape filter (in camera) but this was bad.. now i am using Standard filter but with +1 on contrast, saturation and sharpness - images are very beautiful straight out of the camera now without being any kind of over the top. Edit: I can now share my experiences with this lens on A7 with LA-EA4. Almost unbelieveable, but true: AF is better in every regard compared to A-Mount A77ii. AF is quicker, 100% sharp hitrate is noticably higher and it's not as loud anymore (the characteristic metalgear sound is almost gone - it kinda sounds like SAM now). Overall sharpness seems also better and surprisingly aswell i see much less purple fringing in normal scenarios. In high contrast regions its still prominent, but on usual reflexion surfaceses it's pretty much gone, while on APS-C it was horrendous in many cases. I have no idea how to explain all this, but it's great. The clunky LA-EA4 is actually improving the handling on the small A7 body and in general it feels very balanced (this results in good and sharp handheld shots without IBIS on A7). Also wide open the images aren't hazy anymore as they were on APS-C aswell. With the loss of crop factor the range is also more convinient now. Highly recommended. Disclaimer: My ratings are based on price/performance. |
| Simeoni#44384 date: Oct-11-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF DT 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 D Sony DT 18-135mm F3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 35mm F1.8 SAM Minolta AF 35-80mm F4-5.6 Minolta AF 100-400mm F4.5-6.7 APO |
| price paid: | Birthday Present |
| positive: | Built like a tank. Super cheap long lens. Colour. Sharpness (for a 1980s lens). |
| negative: | Weighs like a tank. Loses detail in the distance at the long end. Fair bit of CA on my copy. |
| comment: | My parents bought me this lens with a Minolta Dynax 3000i and a Minolta AF 35-80mm F4-5.6 for my 16th birthday back in 1997, kindling my interest in SLR photography and cementing me to Minolta / Sony Alpha right up to the present day. I may therefore be a little biased, but I love this lens. It took great photos on the Minolta body, and continues to do so on my Sony A65v. My copy is the old one with the metal hood. This is my favourite lens, even though I now have newer lenses with modern coatings and tech, and which arguably take better photos. |
| Dotsch#44294 date: May-17-2019 | |
|---|---|
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 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: | unknown |
| positive: | - Good build - Sharp, but not as sharp as Sony SAL 70-300G - Nice colors - Great build quality! |
| negative: | - Slow AF |
| comment: | missing |
| icameisaw#44273 date: May-2-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G Sony 70-400mm G Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 Sony 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | £30 s/h |
| positive: | Fastest 210mm you can get without spending a lot more. Results look good on the screen, if you shrink the image. |
| negative: | Not particularly sharp if you look at 100%. Downside of the metal build quality is the weight. Slow autofocus if it starts hunting. A small amount of colour fringing. Not much, but you can see it. |
| comment: | Well, it's nice to be able to say you have one of these, but I wonder how much you will actually use it. I've had two copies. The one I've kept was slightly better in terms of sharpness, but neither was great in that department. Later lenses are much sharper (and lighter and quicker to focus) and with a modern camera body, you probably don't need the f4 speed advantage. If you want genuine Minolta, the original Minolta 35-105mm costs about the same, is smaller, lighter and 'about' the same speed... and is certainly better over their shared range. You would probably get better results with cropping for a '105-210mm' result unless you're printing large formats. |
| Phil Wood#44241 date: Mar-14-2019 | |
|---|---|
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 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 Minolta 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 II Minolta 80-200 f2.8 APO Minolta 80-200 f2.8 HS APO Tamron - 16-300 F3.5-6.3 Di II PZD MACRO Sony - AF DT 18-250 F3.5-6.3 Sigma - 70-300 F4-5.6 DG Macro |
| price paid: | 48 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp, solid, constant aperture f4, internal focusing. |
| negative: | Heavy, CA, not f2.8 |
| comment: | The legendary beercan lives up to most of the hype, they built lenses to last back then! Minolta provided several replacements over the years, the f3.5-45 is the pick of them, but none have better IQ than the beercan. However, they are a lot easier to cart around. Downsides are the weight, some odd EXIF data - my A900 reports 75mm when I have the lens as wide as I can and CA (not awful, but not up to modern standard). As long as it produces images as good as it does I can live with these shortcomings. My copy is remarkably sharp for a zoom, especially such an old one. Bokeh is nicely smooth, making this a good portrait lens. The FF zooms all have FL ranges that are an odd fit to APC-S bodies but the longer telezooms still make sense alongside kit lenses covering the wide to short tele range. If you can't afford an f2.8 zoom in this range the beercan is great value for the price. Of course there are alternatives like the Sony 55-200 & 55-300 DT zooms, but they make less sense if, like me, you want to use the lens on FF as well. The bottom line is price/value - you can't IMO get a better lens covering 70-210mm for less than 2 or 3x the price of a beercan - more if you want FF coverage. It's the best budget telezoom in A mount. The caveat being, of course, that used lenses vary - try before you buy if you can. |
| z3144228#44068 date: May-24-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma - 70-210 F3.5-4.5 APO Minolta - AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 100 USD used |
| positive: | price, color |
| negative: | It is not really sharp |
| comment: | First, this is 1986 lens and it is among the first AF lens in the market. Overall, image quality is good for that price. AF is slower than contemporary lens, You may be missed some instant shots. the metal body is nice thing. |
| 66mikeg#41983 date: Jan-7-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MD 70-210 f4 AF 70-210 f4.5-f5.6 |
| price paid: | £70 |
| positive: | Well built metal lens Sharp optics Smooth bokeh Excellant mechanical operation including autofocus Fixed zoom length and only extends about 1" focusing Fantastic colour |
| negative: | Heavy Relatively long (Cap+Lens+camera = 10") 1980's coatings Some flare and ghosting unless carefull |
| comment: | I had the original MD 70-210 f4 used on a Minolta SRT101 (now that was a lens). I aquired a set of AF cameras 5000,7000 & 9000 and the AF version of the lens seemed a must, eventually I stupidly sold it. Still having a load of AF lenses after a year or two I got a couple of cheap Sony Alpha cameras to utilise them. recently I chanced my arm and bought a 'beercan' on ebay. What a result, as far as I can see it's virtually mint, with a metal lens hood clear lenses and not a scratch. No CA to speak of and on an APS-C sensor it's virtually perfect from corner to corner (I never had a noticeable problem with distortion on the film cameras anyway). with a crop factor of 1.5 the effective range is about 105-315 this complements the 18-70 (27-105) kit lens with one on each body. From some of the other reviews I think that there may be some variation in quality - after 30 years use that's no surprise. For £70 this compares favourably with a lens costing 10x the price second hand, pixel peepers may well feel the extra cash is worthwhile but to my 14mp eyeballs this lens is pukkah. Since my original review I have started using film again in addition to digital. I have bought a 700si and a 600si, I prefer the latter. My beercan together with a 28-85 make an ideal pair of lenses for these. |
| transiently#35794 date: Mar-15-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 APO: This 70-210 lens gives a more glowy look at times but probably resolves as much detail even at most of those times. There may well be settings at which this lens resolves more. Both lenses are very good, but not perfect. I'd rather carry the 100-300 and its range is even more useful, but this lens has a very usable F4 and a shorter close focus distance at 1.1M (compared with 1.5 for the 100-300). A big plus for JPG shooters is the relative lack of colour fringes with the 100-300 APO. Both have a "look" or way or rendering the image that appeals to me, but in this respect I give the slight advantage to this lens. AF with the 100-300 is slightly faster and feels less effortful, but manual focus is much easier with this lens, due to the lower gearing...this is entirely typical when comparing first and later-generation Minolta AF lenses. This is much better with the Teleplus/Kenko teleconverter than the 100-300 APO in every way apart from...you guessed it...those colour fringes! This lens also works better with diopter close-up lenses. I have had excellent results shooting butterflies with a +2 screwed to the front of this lens. I only tried two examples of the 70-210 3.4-4.5 (the lens that replaced this in 1988). It's not rubbish, but the colour fringing problem is actually more of a problem with the newer lens than with my beercan. I definitely prefer the results from this beercan lens. Not everyone agrees, but that's my view. The first 3.5-4.5 I tried also had an annoying amount of zoom creep. There is a fair amount of sample variation among all these lenses, particularly after nearly 30 years of use and sometimes abuse. |
| price paid: | Something like 40GBP |
| positive: | Very even optical performance, particularly considering it's a zoom whose optical design dates back to the early 80's. For practical purposes, central sharpness wide open is definitely adequate wide open at all focal lengths. The long end is a little weaker than the rest, particularly at infinity, but still impresses. Works quite well on Teleplus 7 element 2x teleconverter, and WILL autofocus with it in bright light, though sometimes it will hunt. Both purple and green fringing are exaggerated, but quite decent results are possible even wide open with the combination. Easier to focus in manual focus compared with the post-1988 zooms. |
| negative: | The purple fringing, which doesn't really improve massively when you stop it down. But it is not very strong, nor at all obvious in most situations. Yes, you can get rid of it in software, but if your workflow doesn't include too much of that stuff, or, like me, you shoot in JPG, you'd better not mind some purple highlights in bright light, and not be totally averse to green against bright light(yes, it is sometimes possible to induce green CA as well as purple)! Edges and corners are not always quite as good as you'd ideally hope for. They're absolutely never dreadful, but they don't always sing. Carrying the thing. Purple aperture reflections and severe veiling glare into the sun. 2.5 might be the right score for flare. Linear distortion is fairly mild and won't normally be noticeable, but it is there at both ends of the range. The amount of it at 70mm is a slight disappointment. 3.5 would be the right score for this. The weight of the front cell gives more work to the camera's AF motor than most alternatives, and like almost all 1985-88 Minolta AF zooms, the focus is a little rattly-sounding in AF. |
| comment: | My first thought was of a sharpness score of 4, but that seemed a little ungenerous given the decent sharpness wide open. Remember that this lens is truly usable at F4! A very good lens with definite plusses, but you may have to work around its flaws a bit. Well worth owning in my view, based on my example. I personally like it a lot, yet I freely accept that they were probably somewhat over-hyped for a while. That doesn't mean they aren't without unique strengths, or that they cannot be great buys. If faced with the choice of this or a 100-300 APO for a similar price, that lens might be preferable overall for most people. This one is way better than the non-APO, though, and in any case has an appeal of its own. I wouldn't always want to carry this, so I've picked up a 3.5-4.5, but in performance terms I much prefer this beercan to its replacement. My lens has a very light and easy to turn zoom ring which I suspect denotes some mechanical wear, but the non-extending design seems to mean there is no problem with zoom creep. And it is a great performer. Absolutely a keeper! |
| Pattok#27601 date: Jun-7-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - minolta af 50mm f1.4 - minolta af 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 - minolta AF 100mm f2.8 - minolta af 75-300mm beercan - ... |
| price paid: | 40€ |
| positive: | - Pleasing to use - Build quality - Sharpness stopped down - Beautiful Color rendition - Doesn't extend on zooming |
| negative: | - Long - A bit heavy |
| comment: | I take this lens when i want to do mainly portraits, but not only.I would always have it with me if it wasn't that long and heavy, for the weight in the bag and being a bit awkward when mouted on the camera and not taking pictures. I tend to use it on the long eng where sharpness wide open is good but not fantastic. It gets very sharp 1 stop down. At 210mm and f4, unexpectedly i get gently swirly bokeh. At f5.6 it is very sharp and with buttery bokeh, great colors and contrast. I very rarely notice flare, but i use it with the hood i had with my 75-300mm beercan. I had it for 40€, it has cleaning marks (lots of thin scratches in the coating, only visible with specific lighting) that actually have no effect i can notice. If I needed I'd happily buy one again for 100€ or 150€ in better condition. |
| MarcoZ#25507 date: Feb-27-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta ad 100-300 f4,5-5,6 |
| price paid: | €75 |
| positive: | Nitidezza Colore Molto solido e ben costruito Paraluce efficace |
| negative: | Allungamento con la focheggiatura. |
| comment: | Ottimo obbiettivo luminoso di elevata qualità generale. Da acquistare senza esitazioni |
| dimag#25501 date: Feb-22-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sony DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM Minolta 50mm F1.7 |
| price paid: | 63 Euros |
| positive: | Very sharp wide open Great build quality Constant F/4 Good range Minolta Colours Amazing Bokeh Internal zoom Cheap |
| negative: | Heavy |
| comment: | I purchased this legendary lens from ebay for 63 Euros (69 USD) used. It had some scratches in the body (nothing serious), but the optics were very clean. The colours, the sharpness and the bokeh of this lens are amazing! No CA in my copy too. The focusing is normally fast and accurate, but it struggles a little in low light situations. The only negative is that the beercan is really heavy and somewhat difficult to carry around. In conclusion, I don't think that there is a better tele-zoom lens for the price point. It really deserves its reputation. |
| j_alberto#21420 date: Nov-12-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 AF D, Minolta 135mm f2.8, Minolta 200mm f2.8 APO HS |
| price paid: | £75 |
| positive: | Small and light when compared to equivalent 70-200mm lenses, solid build, stabilised on Sony bodies, fast focus, classic feel, constant aperture, no zoom creep, length stays the same when zooming. |
| negative: | Noticeable distortion when zooming out (not in end photo though), extending focus, front element rotates, hood is flimsy. |
| comment: | This lens may not be the fastest or longest range telephoto zoom out there but what it offers is what makes it appealing to many Sony shooters. On full frame, constant f4 is more than enough. The only real difference between f4 and f2.8 is when shooting at dusk, which rarely ends well anyway. The weight difference is not worth it. My copy and the one before that were sharp wide open throughout the range with minor light fall off at 210mm and some barrel distortion at 75mm. Autofocus is fast enough and accurate for my use, though people looking for a sports lens may need a lens with SSM. The focal range is perfect for portraiture offering options from full body to headshots without having to back up or change lens. For outdoor portraiture, 210mm at f4 is excellent for full body shots, shoot through the foreground for maximum subject isolation and bokeh. For those in APSC land it is like a 50mm on steroids. For landscapes the focal range is excellent for tight compositions, isolating elements such as mountain peaks, cutting out distractions and compression. My favourite travel shots have come from this lens. CA and purple fringing are a non issue for my copy, others seem to vary. Flare control is on the poorer side but is a plus for portraits, free lens flare when you shoot into the sun = less time in lightroom, but can be a pain when you want clean shots. The lens hood is too flimsy to bother with. The metal one on my first copy broke when a dog ran into it. Plus it spins around when focussing which is annoying. The plastic one may be sturdier if you really need a hood. Be careful using UV filters on this, my copy which I recently bought as I missed my first one after trading it for a 200mm f2.8 had a terrible filter attached to it which made everything blurry and low contrast. Once I took it off image quality was back to normal. I only use a filter when near sand and water. Contrary to what others say, I think this lens is relatively small and light compared to close equivalents such as Sony FE, Canon and Nikon's 70-200mm f4 models, and I frequently go on long walks and sessions with it attached to my a900 with no problem. Comparisons: The plastic Minolta 75-300mm I had was reasonably sharp and when used well was acceptable, but the Beercan is on another level in every way. Constant f4 is a plus. Not extending like a bazooka when at 210mm is another plus. For my photography I don't need 300mm. The 135mm f2.8 I tried was a nice light little lens and I may buy one again in time for travelling, but I prefer the zoom capability from my 70-210. Weirdly my 135 and others in online galleries had noticeable red and green fringing that none of my other lenses had. Kind of distracts from having all Minolta glass for their consistent looks when one keeps giving you red blobs. I bought a 200mm f2.8 after realising I was mainly at 210mm using the Beercan and IQ wise it puts it to shame. My first Beercan was promptly sold. The 200mm's colours are spot on, its sharp wide open, bokeh is beautiful, excellent compression, all in a package the same size and weight. But I found I missed the zoom range when travelling for landscapes, and at £75 the Beercan isn't that far away in quality but is ultimately replaceable if it gets broken, lost or robbed, so I bought another one. Plus is isn't white, which is not ideal when walking around cities and in busy areas. I'm keeping the Beercan for landscapes and indoors, the 200mm for portraiture. On APSC the Beercan is essentially longer, which means you miss out on the 70-200mm feel, usefulness and appeal. However it can make a nice wildlife or outdoor sports lens. |
| CKL#20404 date: Oct-31-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Sony 55-200 kitlens - Minolta 75-300 (silver version) |
| price paid: | 100 Euro |
| positive: | - Build as a tank - Sharp |
| negative: | - Little bit soft at the end - Big heavy lens |
| comment: | Bought this lens when everyone was jumping the Minolta ship. Got this lens in mint condition. I never use this lens, never shoot birds or other animals and as portrait lens I have other lenses. Was thinking of doing some animal photography and did a test of all the telezoom lenses I got. It's sharper than the other lenses I got. However it has Bokeh/CA issues so you need to correct this in your post processing. f4 is ok, f5.6 is much better. At 200mm it's little bit softer. |
| QuietOC#16282 date: Jun-27-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-200 RXD Tokina AF 35-200 SD Minolta MD 50-135 F3.5 Sigma 50-150 F2.8 EX DC HSM II Sony DT 55-200 SAM Vivitar 70-150 F3.8 Tamron 70-180 F2.8 VXD Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG OS HSM Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO Sony FE 70-200 F4 G OSS Canon EF 70-200 F4 L USM Vivitar S1 70-210 F3.5 I & II Minolta AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 80-200 F2.8 HS APO G Minolta AF 80-200 F2.8 APO G Tokina 80-200 F2.8 AT-X Pro Vivitar 85-205 F3.8 Minolta AF 100-200 F4.5 Minolta AF 135 F2.8 Canon EF 135 F2.8 Softfocus Canon EF 200 F2.8 L USM Minolta AF 200 F2.8 APO G Minolta AF 200 F2.8 HS APO G |
| price paid: | 40 USD (used) |
| positive: | Price Internal zoom Smooth zoom and focus actions 55 mm filter thread |
| negative: | Weight and length Lateral and axial CA Small, hard focus ring Rotating and extending front element for focus |
| comment: | I purchased my first used copy of this lens with my A58 at a steep discount from a local store. It was in clean condition with both original caps and original metal hood and had a price tag of $125. I've bought eight other copies of various conditions. All have been quite similar optically. "JAPAN" This was originally a fairly inexpensive lens having a suggested list price of $263 in 1985, half the cost of the 28-135 zoom and even cheaper than the standard 28-85. This lens continued to be sold at a discount after the Minolta AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 was released. I've also picked up a few copies of the respected Vivitar Series 1 70-210 F3.5 in MD mount, and the Minolta is certainly better. I also picked up a Minolta MD 70-210 F4 which seems to have identical optics to the AF lens just in a manual one-touch zoom. The more recent Canon EF 70-200 F4 L USM and Sony FE 70-200 F4 G OSS have much less chromatic aberrations. It has a fairly flat focus plane and little distortion. The more recent zooms have more center sharpness and better CA control. Image quality is more consistent than the later Minolta AF 100-200 f/4.5, 70-210 f/3.5-4.5, and 70-210 f/4.5-5.6 zooms. The 1986 Minolta 75-300 F4.5-5.6 is a bit sharper with less CA. The focus shifts more with zoom than the DT 55-200 and 55-300 lenses, but for HD video it is probably close enough to be considered parfocal. The front element can be adjusted to maintain focus at the zoom ends. Size and weight make it uncomfortable for sustained hand held use with the little Sony SLT-A58. I prefer using the lighter DT SAM telephoto zooms. The zoom and focus mechanisms are both very smooth but rather loose. Forget about manual focus. The hard plastic focus grip is way out on the end of the lens and extends with the front elements. The non-extending, rubber focus grips on the later lenses are better except for the sunken, stiff one on the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5. The metal and plastic hoods are identical to those found on the 75-300. The similar clip-on hoods from the 70-210 f/4.5-4.5 and 100-300 lenses will attach in normal orientation to this lens, but interfere with the focus ring when reversed for storage. The little Sony ALC-SH111 and larger ALC-SH102 hoods also fit--the later a bit loosely. Overall a bargain-priced but quality zoom that works well enough. |
| LAZER#14244 date: May-11-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55mm SAM II Minolta AF 50mm F1.7 Minolta AF 35-70mm F4 Tamron SP 28-75mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | 150 USD (used) |
| positive: | *Nice sharpness wide-open *Classic Minolta's color *Great build *Great bokeh *Solid appearance *Price |
| negative: | *Small focus ring *Lots of CA at bright corners of objects |
| comment: | Very good lens for Sony Alpha. |
| dfwatt#12202 date: Mar-23-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-300 G 70-200 2.8 Tamron |
| price paid: | $200 for mint copy |
| positive: | Pros: 1) Good sharpness wide-open and exceptional sharpness, particularly centrally, if you stop down 1 to 2 stops. 2) High quality zoom mechanism, and the lens exudes a premium feel. The expression "built like a tank" must have been invented to describe Minolta legacy lenses. 3) Pretty decent autofocus, particularly for older screw drive mechanism. Focus limiter on newer Sony bodies helps reduce hunting and improves rapid autofocus lock 4) Nothing short of phenomenal value for the money - very good copies can be had for $100-$150, while mint copies go for $200-$250. No modern lens approaches its performance for remotely this little money. |
| negative: | Cons: 1) Vulnerability to chromatic aberration and particularly purple fringing which can be quite noticeable, particularly when the lens is shot wide open. No sense in glossing over this, it is the lens' biggest liability, and if you're going to shoot with it, you should expect it. Fortunately, this can be removed fairly effectively in post processing by any number of programs that have a profile for this lens (for example DxO optics Pro 10.2 and earlier versions of 10 have correction profiles). Stopping down improves this significantly. 2) Noisy, particularly compared to any newer USD/SSM lens. If you're planning on shooting movies with this lens, you're going to want to manual focus - unless you plan to do 'silent movies'. 3) Vulnerable to flare so you have to take extra caution to make sure that the sun is not either in the frame or just outside the frame. Significantly more flare than the best modern lenses 4) Somewhat heavy relative to modern F4 zooms (the price you pay for the 'bank vault' construction). |
| comment: | This lens is legendary, and like a lot of legends, its reputation could be considered somewhat hyped and distorted by the inevitable nostalgia. Some photographers approaching this lens will be disappointed and have a low tolerance for its well documented quirks and vulnerabilities, while some will appreciate that they are indeed holding a beautifully crafted piece of photographic history. Affectionately termed "the beer can", this lens gained its reputation both for creating very sharp images, even wide open, and for its very smooth bokeh and famous 'Minolta colors'. Regarding these attributes, its reputation is largely well deserved. Despite some significant caveats, I'm giving this five stars. The lens is hardly perfect, and with significantly more chromatic aberration and particularly purple fringing when wide open than you would ever see in a modern zoom lens, particularly a premium one - far and away its biggest vulnerability. Indeed, it can be a purple fringing monster in some cases when shooting very bright objects wide open. However, stopping down reduces this fairly significantly, and the lens is incredibly sharp from F5.6 down to F8/11. 6.3 is really the sweet spot. Its central sharpness might be as good as any modern lens, particularly if you're willing to stop down a bit to F5.6 - 6.3. Indeed, overall sharpness (both at the wide and at the far telephoto end) compares quite favorably with premium 70-200 2.8 lenses from Canon, Sony, and Nikon, but of course, given that it is an F4 lens, it is significantly lighter (although not particularly light for a constant f4 3x zoom lens). Those premium 2.8 lenses will be somewhat sharper at F4 than this lens, but this lens is not embarrassed at f4. Buy one, just make sure that the aperture return is snappy, and that you can send it back if proves a poor or damaged copy. A mint one is a piece of photographic history, and a delight to shoot with. For $200 (still many mint copies available for that little money), it would be hard to find an overall better value in digital photography lenses anywhere. A great lens for any Sony A body, FF or APS-C. |
| ezkilzon#12197 date: Mar-21-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 55-200 SAM |
| price paid: | 650 skr |
| positive: | Steady built. Reversable hood. Sharp. Colors. Not extracted when zooming. |
| negative: | Flare. CA. |
| comment: | Got it cheap in very good condition |
| zorglub76#12095 date: Jan-20-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SEL55210, Minolta 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 N, Canon FD 100mm f/2, SEL50f18, Sigma 30/2.8 |
| price paid: | 60eur |
| positive: | Sharpness Build Bokeh Color |
| negative: | Color fringing |
| comment: | I was very skeptical about this lens. I don't like (cheap/vintage) zooms because of the poor sharpness, washed up colors and poor contrast. I bought beercan because I wanted to test EA-LA4 adapter that I bought, and because it was cheap. I was astonished! From the very first pic that I took (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorglub76/14930743119/ - window light on the overcast day in a dark office) I was surprised by the sharpness, color and bokeh of the lens. It gets even better with the flash (https://www.flickr.com/photos/zorglub76/16133883779/). AF speed is not bad - I shot amateur basketball with no problems - but it's not great either. The only annoyance is the CA, that is visible in high contrast areas, but I guess there ought to be such problems with 30 years old lenses. I didn't do scientific tests, but I'd rate sharpness as similar to the (very sharp) Canon FD 100/2.0. It's not the level of the new lenses (SEL50f18, or Sigma 30/2.8), but you can get great results with it. I use it for portraiture. |
| Photopia#12054 date: Dec-9-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-250 DC HSM Minolta 28-85 f3.5-f5.6 Minolta 50 f1.7 Sony SAM 18-55 kit Sony SEL 70-210 f4 G OSS Sony SEL 35 f1.8 OSS |
| price paid: | $70 ebay |
| positive: | Good reach, well build zoom lens that retains sharpness. |
| negative: | Heavy. Lots of CA around bright subjects. |
| comment: | Very good lens for portraiture close to 70mm |
| stavros78#11907 date: Jul-14-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP AF 70-200 F2.8 Di LD IF Macro Minolta AF 75-300mm F4.5-5.6 New |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharpness, bokeh, constant f/4, colours |
| negative: | weight |
| comment: | Great lens for the price, much better than Minolta 75-300 New |
| pfless#11779 date: Apr-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-50 f2.8 Minolta 50 f1.7 |
| price paid: | $140 used |
| positive: | -Cheap -Rather sharp -Colors |
| negative: | -CA -Slow AF -Small zoom ring |
| comment: | Another great lens for the price. Although you're not getting nearly the quality of a 70-200 2.8, you really do get amazing quality for the price. I do notice a lot of CA when shooting wide open, but that can be corrected in Lightroom easily. Not the fastest AF, but it gets the job done. Great lens if you're on a budget. |
| Mark_k#11770 date: Apr-15-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 f3.5, Sigma 70-200 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 200 |
| positive: | Mostly used 70-210 lens..sharp and light weight |
| negative: | No digital equivalent |
| comment: | A must have zoom lens for all alpha mount camera |
| Camprooster#11763 date: Apr-13-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony CZ 24-70 f2.8 Min 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 old Sony ZA 50mm f1.4 Planar Sony 70-200mm f2.8 SSM Minolta 85mm f1.4 GD Sony ZA 135mm f1.8 Sonnar T Minolta 200mm f2.8 HS |
| price paid: | 225.00 new |
| positive: | Color, Bokeh, Build, how many zoom lenses have f32? I think this lens will last a lifetime!!! |
| negative: | You need to keep the sun out of the frame and the lens hood on! |
| comment: | I have owned this lens for 25 years and have looked to up grade a few times but have not found a lens worthy yet! yes there are new telephoto G zooms a little sharper but not by much at f4 at f6.3 this lens as good as any of the G lenses with fantastic bokeh, my three daughters love what this lens has produced over the years, with our newer camera's ability to handle higher ISO this lens has become even more usable its by far the best value of all telephoto zoom in the market today and I still think it has the best bokeh of any zoom lens. |
| macronut#11742 date: Mar-22-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Compared to dozens of other lenses I have tried. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Bokeh is great. Colors are great. Well built. Does not extend while zooming or focusing. Cheap! What a great value this lens is. Easy to find in mint condition. |
| negative: | Nothing serious. Longer and heavier than a modern lens. No ADI or modern coatings. Some purple fringing. |
| comment: | This lens really does deserve its legendary status. With used lens prices dropping more and more in the last few years, you really have no reason not to try this lens. Depending on condition, it can be bought on Ebay for $90-$140. The Beercan has smooth, dreamy bokeh. It has vivid, warm colors. Nothing in this price range can compete with it. It's like an outdoor portrait lens. Sharpness is good. It is more than acceptable, just not the Beercans best attribute. Certainly no comparison to high-end glass, but no less sharp than its actual competition. Can flare in sunlight without the hood. Flare prone? No I wouldn't quite say that. But with bright sunlight in your face, the Beercan will suffer. Build is classic Minolta metal. Excellent! Bottom line is you should give this lens a try unless you are a Zeiss snob. I have a large lens collection to choose from, but see no reasaon to sell my Beercan. I enjoy using it every time I get it out of the closet. Some of my favorite photos have come from the Beercan. It is a true representation of classic Minolta build, color, and bokeh. There is a reason so many of these are for sale on Ebay. It is because a great many were manufactured to meet demand! Popular in its day and still popular today, for all the same reasons. |
| christianv#11680 date: Feb-5-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SIGMA 70-300 APO 4/5.6 |
| price paid: | 70 EUROS |
| positive: | The colors... The AF speed The noise The sharpness The price Rock solid |
| negative: | I'm still looking for something... OK, you will need a hood |
| comment: | I'm not a professional but i do a lot of shooting ( pics and video)and i just love this lens. Bought it real cheap as it came along with a 35-70 minolta ( which i already had - but then again a Beercan at that price is a real bargain). I never managed to get much out of the Sigma and when i did i had to manually adjust just about everything ( it would always over-compensate , the white balance was just never right and the motor failed me as well - got repaired under warranty after almost one year of use). I was thinking of getting the Tamron USD (which looks good) and then i read the reviews below and got the Minolta. On my A57, with the beercan, i can shoot about anything leaving everything in auto settings and it's just perfect. It's just like if those two were made for each other |
| MinoltaMaxxum#11653 date: Jan-31-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | * Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 DT SAM II * Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DT SAM II * Sony 35mm f/1.8 DT SAM * Sony 50mm f/1.8 DT SAM * Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (Original) * Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 AT-X 116 PRO DX-II |
| price paid: | 140 AUD (used) |
| positive: | * Tough build quality * Bokeh * Sharpens up considerably when stopped down to f/5, however not as sharp as 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 at the same aperture * Reasonably fast autofocus speed * Common 55mm filter thread * Good resale * Exceptional value at current prices, especially when compared to modern lens |
| negative: | * Soft image quality between f/4-5 and towards narrow 210mm end of focal range * Screw drive autofocus is very noisy * Chromatic aberration and purple fringing at all apertures * Prone to lens flare and loss of contrast when shooting with sun in frame * Very long minimal focus distance * Requires at least a little post processing to get the best out of it |
| comment: | I will be comparing the Minolta 70-210mm f/4 against the common Sony 55-200mm f/4-5.6 DT SAM II kit lens as many photographers will consider it as one of their first upgrades. The Sony 55-200mm shows better colour contrast and flare control, especially when shooting with the sun in the frame due to the modern lens coatings. It is also a lot lighter and pocketable. One area where the Sony kit lens fails compared to the Minolta is bokeh and sharpness. The Sony shows one of the harshest and distracting background renditions at different apertures and sharpness is soft even when stepped down. The Minolta requires at a minimum a lens hood and loses considerable contrast when shooting with the sun in the frame. I recommend either purchasing an additional lens hood or using your hand to block the reflections. Like many of the other first generation AF lens it suffers from purple fringing however it is towards the extreme end for the first generational Minolta lens and does not disappear even after stopping down. This can easily be which can easily be adjusted in post processing. The Minolta focuses faster the the 55-200mm, although a lot noisier due to screw drive - mind sounds like a meat grinder and the noise can be startling after using a silent motor lens. It also focus hunts less than the 55-200mm. The lens is heavy due to metal construction and I would expect it to continue to last longer than any of the current plastic Sony kit and "Easy Choice" lens range, especially when there are copies that are almost three decades old. The minimum focal distance is quite long which makes better to use outdoors. The Minolta has average sharpness at wide open apertures, however it sharpens up considerably at f/5-5-6 and it is much sharper than the Sony 55-200mm. The Bokeh is smooth slightly less than the wide end, around 75mm. There is faint green fringing however overall it just gets silkier all the way to 210mm and is one of the highlights of this lens. If you can find a mint copy, I would strongly recommend this lens for anyone looking to upgrade their kit lens to one of the best bang for buck lens available for Sony photographers, especially for portraiture. I feel the positives greatly outweigh the negatives and whereas the 55-200mm kit lens is aimed at casual users and unfortunately built to a price and shows it, this is a step up for hobbyists who want a sharper lens, especially at f/5-f/8 apertures, with wonderful bokeh and are prepared to spend a few minutes post processing afterwards. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 397
- sharpness: 4.49
- color: 4.78
- build: 4.84
- distortion: 4.56
- flare control: 3.98
- overall: 4.53
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login