Minolta AF 70-210mm F4.5-5.6 II A-mount lens reviews
reviews found: 9
 Dotsch#44295 date: May-17-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with 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 |
| price paid: | unknown |
| positive: | - Cheap? |
| negative: | - Flares - Not sharp - Bad build quality |
| comment: | Not woth to buy. |
; 10MP| QuietOC#28614 date: Jun-28-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3 Sony DT 55-200 SAM Sony DT 55-300 F4.5-5.6 SAM Minolta AF 35-200 F4.5-5.6 Xi Minolta AF 70-210 F4 Minolta AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6 I Minolta AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 BBC Minolta AF 100-200 F4.5 Minolta AF 100-300 F4.5-5.6 APO/D Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX DG APO Tamron 18-250 F3.5-6.3 Tokina AF 35-200 F4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 23 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and light Nice ribbed rubber focus grip Sharp wide open Fast AF Low distortion |
| negative: | Purple fringing/haziness wide-open Slightly soft corners Filter thread rotates with focus Minor CA Minor pincushion distortion 49 mm filter size |
| comment: | Clean silver copy with original hood and caps that came in a beat up original box. "JAPAN" The zoom mechanism feels heavier than the I version and makes metallic noises like the kit lenses. Optical performance is very similar to the I version--very good central sharpness wide-open all the way to 210 mm. The field-of-view is similar to the f/3.5-4.5 version and slightly wider than the older f/4 version throughout the range. The focal plane is more curved than the other lenses, but the center sharpness is better. Center sharpness is much better than the 100-200 F4.5. It has considerably less distortion than the 55-200. It is slower than the 55-200 over most of their shared range. f/4.5 compared to f/4 at 70 mm. f/5 compared to f/4 at 100 mm. f/5.6 compared to f/4.5 at 135 mm. It extends almost an inch more than the 100-200 and 55-200. It is slightly shorter than the 100-200 fully retracted. Wide-open it shows a lot of purple fringing in high contrast areas similar to the 75-300, 35-80, and 24-85 lenses. The 55-200 has a similar issue wide-open on the short end, but is very well controlled at the long end. Both lenses are fine once stopped down to f/8. The hood is useful on the 35-80 II kit lens for APS-C use. Overall a decent full-frame telephoto kit zoom lens. I prefer the focus ring on this model, but the zoom control on the previous version. It is worth looking for a good copy of the slightly larger 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 instead. Test chart comparison to the Minolta AF 70-210 F4, 100-200 F4.5, and 100-300 APO. |
| zanoooda#11672 date: Feb-2-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70/4 Sony 18-55 KIT Sony 18-70 KIT Helios 44M 58/2 made in USSR |
| price paid: | 50 usd |
| positive: | Good sharpness. Lightweight. Cheap. Good IQ. |
| negative: | Built of plastic and seems unreliable. CA at 210/F5,6. Use 210/6,3 and it's OK. |
| comment: | Don't agree with others. Really not a bad lens. Probably I got a good sample but I was satisfied for that price. In compare to beercan it is lightweight and I don't care about damaging it. I shoot car identifiers as far as 300 meters away and they are readable enough. Contrast and sharpness are close to Minolta 35-70/4 and not as bad as Sony 18-70 KIT. Plastic built but very easy and smooth control with zoom anf focus rings. Some CA can be rid of by one stop down. I recommend this lens. |
| illuminarias#8586 date: Jan-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 1 flare control: 2 overall: 2.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 300 MYR |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Everything |
| comment: | Cheap piece of ****. Hunts at 210. CA even at F11. Sold it off asap. |
| jonase#4625 date: Jan-4-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap Decent range |
| negative: | sharpness Feels (and is) cheap |
| comment: | I guess it's ok for the price, but I don't think it will stay in my bag for long... Probably replacing it with the Tamron 55-200. |
| madecov#3443 date: Apr-8-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 50.00 USD used |
| positive: | Inexpensive, light |
| negative: | slow focus, hunts at longest setting, slow aperture |
| comment: | Purchased this lens to take on vacation with my brand new A200. I only paid $50.00 in a local shop with the hood and filter. For what I paid it was worth it. Got some pictures that I needed the longer length this lens provides. If your shooting in low light, get a different lens. You really need to stop down in order to get a sharp image. wide open it's very very soft. even in decent light when at 210mm the lens tends to hunt a lot and has a hard time obtaining focus. Spend a little more and get a better lens if you can. EDIT: I've been playing around with this lens here and there. My opinion has not changed. It is adequate if you can find one at a reasonable price and if you only plan to view images either on a computer screen or at 4x6 print size, 8x10 may look ok but I think that would be pushing it. |
| vsldk#2420 date: Jun-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Kit lens 18-70D |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | price weight size |
| negative: | build (plastic) |
| comment: | A very handy and leight lens for use. I find the quality OK for most af the picture-situations |
| sklathill#1075 date: Aug-8-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-200 F4.5 |
| price paid: | 99 USD (new) |
| positive: | Light weight Smooth zoom Decent image quality at short to medium focal length Nice finish |
| negative: | AF misses Plastic lens mount Some CA AF misses Generally hard to manual focus |
| comment: | Optically it's a decent enough lens, but the slow AF that often doesn't hit the mark, especially on the long end, both in low-light and bright bright sun situations is very frustrating. At least it looks nice. |
| Anssisa#758 date: May-7-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | -KM 75-300 f4.5-5.6 New -KM 70-210 f4.5-5.6 Older -18-70 Kitlens |
| price paid: | 70€ |
| positive: | -Really cheep, almost free -Its Ultralight, almost weightless |
| negative: | -Build quality -Noisy -Picture quality |
| comment: | Its softer than the kitlens on any focal lenght, it does not have the fastest AF, and it certainly feels cheaper then the kitlens . But hey, it does manage to get pictures. Exif for the following image: iso400 1/600s handheld using AS @210mm f/5.6 https://mela.shacknet.nu/gallery/?s=2006-04-26_BirdShooting&pic=pict3012.jpg I got this lens for 70e. It was only a few weeks old and i got a new hoya filter with it. I got what i paid for, and it did its work until i got anoyed with a few details. As the picture shows, its not the sharpest lens. It makes a really anoying "squeeky" noise when zooming (the plastic pieces rubbing against one a other). Also when the barel extend during zoom it shakes up and down, and thats not really ensuring. The AF is not as good as with my other lenses, even the kitlens does a superior job in every aspect. Do not get me totaly wrong, i had my fun with this lens, and it surely paid back its 70e, not tenfolds, but at least twice. It usually hangs along in my backpack, since it does not weight much and i have not yet bought a better lens to replace this one. /Edit/ Got the Older 4.5-5.6 version of this lens. I gave this lens an overall rating of 3 and 2 for the buildquality. My recommendation is, get one of the older versions. If you want to try out this lens and think that you will not need this kind of range too often, get it cheap and accept the faults. |
reviews found: 9
rating summary
- total reviews: 9
- sharpness: 3.33
- color: 3.56
- build: 2.78
- distortion: 3.44
- flare control: 2.89
- overall: 3.20
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login