Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 (beercan) A-mount lens reviews
 flysheep#11134 date: May-21-2013 | |
|---|---|
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 35-70 f/4 |
| price paid: | 156 (used) |
| positive: | Top notch build quality. Nice colour rendering, good contrast. Pleasant out of focus area. |
| negative: | Screw drive AF is slow |
| comment: | missing |
; 12MP| Devilish54#11131 date: May-20-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 50 f1.7 Sony DT 18-55 f3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 80 USD Used |
| positive: | Price Build Smooth Bokeh Very Sharp Constant f4 |
| negative: | Weight |
| comment: | What almost all of the other reviews have said are echoed in my review. The lens is super sharp, has great Minolta colors, and a tank like build quality. Comparing it to the Sony kit lens at f3.5 wasn't even fair. The Beercan excels in every area. For 4 times the price it would still be a very good lens. When it comes to the weight as a negative, my a57 makes my shaky pictures look as though they were tripod mounted. |
| DSKComputers#11128 date: May-20-2013 | |
|---|---|
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 Maxxum AF 50mm F1.7 Kalimar MC AF Macro 60-300 F4-5.6 Tamron LD XR DiII (IF) AF 18-200 F/3.5-6.3 A14 |
| price paid: | 125 USD |
| positive: | Legendary Beercan! Sharp as can be. fast zoon great bokeh superb color I like the size and weight Reminds me of shooting bull barreled sharp and accurate! |
| negative: | I wish it was a 2.8 |
| comment: | I have used this for everything from birds in flight to portraits and it has excelled everytime. This was the 3rd non kit lens and I really wish it would have been the first, I may not have bought the Tamron! |
| fingertrix#11092 date: May-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 2,1000,000IDR/200USD |
| positive: | Very sharp constant f4 at all range built like a tank |
| negative: | Relatively slow AF performance prone to CA at f4 |
| comment: | My first telephoto zoom lens. Quite satisfied with this baby...though sometimes very hard to control CA at daylight, especially when using maximum aperture. Slow autofocus performance when shooting in lowlight conditions, not really a problem right now. |
| shadowgunner#11069 date: Apr-25-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-105 Min 100-200 Min 100-300 xi |
| price paid: | 100 USD |
| positive: | Minolta colors Build quality fast & accurate AF range bokeh |
| negative: | CA weight |
| comment: | I just recently picked up this legendary lens at my local shop. I did some test shots and went home to see the results. I saw what everyone has been talking about, regarding this lens' qualities. If I had purchased this lens 5 years ago, I would probably only have a 2 lens kit ( the 70-210 beercan and the beercan 28-85). This is an amazing lens. The colors ARE outstanding and it exhibits something special that is impossible to describe. The bokeh is very pleasing and wow, does it AF fast on my A700. It is heavy, but it is expected. The CA is there, but easy to correct in PP. It is a good range, and surprisingly it worked well with a friends 2x adaptor. |
| havoc315#11065 date: Apr-24-2013 | |
|---|---|
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 70-300 usd Minolta 70-210 4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 125 usd (used) |
| positive: | Contrast and Saturation Constant F4 Sharp Bokeh |
| negative: | CA Heavy |
| comment: | This lens had been collecting some dust since I purchased the Tamron 70-300, and I was considering selling it. Decided to try it out 1 more time, shooting my son's little league game. Well, I won't be selling it. The lens has absolutely incredible contrast and saturation. Needs far less Lightroom adjustments than my other lenses. The main required adjustment is a basic lens profile correction, as there is a fair amount of distortion and some vignetting. Occasionally, CA adjustments needed. This lens is center sharp, even wide open. Achieves smooth bokeh. The extra F-stop over most zoom lenses is quite helpful. The Tamron is a great lens, no question. I've also used it to shoot Little League games... But to get super-fast shutter speeds, even in bright sunlight... I need ISO of 1000-1600, as opposed to 400-800 on the beercan. With a Sony SLT, this was the line between noise and noise-free. The lens is heavy. It's about the same size and weight as the Tamron 70-300, with 90mm less reach. So I'm keeping both lenses. Though I was impressed at how quickly this lens focused in sports situations, at least as fast as the Tamron. (Of course, the Tamron is internal focusing, while the Minolta relies exclusively on the camera) The biggest complaint is that you can get a good amount of CA. Though as long as you watch for it, it's an easy correcting in post-processing. Considering you can get a quality copy of this lens for under $150, and a 70-200 2.8 runs over $1500 and is twice the size... This lens is a no-brainer unless you absolutely need the extra F-stop. |
| Pygmy#11063 date: Apr-23-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-200 4.5 Minolta 70-300 New |
| price paid: | 87 pund |
| positive: | Colours & contrasts Sharpness Macro & focus distance Bokeh f4 |
| negative: | CA Size |
| comment: | Finally grabbed a mint condition of this famous lens. The size always scared me off, therefore I kept a 100-200. CA seems to be worse on this beercan compared to my 100-200, but the focus distance and macro capibilities are really excellent making this lens much more useful, and give great bokeh easily. Sharpness seems to be the same, that is plenty sharp wide open already, at all focal lengths including 210. The lens is long but it's still rather light, so I don't think I will be too bothered. Highly recommended, also over the 100-200 although I loved that one! |
| Smegenai3000#10944 date: Feb-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 150 usd (used) |
| positive: | Sharp, Colors, Build quality,f4, bokeh |
| negative: | CA, not that sharp at 210 |
| comment: | Nice lense,for me only negatives is CA and little less sharpness at 210.Anyway its very nice lense i enjoying using it.it has nice colors and bokeh too. |
| homeranger#10903 date: Feb-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | N/A |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Build Quality Minolta Colors Bokeh is pleasing Sharp Affordable Internal Zoom Constant F4 |
| negative: | Nothing considering the value, build and quality of images you can get from this lens. |
| comment: | I wish I still had this lens. I had a mint copy. If you can find one at a good price...get it! This lens is heavy, however it's a labor or love to use. It lives up to all of the well deserved hype. |
| Tester#10868 date: Jan-23-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 90 mm F2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | 80 € |
| positive: | Build quality Price IQ at 70mm |
| negative: | Bad flare control Low contrast and sharpness at 210mm |
| comment: | Few of my best photos are taken with the Beercan and have some kind of magic in it :) I can easily recommend it as portrait lens. My copy is however missing contrast and sharpness at 210mm needed for landscape photography. |
| asiafish#10772 date: Dec-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 55-200 SAM Minolta 100mm F2.8 Macro Minolta 85mm F1.4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Bokeh Minolta Color Build-Quality Constant F4 |
| negative: | Prone to flare Diffraction from F11 Big and heavy |
| comment: | This is a very good lens, but the hype is out-of-proportion to the reality. I would say that this is, absolutely, the best consumer telezoom of the 1980s, and when used well (with the hood, a good multicoated filter and careful control of bright light sources. When properly used, however, the results are incredible (as they should be with any quality lens). Color and bokeh are beautiful, far nicer than the sony SAM 55-200. The best feature for my use is the constant F4 aperture. Anything faster (F2.8) will be much larger, heavier and more expensive. Anything smaller and lighter will also be at least a stop slower at the long end. Most importantly, unless you spend some real money and get something like the 70-300G SSM, you may equal the Beercan's quality, but you won't exceed it. I really like this lens, but don't use it very often, which is more a reflection of the 85mm F1.4 than of any limitation or shortcoming of the beercan. |
| maxeythecat#10769 date: Dec-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 150.00 |
| positive: | Sharp sharp SHARP! Excellent bokeh, lush beautiful Minolta colors, fast snappy AF, built like a brick you-know-what! |
| negative: | A little heavy but bearable |
| comment: | Right from the start this lens impressed the hell outta me. I'd always heard that this was one of Minolta's great "legacy lenses", and being a Minolta-phile from waaaay back in the Dark Ages of film, I snapped one up and boy, I could'nt be more pleased. Built like a tank, this baby can take a real beating out in the field and still deliver the goods. It's macro feature is terrific with sharply detailed pictures that rival my Tamron SP 90 for performance. The colors are gorgeous and the AF is pretty damned snappy for a lens that's been out of commission for more than 25 years,not to mention the constant F/4 aperture....simply put, this is indeed a legacy lens that lives up to it's reputation! |
| Lesuave#10754 date: Dec-4-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100 USD (used) |
| positive: | - IQ - sharpness - bokeh - constant f4 - minolta colors - solid built |
| negative: | nothing for this price |
| comment: | I'm so happy with this lens that I decided to write my first lens review. I bought this lens on ebay for only 100$ and it seems that I got an uber sharp copy, even at wide aperture. Fast and accurate AF with the A77. Some fringing though but easily removable in PP. Nice for macro and portrait too. Colors and bokeh are awesome. |
| brikas#10696 date: Nov-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 55-200 4-5.6 SAM |
| price paid: | 60 GBP (used) |
| positive: | Build quality Constant aperture |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I bought this just to compare it with my existing 55-200. I read many good reviews about "beercan", so, decided to get one for me too. Comparing to 55-200, basically, image quality is not far away, both are cheap and give very similar- cheap looking results. One good point about beercan is constant aperture- in darker, cloudy day, it's very useful, that at 210mm it still has f/4 instead of f/5.6, difference is pritty visible- I can take much lower ISO setting, and for my old A290 it's very important. I could shot some birds in very shadowed areas, where I couldn't do anything with my 55-200 anymore. Extra 10mm are also sometimes extra, it's better than lack of 20mm in short end, it's telephoto, not wide angle. Overally, it's good lens and if you don't have any telephoto, it's worth to buy this. Solid build gives very nice feel when holding, also it looks more expensive than it is. |
| derekw#10692 date: Nov-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: | Minolta 70-210 f3.5-4.5 Minolta 75-300 New Minolta 75-300 Big Beercan Many other lenses of similar range/ |
| price paid: | 53GBP used |
| positive: | Sharpness Colour Build Bokeh |
| negative: | Heavy Needs hood to combat flare |
| comment: | At last, a copy of this lens worthy of its reputation. Super sharp above f5.6 and gorgeous colours. Well worth the price - quality optics |
| martinsvanags#10639 date: Nov-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 60GBP |
| positive: | sharpness bokeh colors |
| negative: | loud AF big heavy |
| comment: | I own two, different ages, but both perfectly sharp and nice. The newest one has a bit better/lower noise on digital, it also has fungus on front elements, but the lens are easy to disasemble and clean even at home. On my NEX7 it looks massive (with SLT adapter in the middle) but works well. |
| James Yeoh#10607 date: Oct-20-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-200mm f/3.5 |
| price paid: | SGD 300 (used) |
| positive: | 1. Solid Built 2. Very sharp with good lighting 3. Saturated and warm color |
| negative: | 1. Very poor sharpness and hunts under poor lighting 2. Heavy and long |
| comment: | With all the hype from Ebay and other users, I find that this lens does not perform as expected (may be due to my copy). Compare to the newer Minolta 100-200mm f/3.5-4.5, it is less sharp under poor lighting condition. However, when using it with external flash under the same condition, this lens somewhat produces much sharper pictures. |
| jpollard#10587 date: Oct-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 EX HSM |
| price paid: | $80 AUD |
| positive: | Sharp -Solid Construction -Cheap -f4 at 210mm |
| negative: | -AF is slow and sometimes hunts -Significant CA compared to modern lenses -Weight Distribution |
| comment: | I picked this lens up for $80 with a Sony DT 16-50mm f2,8. Sharpness is fairly good at f/4, improves a lot at f/6.3. The weight isn't as bad as some reviews suggest, it is lighter than the Sigma 50-500mm f4-6.3 and around the same weight as the Sony 16-50mm f2.8. The weight distribution is skewed towards the front however especially at 210mm which is more noticeable than the overall weight of the lens. AF is a little slow especially in low light, I mostly prefer to use manual focus with this lens. If you are fortunate enough to have a body with focus peaking this makes MF less painful and also allows you to see the DOF easily. My copy is a little soft around the edges at 210mm f/4 but this improves greatly at f/6.3. It does suffer badly from chromatic aberration in high contrast conditions compared to modern lenses with better coatings. You can remove this to some extent in post but it's difficult to get it all. This doesn't really improve significantly on my copy until around f/9 |
| DWardCA#10492 date: Sep-6-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 200 CAD (used) |
| positive: | Great Minolta Colours Inexpensive Solid Design Doesn't depreciate in value |
| negative: | Dust Prone CA - Purple Fringes Sharp IQ drop off at 190mm+ Heavy |
| comment: | While I list a lot of negative aspects to this lens, don't get my wrong - this is the most frequently used lens in my kit. I absolutely love it. I purchased mine in near mint condition and it was the best $200 I ever spent. It doesn't have an in-lens auto focus motor - but for me this is a non-issue as I tend to always use manual focusing so I can "see" my DOF via focus peaking in the EVF. I have a few specs of dust in my "mint" version. I realized that as you focus, the end lens piece goes in and out of the body. Its easy for dust to just slide on into the casing and show up on the inside of your lens. I find that the lens is quite blurry at 210mm. I've heard that all zooms perform worse at either end of their zoom ranges but I've noticed a distinctive drop in IQ after 190mm on my lens. This is a heavy lens - but its really good bang for your buck. |
| megrim#10468 date: Aug-23-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 55-200mm Minolta 70-210 4.5-5.6 II |
| price paid: | 120 EURO |
| positive: | Build like a Tank Doesn't Extend during Zoom Nice contrast Nice Bokeh F4 all the way |
| negative: | Focussing has extension and it turns Size bigger then most beginner camera bags [about twice as big as a kitlens] The Weight shifts a bit during zoom [the glass groups inside move] |
| comment: | Right the Beercan. And yes it is as good and yet as old as they say. It does definitely has some CA's to deal with in high contrast situations. Also flare can become an issue so use the supplied Hood. But in return you get a lens build like a tank, lovely rich colors beyond your expectations. A very solid feel in the hands and of course it is sharp. It really is sharp! One could say this lens has Character. Where many lenses are made today that indeed have CA's very well under control. [The DT55-200 for a kitlens has a very good handling of it] those do tend to need a bit of after works to make special. The Beercan in all its oddities on the other hand adds something lovely to the images. Where with quite some other lenses I have to raise the contrast, this lens comes naturally with a strong contrast. The colors also are warmer. Meaning that less work needed in the RAW departement ;) In short yes it is an oldie and you gotta understand its limits. In return you get a lens with character that will offer you many great things. If you allow for its shortcomings. And you know what the Bokeh certainly is an upgrade from the Sony DT 55-200 and definitely the Minolta 70-210 4.5-5.6 And compared to the Minolta 70-210 4.5-5.6 II ..that lens is so flat and so well MEH. |
| kerrath#10424 date: Aug-1-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-200 3.5-5.6 Aspherical IF Tokina SD 35-200 4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 150 USD (used) |
| positive: | Very solid build, easy to repair. Very sharp, even at F4. Continuous F/4 through range. |
| negative: | The CA is disappointing with the level of sharpness. Prone to flaring. Light hitting the lens from oblique angles causes substantial washing out of the image. You need a hood. |
| comment: | You need a very solid tripod, or very strong hands to tighten the clamps down on your tripod to keep this lens from pulling the head down. AF is surprisingly quick on my A580, I suspect because when the focus is dialed in, it is really quite sharp indeed. If this lens were F2.8 and were APO, all else the same, it would cost 10x as much. Definitely a good deal for amateurs and enthusiasts. |
| Dlkillwaterbear#10406 date: Jul-24-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 70-300 Di Macro f4.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | SGD250(used) |
| positive: | Good in terms of: -Fast, accurate AF -Quality of glass for the price, focal length as well as a constant aperture. |
| negative: | Very old lens. Difficult to find tecnical support. |
| comment: | missing |
| JamieZ#10279 date: Jun-9-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 70-300 Tamron 70-300 Minolta 55-200 Tamron 35-135 |
| price paid: | 110USD (used) |
| positive: | Color F/4 Internal Focus |
| negative: | Must have hood in bright sun |
| comment: | Great lens for bugs and flowers (long macro) put a 2x and it still works for airshows and birds on a crop sensor |
| Dan Berke#10278 date: Jun-8-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 100-200 f4.5 |
| price paid: | £100 |
| positive: | Colour Build Bokeh Sharpness |
| negative: | Small manual focus and rotating front element Big |
| comment: | I think I have struck gold and bought a perfect copy. It is razor sharp wide open and at all apertures and focal lengths. The colours are stunning and the bokeh is a dream. It balances well on my A77. I compared this to the Minolta 100-200 f4.5 as it is the closest comparitor. The 100-200 left my A77 feeling off balance, had a poor MFD and simply I need to fall in love with a lens to keep it. The 100-200 was a one night stand but the beercan is full blown affair. Yes f4 is a bit slow and it is a little heavy but so am I.... |
| cicaro#10207 date: May-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta AF Zoom 75-300mm 1:4.5(32)-5.6 - Sigma - 75-300 F4.5-5.6 APO - Minolta - AF 100-200 F4.5 |
| price paid: | 20USD (Fleetmarket) |
| positive: | - Good aperture - Nice colors - Sturdy/solid build |
| negative: | - Heavy - AF little slow - Wish it had a closer close-up limit |
| comment: | Used this on a daily basis until I got my hands on the sigma i compared it to. This lens is good no doubt, but the sigma lens is a pinch better and has taken the first place thanks to its greater zoom range. For someone searching for a tele I would recommend the sigma, even if its harder to find, its more lens for the money!(on the other hand if you find a big beer can on a fleet market for nothing, get it!) |
| boyzone#9670 date: Dec-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-400G |
| price paid: | 240 USD (used) |
| positive: | -F4 across the range -Cheap |
| negative: | Auto focus speed is a bit slow |
| comment: | Is soft at F4, need to step down at least F5 to get up to expectation sharpness. Compare to Canon 70-200 F4, Beercan is much cheaper than it. Sell it after I bring in the 70-400G. 26/4/2012 update: Get 2nd copy of beercan as weight of 70-400G is overkill for portrait shoot. Manage to find a sharp copy with wide open after tested several lenses. The optic performance is much better compared with my 1st copy, no front / back focusing on this lens make the sharpness on par across the range with wide open. Furthermore, DIY to extend the hood to further improve on the flare performance. Good to keep a copy if u manage to get a sharp copy. |
| Andy81#9602 date: Nov-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
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 18-70 Kit lens Sigma 24-70 f2.8 EX DC Macro Tamron 55-200 Minolta 50 f1.7 |
| price paid: | GBP 82 |
| positive: | Sharp Indestructible Price Constant F4 |
| negative: | Flare control Slow AF (compared to modern lenses) |
| comment: | For the price, this can't be beaten. Despite its age, it is very sharp and build quality is excellent. Yes, it is heavy for its size, but it's not so heavy it can't be used as a walk around lens. Really pleased with my copy and will be keeping it for a long time. |
| bill_bly_ca#9595 date: Nov-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 70-200G 55-200 SAM |
| price paid: | 75 CAD Used |
| positive: | Constant 4 Cheap Solid build |
| negative: | (Relativly) heavy vs 55-200SAM CA |
| comment: | This is my second Copy. Bought the first in 2008 and it had regular use until I bought the 70-200G in the fall of 08. After that the BeerCan only came out for the odd film shoot on the 700si or when the G was at risk of being damaged. Sold copy #1 for close to the (overpriced) $200 I paid for it in the first place in Jan of '10. Now I am going on travel where the G is overkill and I needed a simple equivalent. All told I would rather carry a 55-200SAM (which I typically borrow from my sister in these sort of events) but a visit to a local camera shop reveled a hoodless copy for $75. Surprisingly I never did try it on the a850, which ownership of the first beercan overlapped by 3 months, and I have to say I am pleasantly surprised. While the lens is not up to the myth that precedes it, it is quite satisfying at the $75 price point. Personally I would not pay more than $125 for a copy as you would be better off with the 55-200 SAM - But below $125 you are getting good value for the money (Especially if you still run a roll of film from time to time) CA is too obvious under high back illuminated items. |
| eonconsult#9594 date: Nov-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 150 |
| positive: | Stunning pictures with the A 77 Constant F/4 aperture |
| negative: | Heavy Lens has problems with low light situations. |
| comment: | Again a Minolta gem. For the price paid you cannot hardly find anything better. The sharpness of this lens is amazing and this even at 210 mm. The lens combined with the A 77 is a heavy thing but i forget it when i see the results ontained. |
| JimmyMelbourne#9583 date: Nov-12-2011 | |
|---|---|
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 18-250 Sigma 50 1.4 Tamron 17-50 2.8 Minolta 50 2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | 110 CHF |
| positive: | Versatile Great macro length for baby photos Reasonably sharp |
| negative: | Heavy for every day use, but good for short shoots |
| comment: | I bought this as an afterthought, I once had a beercan and it was soft as hell, so I sold it. I saw this when buying another lens and grabbed it at the price. This copy is much sharper, and i am very surprised by the macro capbilty it provides a slightly different macro approach than the 50 2.8, which adds versatility to my lens collection. For this price, definitely worth having around for special shooting needs (portrait, baby macro etc) |
rating summary
- total reviews: 389
- sharpness: 4.49
- color: 4.79
- 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