Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital SLR and Interchangeable Lens Cameras > Sony Alpha dSLR / Konica Minolta dSLR, Sony SLT

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 24, 2010, 2:25 AM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9
Default Beercan 70-210mm vs....

I've been monitoring the eBay market (mostly) and am working towards getting the 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 to upgrade from kit lens - too many good things said about its quality versus kit to try and pass it up.

However, I'm wondering about the value of the Beercan 70-210 f4 versus other Maxxum 70-210 3.5-4.5 I've seen on the market at typically lower prices. I tried to search the forum and struck out and am wondering how much I may be sacrificing to get the half-stop better at the short end versus the half stop at the high end.

With kit, I find myself out to 70mm so much that the 5.6 is killing me for some of the shots I'm trying. Not horrible, but still, I'd like to see better at times...

More examples of what I've been trying to do are here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/1119884...7624462747111/

(Especially the first and 6th shots - the latter improved with exposure/fill lighting in Adobe Lightroom)

Thanks for the input!

Jason
MakingTheLeap is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Aug 24, 2010, 3:18 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

At Dyxum.com, the average user rating (43 reviews) for the Minolta - AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5 is 4.22, and for the for the Minolta - AF 70-210 F4 (beercan) it's 4.56 (277reviews.)

In the Lens Performance Survey Results at PhotoZone.de, the Minolta AF 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5 rates a 3.24, while the Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 rates a 3.45.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2010, 1:41 PM   #3
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 9
Default

Thanks for the links - I've bookmarked those for future reference to review before posting questions like this one ;-)

If I read the reviews and comments right, it seems the big advantage is size and price - while I get potentially sharper images with the Beercan, the non-beercan is significantly lighter and quite often less expensive.

I think I'll give the non-beercan a run and see how satisfied I am with the raw quality vs. any time I have to spend doing touch up. I'm hoping to get one before a trip out to Boston, so will post results upon my return.
MakingTheLeap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 25, 2010, 2:38 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,544
Default

Good luck with it. It's not a bad lens; it's just not as good as the Beercan. And the Beercan was manufactured for several years, and it has a lot of fans. It was one of the otiginal Minolta AF lenses.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:41 PM.