With all the hype surrounding the original Minolta AF lenses, I just wondered if anyone has any opinions on which lenses underperform when compared to their esteemed contemporaries?
Also what are the main flaws in their design for the modern shooter - other than the obvious bulk?
Well first off there isn't a "series" of "beercan" lenses - that was invented by sellers trying to enhance the value of other lenses. Possibly they are referring to lenses built to a similar mechanical construction standard.
There's only one "beercan" and that's the Minolta 70-210 f4 dating from 1985. Which is very good but not so good as modern lenses such as the Sony 70-300mm SSM G. The Minolta 35-70mm f4 is also a good lens for FF but not really so useful for APS-c.
All the other Minolta lenses that get drawn into the "beercan" net are reasonably good but nothing special - with the notable exception of the 28-135mm which is extremely good - but heavy and expensive
For FF a largely overlooked lens is the 35-200mm xi - an excellent lens (if you don't mind the power zoom). It cost over £600 when first released twenty years ago.
Thank goodness it's not just me, there IS ONLY ONE AF MINOLTA BEERCAN the only other lens that I would also consider as a beercan is the Minolta 70 - 210 f/4 MD lens from which the AF lens was derived
Drives me mad too .. beercan this .. beercan that and mini beercan ... they're just preying on buyers ignorance or gullibility.
And I think also the general standard of research many use on the net, stick beercan into a search engine and you'll get the various photography sites and get something like this which may lead to thisDrives me mad too .. beercan this .. beercan that and mini beercan ... they're just preying on buyers ignorance or gullibility.
Related lenses
Minolta - AF 70-210 F3.5-4.5
Minolta - AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6
Minolta - AF 70-210 F4.5-5.6 II
The only relationship is the focal range - all else is different from build to optical formulation!
(Although I've read reports that the 3.5-4.5 is quite good.)
Sad state of affairs - especially as that is Dyxum information
That's what I was getting at Rog, the 'relationship' therefore too many, including those who you'd think would know better get caught up in the hype. AFAIC if it isn't the same design as the 70-210 f/4 then it ain't a Beercan
A question - which will probably get me excommunicated:
If the 'proper' beercan was such a fantastic lens, why did Minolta replace it with the 3.5/4.5 within three years?
Or did they continue to manufacture both simultaneously?
I looked at them both quite hard in 1988, and couldn't see much difference (other than weight and size). I seem to recall the salesman telling me the beercan had been discontinued. I didn't buy either - got the 28-135mm/f4-4.5, which I still have, but very battered.
Cost of manufacture I expect, plastic is cheaper and easier.
If the 'proper' beercan was such a fantastic lens, why did Minolta replace it with the 3.5/4.5 within three years?
- got the 28-135mm/f4-4.5, which I still have, but very battered.
The problem I had with the 28-135mm was that minimum focus distance of 1500mm is very limiting.
I think also the fact that Minolta had introduced The 80 - 200 f/2.8 APO the previous year, so probably weren't really wanting a middle price lens in that focal range, plus by then the beercan design was getting on a bitCost of manufacture I expect, plastic is cheaper and easier.
Silly me, thought the "" was enough.
I should have stated the non APO, metal build, Minolta zoom range c1985-1987, released before the launch of the 7000i and the new zoom lenses with less robust build and restyled lettering ...
It may be a marketing ploy by sellers but it's also useful shorthand particularly where there were subsequent lens designs with the same focal length and maximum apertures - ie. 35-105 f3.5-4.5 or 75-300.
Glad you continued the discussion anyway despite your objections!
I have to say, my copy of the 35-105 is beyond reasonably good, it is excellent in my opinion. The sharpness across the range and wide open is top notch, particularly on my 7D. Can't go wrong with the combination aaaaaaaaaaaand, it looks great!
Also have the 35-105 as well as the 100-200 f/4.5 and a 7D. The 35-105 is a great lens. Good color, really nice macro function at the 105mm end. The 100-200 has great color, but it's range is pretty small and no real close focus distance.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote