70-210mm f4 MD vs 70-210mm f3.5 Series 1

[drjedsmith]

Anyone have an opinion on this? Ended up keeping the 70-210mm f3.5

Vivitar Series 1 67mm (version 1), and my wife likes it so much, now

she wants one. :-)<BR>

Curious if the genuine Minolta F4 70-210mm is any better, though?

Never have seen one, so just asking for opinions.<BR>

Jed

[brian_southward]

I had the 70-210 series 1 with the 67mm filter a couple of years ago and I got rid of it. It was very heavy and I thought it was a little soft at the 210 end of things. I have tried the MD 70-210 but have not owned one. It's lighter, the speed difference is insignificant and the performance is much better. If you need that zoom range (and I've decided I don't) I would say the MD is the first choice.

[TomHildreth]

I'm very happy with the results I get with my Minolta 70-210 f4.0 MD Macro. Here are a couple of shots from my first serious outing with the lens.<div></div>

[TomHildreth]

And another Vette, this one panned at about 1/60th sec. @ approx 180mm<div></div>

[drjedsmith]

Thanks for the photos and the tips. That's exactly what I was looking for -- the Minolta lens looks much lighter and smaller (from photos on the 'net) and I was wondering if it's any sharper. Overall I'm pretty pleased w/ the Vivitar Series 1, but it is huge!<BR>

Jed

[david_bedell]

I can't really comment on the optical performance of these lenses (though I have both! I just don't use them very often), but the Minolta is smaller and much lighter. Not that it's by any stretch of the imagination "small" or "light" itself!

 

I'd say get the Minolta. They're not too expensive ($100 or so?) and variety is the spice of life...

[smhawk]

I just got a Minolta 70-210 f4 on da 'bay, and I'm wondering what makes it a macro lens? (Didn't come with a manual.) Other than the macro markings, it seems like a straightforward zoom. I have a dedicated 50mm macro, and the 35-135 zoom macro which comes with the macro ring, so I get the macro idea with them, but the 70-210, not so much..