Minolta 100-200mm 4.5 Vs 70-210mm Beercan

[peter_todd4]

<p>Hi. I just got an a200 as my first DSLR. I'm very much an amateur photographer at best I have a Minolta 35-105mm 3.5-4.5 and want to extend my range with possibly one of the lenses mentioned in the subject heading above. I'm inviting your opinions and technical comparisons concerning these lenses. Looking forward to your replies...</p>

[nodpete]

<p>I've never had the 100-200 but I would not part with my Beercan. If you get a good copy, you'll love it. They're not that expensive .</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Hi Peter and welcome to alpha mount ownership! Check out the lens database in <a href="http://www.dyxum.com">dyxum.com</a> for user reviews addressing these and other lens performance questions.</p>

<p>Both the lenses you mention have an excellent reputation and I've used both myself. The 100-200 is really compact and lightweight (without any flimsiness of build) so it's a great lens for traveling with. The 70-210 on the other hand is on average probably a little bit sharper and a little bit more "minolta colors" minded, though significantly bigger and heavier to carry around. Also, 70mm at the short end is often more practical than 100mm, so with the 100-200 you're liable to spend more time swapping with your 35-105.</p>

<p>None of these differences are critical however, so if you have trouble deciding then you might just adopt the strategy of buying whichever of both first pops up in great condition AND at really bargain like price.</p>

[mr_spocko]

<p>The 100-200mm is good optics wise it's close to the 70-210mm f4..close enough to not worry about it. Copies vary a bit here so you might find that a factor.<br>

It has excellent solid build, small and compact, but it's only real weaker point is the close focus is really not close at all, this might be an issue in some cases and for me was a reason why I decided to part with it. But it is cheap enough and good optics wise<br>

If cash is tight whilst it's cheapo build the Tamron 55-200mm is surprisingly good optics wise, and it's very affordable. It's not a bad choice to get started with. Sony have one too but it's a bit more expensive (in some regious they are running a cash back)<br>

Other choices are a Tamron 70-300mm, Sony do a 75-300mm (and Minolta have various ones from years past) Minolta have some 100-300mm lenses around (APO are the best ones) again not expensive.</p>

<h1 > </h1>

[Mike Gammill]

<p>The 100-200 is worth a try if you can get it cheap. Lack of close up magnification is not so bad on digital since the 1.5X crop factor effectively boosts close up magnification by that amount.</p>

[mr_spocko]

<p>Magnificantion is not the issue it's the closest focus distance which is quite long at 190 cm.<br>

Not to put folks off it's a decent lens, with good optics and solid build. Just worth bearing that in mind.</p>

[vancouverphotographer]

<p>I have both but haven't really done any testing side by side but just in practice, I feel my copy of the 100-200mm to focus faster and more accurately than my copies of the beercan. This could be related to focus but I think my 100-200mm images look sharper wide open than my beercan images in general. Colours seem a little different, images from the beercan seems warmer.</p>

[john_cooper9]

<p>I have both too. If in a rush I will choose the 100-200 over the beercan with my A100 as it seem much more balanced. My version is very sharp.</p>

[lintrathen]

<p>Hi Peter............ I too have both lenses yet probably prefer the beercan, purely for its size (I have big hands). I find a better balance as well. Picture quality? Hmnnnn probably the beercan, I have a good one.<br>

Welcome to Sony Alpha btw...... search eBay by <em><strong>Minolta Maxxum lenses</strong></em>...... there are 100's of new and s/hand lenses to view..... narrow it down to f2.8 hmnnnnn (smiles).<br>

REgards</p>

[peter_todd4]

<p>A belated thankyou to all who contributed. Your comments were much appreciated.</p>