Discussion in 'Adapted Lens Sample Image Showcase' started by SteveNunez, Dec 21, 2015.
Picked up an old Beercan lens via eBay and shot a few stills of my daughter;
Another excellent set! 1st has a very classic look and 3rd has the best separation.
We already have a showcase for the beercan:
Showcase - Minolta AF 70-210 f4 Beercan
Excellent portraits, the 1st one is my favorite. 'Beercan' lives up to its reputation.
Another beautiful set.
If you like the Beercan, try to get 35-70/4 Macro ("mini-Beercan). While it doesn't have the same bokeh, it's got the beautiful Minolta colors, is extremely sharp, and tiny for a FF zoom lens. One of my all-time favorite lenses.
I'll look into that lens- thanks for the recommendation.
Thanks for the kind remarks everyone- appreciated.
Mint 35-70 f4 Minolta lens picked up on EBay- hope it's as good as I hear.....thanks for the rec.
Lord help us, i've just done the same! Also tempted by the 100mm 2.8 macro.
i already own the 28-80 3.5~5.6 AF zoom 1.3ft MACRO. While I enjoy the lens for how small it is and it's relatively quick auto focus (with laEA4) and MFD, most of my filters are 49mm and this is 55. The (on the way) 35-70 is 49mm filter thread so i can use the gear i already have. And it's black so it'll match the rest of my set up. My current 28-80 is the silver color and i'm not a big fan.
Took my daughter to Pompano Beach, Florida and tried out the 70-210 F4 lens, just ambient light and PS adjustments........love Minolta colors! (A7II)
Nice images, Steve. That's not surprising to me for this lens, as I've been using it since the film days and have always felt that it deserves its reputation. I still use the lens today on my emount cameras with the LA-EA2 adapter.
Here are three images from a couple of months ago, taken with my A6000 at a performance of my older granddaughter's high school Chamber Orchestra and String Symphony. All were shot at 210mm and f:4.0 (wide open) because I was shooting indoors without flash. The resulting shallow depth of field is why she is out of focus in the last image - although I like the image anyway.
Now I want to use mine more...
Tom those are great images, the lens truly deserves its "legendary" status......I wonder how it compares to the FE mount Sony 70-200 f4?
Is there a comparison anywhere on these 2 lenses?
The 70-210 is not an attractive lens and has a tube-like design, but it rewards every time I use it- every A-mount user should own one.
My great hope is that Sigma begins to sell lenses in native FE mount as I tire of having to use the laea4 adapter- I would greatly prefer native glass. (Sigma has recently stated they're aware of the FE mount growth and hinted at possibly designing lenses for it- just hope they keep the prices affordable and make long glass,)
The Beercan is not super sharp - it's a sharp lens, but my Tamron 70-300 VC was a tad sharper. It also has no stabilization, a noisy focusing motor, and as any older glass is a bit more prone to CA.
I'd expect Sony 70-200/4G to fix all of these issues.. at about $1,400 premium.
My only complaint with the Beercan is size - it's so large and heavy, I can't just throw it in my bag "just in case", this is why I bought a used 55-210.
FWIW, back in the film days Minolta made three different auto-focus 70-210mm lenses.
As you said, the "Beercan" (70-210mm, F:4.0) is relatively large and heavy and is not a super-sharp lens, but there is something about the images it produces that I really like. If I am not traveling by air, or otherwise concerned about the size and weight, it is my choice in this range of focal lengths.
Minolta also made a smaller and lighter 70-210mm, F:3.5-4.5 lens that produces sharper images than the f:4.0 version, so it is my choice for this range of focal lengths when traveling by air, or otherwise concerned about the size and weight. Even though my copy of this lens is sharper than my copy of the "Beercan", I prefer to use the "Beercan" when other factors do not intrude.
The third auto-focus Minolta 70-210mm lens was a f:4.5-4.5 lens. It was their "bargain" lens in this focal length range, and the performance showed it, IMO.
- Tom -
I'm surprised to hear the f3.5-4.5 lens is sharper......I'd like to try that lens.
My copy of the F4 version is very sharp and it's hard to imagine a sharper version.......in fact I rarely apply any additional sharpening as the images look tack sharp.......I know there are lens to lens variances and I think my sample is sharp- but I have to admit I don't like the physical design of the lens- it looks like a tube!
If I come across an eBay listing for the f3.5-4.5 I may pick it up just out of curiosity.
I consider my copy of the "Beercan" to be more than acceptably sharp, I just find the f:3.5-4.5 to be a little bit sharper. However, as I said above, I like the "Beercan" images a bit better for some reason, and will use it instead of the f:3.5-4.5 whenever it is not inconvenient.
- Tom -
The Beercan is mainly known for it's colors and bokeh, which is why I bought it (portraits).
The other lens may be sharper but may be not have the same bokeh ?
An old portrait of my daughter I just processed.
I don't use Beercan much because of it's size - too heavy to be used in anything but the good light without support. But it does have great bokeh and color. This is the lens that could greatly benefit from IBIS.
20140510-DSC01059-1 by BugsDaddy, on Flickr
Separate names with a comma.