That Coke Can has some pretty sharp glass.
Written: Sep 28 '01 (Updated Jul 25 '03)
|
Product Rating:
|
|
|
Pros: Sharp, Inexpensive.
Cons: Heavy, Slow focusing.
The Bottom Line: Capable lens, with good optics but a couple of shortcomings.
|
|
|
| gbraun's Full Review: Konica Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4.5-5.6 II (Silver) L... |
If this opinion were based on image quality alone, I would probably rate this lens at 4.5 stars. For the cost (I picked one up at $120, and I see them used ranging between $80 and $150), you’re buying excellent image value, but there’s more to a lens than its optical performance.
Pluses
This a constant aperture lens, meaning that it’s at f4 throughout the zoom range. That can be pretty handy if you’re setting exposure for tricky situations, but is unnecessary for routinely metered stuff. At the long end it’s a faster lens than any of its counterpart consumer zooms, while at the short end it’s a bit slower. Overall it’s decently fast.
As mentioned, it’s optically good. It’s decently sharp at f4 through the zoom range, and tack sharp stopped down a little. No flare problems, good contrast, pleasing colour rendition, and nice bokeh.
It has a 55mm filter thread. Getting a polarizer (or other filters) won’t break the bank, and it may be that you already have some other 55mm thread lenses (I do).
Minuses
I’ve heard this lens referred to as “the Coke can” because of its size. The barrel does not extend or retract when zooming, and so you’ve got a fairly hefty lens to hang your camera body off of, and with the lens shade attached it can look pretty imposing. It’s actually bigger and heavier than a can of Coke.
This is not a very fast focusing lens. On my 600si (which focuses quickly enough with a 50 or 135 to capture quick moving subjects) the 70-210 requires that you anticipate and plan shots. This is likely due to the reduced light coming in, but in practice it means the lens sometimes hunts, and will often rack out to the extent of its focus before coming back to ca position close to where it started.
The front element rotates during focusing, so using a polarizer can force you into manual focus, or frustrate you a little with finer adjustments.
Tradeoffs
A 70-210 f:2.8 lens will autofocus much more quickly, but at a huge premium in cost for a small gain in optical quality. The depth of field at 200mm f:2.8 is pretty darn shallow, and while it can be interesting (even nice to have sometimes) it is too shallow for a lot of practical purposes, and even the f4 needs to be used carefully in this regard wide open.
The 70-210 f4 is a heavy lens. It can be difficult to handhold for extended periods and sort of demands tripod usage (or at least a monopod) for slower shutter speeds. It’s a bit lighter than a faster lens though…
It’s a well built lens. That’s a plus. Tradeoff? It’s heavier than you’d guess based on glass alone.
It has the word “macro” written on it, and is useful enough to play with as such, but isn’t up to real macro specs. You can get as close as 3.6 ft (1.1m) for a 1/4 life-size image (photographing an object 36x24mm will require 25% of the frame on film). Some 70-210 “macros” will do 1:2, and a dedicated 100mm macro is often capable of 1:1. At least the weight is a sort of non-issue if you’re trying macro shots, as you’ll need to increase the depth of field by stopping down until you’re into shutter speeds that require a tripod.
It has become pretty well known in the Minolta users community (and may become better known due to this review… oops) and so it commands a pretty steady average $125 used (it’s no longer in production). The upside is you’ll always be able to sell it for that price again if it no longer meets your needs, and I think it’s good value at the price.
The wrap-up
If you need professional quality, demand fast focus, have a stronger sharpness threshold or bigger wallet than me, than I would recommend you look at the 80-200 f:2.8 G lens. If you take the positive side of some of the trade-offs I’ve mentioned and think the lens will suit you, then join in on owning a classic.
Recommended:
Yes
|
|
|
|
Epinions.com ID:
gbraun
|
|
Location: Cambridge, ON, Canada
Reviews written: 25
Trusted by: 14 members
About Me:
"I think not," said Descartes, and promptly disappeared.
|
|
|
- Add to My Yahoo!: 
- Add to Google Homepage: 
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.