Reading mode: Light Dark

Would I regret trading my beercan...

Go to last post
G

gipper51

Veteran Member
Messages
6,228
Solutions
5
Reaction score
2,676
Location
Bellevegas, US
for the 70-210 f/3.5-4.5? I'm considering this as I told my wife my lens buying spree would be done for a while, however the smaller size of this lens is getting more appealing. I love the images I get, but I occasionally find myself not taking the beercan simply because of the size. I've never tried the other version, and not being able to buy one I'm thinking I'd have to offer a trade. I know there are numerous threads comparing these two lenses, but I don't know if I'd be wanting my 'cult' lens back because of the legendary optics. Would it be foolish to trade the beercan, or would the smaller lens be the way and I'd never look back? Also my beercan isn't the best AF in low light... is the 3.5 version any better?
--
Just another rookie with a camera
 
Hmm...we might be able to work something out. :-)

I have both. The 3.5-4.5 is indeed lighter, but I seem to have a penchant for big lenses. Well, wait, nevermind. I prefer the 35-105N over the 28-85 because it's smaller. It's like a halfsize version of the 70-210 3.5-4.5.

The internal zooming of the beercan is a bit more pleasing to me, and there is a slight something in the bokeh that seems to be smoother on the beercan.

But pm me and I can answer more of your questions and maybe post some comparisons.

Greg
 
I only have the beercan, but how could anyone NOT like the bokeh in the pic below?



I know that I've got some reflections from her ear ring that I have to remove, but this is straight from the 5D with only minor levels adjustments and cropped for the web.

I think you'll regret it if you get rid ot the beercaan.

John

--

Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out and loudly proclaiming, 'WOW! What a ride!!'
 
That does not mean, however, that you should not get the 70-210 3.5-3.5. Aside the fact that they both cover the same range, and are equally good performers, I do find myself using the 70-210 3.5 more owing to its lighter weight. Gregory King will agree, I bet.
boundedlyrational said:
Simple answer to your question:
Yes, you will regret it, and will end up buying 2 or more beercans
in rebound.
Click to expand...
 
many people will tell you that you will regret it but that's because they only have the beercan.... i have BOTH lenses and both are equally good with bokeh, sharpness, colors, etc. if you want a much much lighter lens then go with the 3.5, if you want a large old school metal built heavy lens then go with the beercan. they are both greta lenses.

i personally just took out the beercan of my bag and put it on the shelf in favor of the 3.5

--
/ john
/ http://www.johngrayson.com
/ http://www.suffocate.us
 
Thanks for the replies everybody. Both lenses have good arguments, however I'm thinking hanging on to the old beercan might be the best choice, if only because it's generally the more desirable lens. I wish I could have both but's not that ain't happening anytime soon :)

-- Just another rookie with a camera
 
A quick test taken at 210mm and wide open. Not the best choice to find the best use of either lens, but a good example for the WORSE (and probably most common) use of both lenses.

I can't see a difference.

 
Which is which? I actually like the one on the right a little better. Look at the weave in the back of the chair, and I think the bokeh on the left is slightly more "nervous"
 
Jim,

Good eye. Yes, at full scale the chair is definitely sharper on the right shot. It appears to have possibly focused a bit furthur back on the bottles, as they seem a bit sharper on the left shot.

Of course, that might give it away. ;-)

The bokeh has enough discernible difference (if studied hard) to see the difference I see between the two. But then, as you noted, it's up to personal preference after that. Neither is ugly (like say a reflex lens).

Greg
 
So I could better compare I did this edit. I find it very hard to compare otherwise. I'll be interested to know which is which here :)

Thanks for posting the comparison!

 
I would say the beercan is the left one, because the dof seems to be slightly smaller.

Is the 70-210/3.5-4.5 also so slow focusing at the long end?
 
Marek found my mistake. I left the beercan at 4 and the 3.5-4.5 had to go to 4.5 of course. So yes, the DOF is smaller on the beercan, but I think the focus point is a bit further back on the 3.5-4.5as well...which accounts for the sharp chair mesh.

The leaf highlights are a bit smoother on the 4 (the left one, in case you missed it ;-)

That difference is the only difference I can find. The focusing seems identical. The zoom on the 3.5-4.5 is a bit tighter, owing I suspect to the external zoom extension.

Another benefit (for some) of the 3.5-4.5 is the focus lock.

Focusing speed seems the same. Maybe faster on the 3.5-4.5?

Both are much smoother and nicer than any non-KM lens by far. I have my 28-300 Tamron for walkabout, but it'll never compare to either for highend pics.

Greg
 
I once had a beercan and a 100-300 APO at the same time. The 100-300 APO was brand new and the beercan was a lightly-used beautiful example I purchased on eBay. I chose to keep the 100-300 APO because both were similarly sharp at overlapping focal lengths and the 100-300 APO is much smaller, lighter with added focal length to boot. I don't miss the beercan at all as I prefer the smaller size of the 100-300. Good luck.
 
I would hope anything with APO would be better than a 20 year old "consumer" lens. :-)

Any one know what the 100-300 was new, and/or goes for now? I hear the beercan was so popular because it was cheap...at least there for a while.

Greg
 
It would be a good idea to get both, with the 3.5-4.5 to use and the beercan to worship :)
 
Gregory King said:
Any one know what the 100-300 was new, and/or goes for now? I hear
the beercan was so popular because it was cheap...at least there
for a while.
Click to expand...
Greg,

I bought my 100-300 APO brand new from B&H in approx. October 2005 for $369. I considered it a good buy at the time and seeing a few used examples on ebay since then go for close to this amount or sometimes more, I am happy that I bought one while they were still somewhat readily available.
 
There you go!! I can't imagin ever using the beercan much, but by God it's purty!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top