M70-210 3.5-4.5 vs 55-200

What would you choose at the same price?

Probably the 55-200.

But I paid about €50 for a mint 70-210 F3.5-F4.5 and for that price the Sony couldn't compete.

I have the Tamron 55-200mm and the Minolta 70-210mm f/3.5-4.5.

The Tamron is sharp. It exhibits purple fringing in high contrast situations and the color is cool. Kit lens build quality with a plastic mount.

The Minolta is not sharp wide open and needs to be stopped down. The color is typical Minolta warm. My copy suffers from zoom creep which seems normal for this Minolta physical design after years of use. All though my copy is good, the rubber zoom grip has a tendency to separate and bulge out from the body on this lens, so inspect it well or just accept it as fact.

I bought the Minolta to replace the Tamron in a light kit, that hasn't happened. I'm likely to grab the Tamron on the way out the door.
--
Gary in PA

I'll know in a week. My 70.210 was very good but is now at a consignment shop, bested by a 100.200 Minolta. IT was a draw except wide open the gen-1 is best. I need more range though so a 55.200 is on its way. Oboy, more glass!
--
Jim R, A200 & stuff

The Sony 55-200mm SAM has been getting pretty good reviews over at dyxum. They may have improved the original design. The Sony coatings may give a warmer photo as well.

I owned a beer can at one time. It had good color, great bokeh, and of course the tank like build quality. I think the Tamron is a good alternative and it easily fits into a jacket pocket or fanny pack.

Good luck!

jimrpdx said:

I'll know in a week. My 70.210 was very good but is now at a consignment shop, bested by a 100.200 Minolta. IT was a draw except wide open the gen-1 is best. I need more range though so a 55.200 is on its way. Oboy, more glass!
--
Jim R, A200 & stuff

Click to expand...

--
Gary in PA

If it was the 70-210/4 (the real beer can) and not the 70-210/3.5-4.5, i would definitely go for the beer can as it's a precious one stop faster at the long end. The f/3.5-4.5 is a third of a stop slower and isn't quite as good as the beer can, but it is still 2/3 of a stop faster than the 55-200 at the long end.

The 55-200 is smaller, lighter, sharper, and has better flare control, but it is slower at the long end. It depends on how much you need that extra 2/3 of a stop. If size and weight are not an issue, i would think the extra 2/3 of a stop comes in handy for handheld shots at 200 mm, for use indoors, or in lower light.

Took 70-210/3.5-4.5 but returned it after 2 days.Found autofocus with that lens(especially on 70)to hunt often, on infinity its not sharp as i expected, DOF is too little for me on 8-11(probably because of FF design), 70 is closer to 80.Colours are great and bokeh is just good though.

I have the 55-200 and its a great lense for the price. I can't say anything about the minolta I've never had one. http://www.Kurtmunger.com has reviews on Sony and Minolta lenses, it's a pretty cool site.

Keith

can not comment on 55-200, but I have minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5 and "beercan" 70-210/4. 70-210/3.5-4.5 is lens with very good color (more vivid than beercan). Is very sharp wide open at 70..100mm, usable wide open at 210 mm, but better at f5.6. I had no foccusing issues, focus is fast and acurate. Bokeh is sort of busy, beercan has much better bokeh.

70-210/3.5-4.5 is good for portraits when used wide open at 70mm - gives nice shallow dof. Overall very good underrated lens, as good as beercan, but lighter.