Imagine a beercan with the exact same optical design, updated coatings, and SSM with all-internal operation. Any and all optical shortcomings could be excused with a "classic" designation. Now do the same thing with the 100/2, 35/2, and a few others like maybe the secret handshake. Work the classic angle.
Ahoy!
The 70-210/4 Macro is (like many other standard Minolta lenses) are highly sought-after and rated, but unfortunately, many shooters who seek these lenses are being misinformed as there are many alternative make/models that are just better, and as in 99% of cases, these are new shooters being advised and directed towards these lens models, and likely because they have nothing to make a comparison against (just like SAL 70-300/400 G SSM lenses) and so are deemed as being the best thing since sliced bread, but guess what . . . they're not!
As for improvements and/or changes to specific make/models, as it stands, AFAIK the Sony re-branded lenses are no different to the original Minolta models (I've owned several Sony re-branded lenses and they're the same in all but name and/or 'possibly' better lens coatings), so why pay 2x, 3x, 4x etc more for the same thing? Makes no sense does it? Sony have released mega-priced pointless lens models such as the SAL500F4 and the cocked up Series 1 70-300/400 SSM G models, though had they taken a leaf from the Minolta lens bible, they could've released RS versions of the original Minolta models, though would they be better than 3rd party optics of a similar focal range at similar prices, who knows, but I doubt we'll ever know, though I wonder what E-Mount shooters would like as dedicated lenses models of choice and therefore requires no adapters or full sized lenses which defeats the point of a compact system and using full sized lenses, but are there sufficient quality and price-range options available or is it an expensive option compared to A-Mount? Anyway, each to their own, and as long as everyone is happy, then who am I to criticise?
