18-250 versus "Beercan"
Through some luck I have been able to pickup a Minolta 70-120 F4 (the venerable Beercan) and add it to my kit... however, as I already own the Sony DT 18-250 I find myself wondering if I even need this extra lens? I have used it, but not sure I am seeing any real benefits from it.
(The only other lenses I have right now are the kit lens and a prime Minolta 50mm 1.7 - which is nice for indoors without flash).
There are many pros for the 18-250 - wider, longer, lighter, smaller -
But only the constant F4 seems to be a pro for the Beercan.
Should I bother keeping it, or sell and put the money towards something else like a CZ 16-80?
What do you all think?
I'm not familiar with either of these lenses, but my first resource would be dyxum.com for their great user lens reviews!
If you were saving for a kit lens replacement, the Tamron 17-50 would be a good option (~$200+ less than the CZ) and I love it. I'm not sure if the CZ is worth the extra price tag but it too is excellent. From what I've read it's got near prime sharpness.
People love them but i sold mine..lol
I'll chime in ... I have shot the CZ 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 against the TAMRON 17-50mm f/2.8 ... and the SONY does shoot sharper, but not by much. I figure you are pretty serious about a decent lens, CaliGal ... and since you do not have the SONY lens ... that would be the choice I believe would be the best for you. If you cannot decide, flip a coin, it's that close a call. Both lenses are designed ONLY to work on the APS-C sensor cameras.
The other option is the far more pricey 24-70mm f/2.8 CZ ... which is designed to work on the upcoming Full Frame camera, also. This pocketbook killer is, without a doubt, the premiere zoom lens in this range ... and has a price to match.
(The links are live ... I recommend looking through them)
Personally, I use the 17-50 f/2.8 ... and it delivers a solid and sharp shot. That is all I want and ask for, at this point.
I've used neither lens myself but what people keep saying about the 'beercan(s)' is that it(-i +hey) produce(s) rather warm 'Minolta' colours, and give(s) a nice bokeh, as well as being relatively sharp.
If you don't think that it does and is, then lugging it around is probably not worthwhile, unless you appreciate the excercise.
They are very hyped indeed, and I'll soon* have a more informed opinion about how justified this is.
*If customs don't interfere, anyway.
Thanks for the replies everyone, I'll try to play with the Beercan some more before deciding - maybe even do a little comparison shooting, though so far the 18-250 lives on my camera, and the Beercan sits around gathering dust. Maybe that's the only answer I need right there! LOL
A few comments
I give a strong vote of support for the Tamron 17-50mm 2.8 it is a outstanding lens! I have never used the beer can but it seems to be among the "required lenses" to have, and the used prices are zooming up as with the 50mm 1.7. Does any one have, or have any comments concerning the Minolta AF 70-210 f3.5-4.5 the "but its not a beer can" lens? smaller size over all not by much lighter by a good bit, still well priced, lots of users 'like it for the price" ? seems to have a common problem of creep, how annoying is that for the 'casual" shooter?
Sorry if I high-jacked your thread cali:) and if you plan on selling one of your lenses don't forget your friends here;)