A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Sony/Minolta SLR System > HOW GOOD IS A MINOLTA MAXXUM...



First     Prev     1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Peter Blaise , Dec 06, 2008; 09:31 p.m.


Well said Paul.  You tell all those ad hoc Minolta historians to get in line and obey!
Herding cats are we?
Now, me, I think of my Minolta 135mm f/2.8 as a "beer can" design:
Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 135mm f/2.8 via Dyxum.com
Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 135mm f/2.8 via Dyxum.com
In fact, as I look at my Edmund Optical and other Optical catalogs, I see that most industrial lens assemblies look rather like beer cans in being simple tubes into which they machine lens-holding and heliacal stuff, and the non-beer can lenses are rare in the commercial world, only usually seen out here in the amateur, art, and professional world where wide angle lenses look like, well, musical horns, and zooms and lens hoods make our lenses look like anythign but a beer can.
Here are some Edmund Optical "beer cans":
TECHSPEC® Mounted NIR Achromatic Pairs
TECHSPEC Mounted NIR Achromatic Pairs
(Don't worry, photo.net admins - these image are NOT hosted at photo.net, but are hosted on Dyxum.com and EdmundOptics.com)


Robert Paul , Dec 06, 2008; 10:36 p.m.

Peter, I didn't name the Minolta 70-210mm f/4, the 'Beercan', but I do know what people are talking about, when they talk about the 'beercan'. Just as I know what lens they are talking about when they talk about the 'Big Beercan'. And the pictures that you posted of 'beercans', look like we used to call 'stubbies'.

Peter, just admit that you were wrong and move on.

Mike Gammill , Dec 07, 2008; 12:22 a.m.

I think by the time the 5000 came out Minolta had already been forced to drop the crossed X designation. Plenty of original 7000's and lenses out there that have it.

Daniel Spalding , Dec 07, 2008; 12:37 a.m.

Thanks for all your help.now I dont even know what a 'beercan' is,I used to see a lot of Marine Corps buddies drink out of some. I don't care what you call the lens I bought I know this it dosent say "beercan" on the lens anywhere, it says Minolta MaXXum.....  I just wanted to know what kind of quality it was, and Peter Blaise Monahon I think did a good job of telling what this lens was like. Please don't get in a stupid argument over the nikname of a 24 year old lens. Is it good quility?Is it worth the $10.00 I payed for the camera the two lens and the flash?I dont yet know what the pictures will come out like yet I will find out  the first of next week but I feel sure I will get my moneys worth, thanks again

Robert Paul , Dec 07, 2008; 01:22 a.m.

Daniel, there is a good reason to understand which lens is known as the 'Beercan'. This is due to the fact that the Beercan was, and is, far superior to the later 70-210mm lenses that Minolta released. The price for a used Beercan is still quite high, while the others have faded into history. For Peter to try and put the other 70-210s in the same class as the Beercan, is a disservice to those looking for a high quality used lenses. Even today, with digital SLRs from Sony, the Beercan still gets many posts extolling the quality of the lens.

Mike, Minolta was not forced to drop the crossed X designation until after the 7000 was released. Exxon could not sue until they knew of a trademark violation, and Minolta's ads used the crossed X, which they would not have been able to do if they prevented from using it prior to its release.

Robert Paul , Dec 07, 2008; 01:29 a.m.

Daniel, I forgot to add that the value of the 'Beercan' you bought is probably worth more than the Maxxum 5000, 1800 af flash, and the 50mm f/1.7 added together.

Mike Gammill , Dec 07, 2008; 02:18 a.m.

Robert- The original 7000 had the crossed X. Later 7000's had that corrected. I think since the 5000 came out later, that none of them had the crossed X. I could be wrong, but I've never seen any 5000's with the crossed X. Since the Maxxum 7000 came out in 1985 and Exxon's case with them came up in 1986 there were quite a few crossed X Maxxum 7000's and lenses produced. They were allowed to distribute those already manufactured, but any new ones had to have the revised logo. When my family owned a camera shop we carried Minolta. Our first Maxxum sales were crossed X 7000's. The first 5000's we stocked (came out in 1986) didn't have crossed X. Of course, it's possible that a limited number were made since legal action was taken against Minolta in 1986 which is the same year of the 5000. I just never saw one with the logo nor did any of our brochures or dealer catalogs show any 5000's with crossed X.

Robert Paul , Dec 07, 2008; 03:25 a.m.

Mike, my apologies... it has been so long since the cameras came out, that I got confused, when earlier, Bob Cossar, posted that the Maxxum 5000 was "Minolta's first foray into AF." I didn't properly research it, and took it as truth. And since Peter didn't catch this error, nor did anyone else challenge it, it passed as gospel until you provided the correct information. This goes to show you how important it is to get the facts straight.

You're right about the Maxxum 7000 having the crossed 'X's. and the Maxxum 5000 coming out at a later date with the regular 'X's. And I wonder, since your family owned a camera shop, did your Minolta sales rep show you the sales samples of the 70-210 f/4, Beercan, that had the clear body section?

Peter Blaise , Dec 07, 2008; 07:32 a.m.


Earlier: "... Please don't get in a stupid argument ..."

Peter Blaise responds: You callin' our argument stupid?  =8^o


Earlier: "... it has been so long since the cameras came out, that I got confused ... that the Maxxum 5000 was "Minolta's first foray into AF." I didn't properly research it, and took it as truth. And since Peter didn't catch this error, nor did anyone else challenge it, it passed as gospel until ... provided [with] the correct information ..."

Peter Blaise responds: "... Peter didn't catch this error ..."!?! It's not in the opening post. Photo.net rules say to respond to the opening post only, and do not engage other respondets in cross talk.  Oh, we ignore THAT rule, do we?

I did write that the 5000 was "part of" Minolta's leading efforts to automate. I even mentioned the 9000 as being contemporaneous, even though it was released earlier than the 5000. Subsequently I wrote about Minolta's automation in general, placing the 5000 in historical perspective, automation wise. However, all three - the 7000, 9000, and 5000 - were produced, marketed, and sold contemporaneously. In this post, I wrote about the camera, but I accept that I did not clearly identify release dates and sequence of "first, second, third" and so on for each camera, nor challenge the "... It was Minolta's first forray into AF ... " comment, which could be read as an error, but I read the comment as containing an implied "... part of ..." as "... It was part of Minolta's first forray into AF ..." which is accurate. Here are the dates:

1985-02 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7000
1985-08 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 9000
1986-03 = Minolta AF Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 5000
1987 = nothing new!
1988-05 = ALREADY releasing the next generation Minolta Alpha/Dynax/Maxxum 7700i/7000i - and we think of modern DSLRs as moving quickly through model releases, and yearn for the good ol' days when 35mm film camera models were much more stable!  Like it never was!

Speaking of research, does anyone know the LAST Minolta film 35mm SLR made? Is it the 60/70 or the 30/40/50?

In the other post mentioned - http://photo.net/sony-minolta-slr-system-forum/00Rh3D -  I only wrote about the technology of Minolta 70-210 lenses, not about the historial application of the "beercan" minoker by the Minolta user community, leaving that to others to explore and share, which they did quite well. I think the 70-210 actually looks more like a tall lager can, not a "beer" can.  How many ounces are we talking about?

Perhaps the 135 looks like a soup can:
Perhaps we should open a new thread and compare our gear to same-shape other products from around the house. Fun. A Google search for lens images brings this to my eye, note also the ancient manual focus Vivitar 135mm f/2.8 "beercan" (or "soupcan", if you will):


(again, Photo.net admins, don't worry, these images are NOT hosted on photo.net, but viewed directly on their respective hosts)


As you can see, Daniel, we Minoltians are a energetic bunch with a dynamic interplay of vibrant personalities, but all of us are ready, wiling, and able to pitch in and help our fellow Minoltian. I offer $20 for the lot you spent $10 on - a 100% profit margin - how nice it that?! ;-)


Mike Gammill , Dec 07, 2008; 03:53 p.m.

Robert- Our sales rep never brought the "beercan" sample. He did introduce us, though, to a reallly cool loaners program where dealers could try a sample of a lens to see if they wanted to stock it. We tried a Maxxum 100mm macor and loved it so much that we bought one for ourselves. We were on the waiting list to try a 300mm f2.8 but the program was discontinued before we got to try one.

First     Prev     1   |   2   |   3     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses