A Quick and Dirty Lens Comparison

MD Zoom 70-210mm f/4.5 vs MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200mm f/4.5

"Beercan vs Beercan't"

This was a simple test to determine if you can observe differences between these two similar lenses by-eye. I'll explain the setup and everything used, but I'll also mention the limitations. Based on the final images, you can make the ultimate opinion if either is better. NOTE! This a comparison for the Non-AF Beercan lens, which is the exact same lens, just without the focus motordrive for the manual focus SR "MD/MC" mount.

The Setup

x1 Canon EOS 1100D (aka Rebel T3)

x1 Pixco MD-EOS Adaptor (cheap glass-corrected adaptor to allow infinity focus on the Canon; though more on this later*)

x1 Velbon UT-3AR Tripod

x1 HOYA HMC UV(c) 55mm filter

The two lenses in question, obviously

The Method

Canon DSLR set for Av (Aperture Priority) due to manual aperture settings, and to allow stop-down metering. White Balance set to Daylight (5200K), "Faithful" image effects (natural colours), centred-weighted average metering and ISO to 3200 in all tests to allow for direct and fair comparison. Mount the DSLR on the tripod to view the scene across, and attach the adaptor/lens combination.

First Test (Sharpness)

Set a suitable scene at the lowest focal distance and widest aperture. Focus to "Infinity"**/sharpest view of the central scene based on live view at x10 zoom, and take a shot at incrementally increasing f/stops to see sharpness. Reset to widest aperture, and repeat test at maximum focal distance.

Second Test (Bokeh/Focus)

Unfocus to minimum focus distance and widest aperture. Take shots at incrementally increasing f/stops to see bokeh and light "balls 'n stars".

*Limitations

When I say the comparison was a fast and dirty one, I wasn't joking. This lens comparison acts also as a review for the cheapest infinity-focused adaptor I could find on Amazon UK, and at 15 GBPs, the Pixco won out at 30 GBPs cheaper than the next best competitor (Fotodiox at 45 GBPs). Having some quick focusing tests prior to this lens comparison, I can tell you the Pixco adaptor is great! ...if you stop the aperture down at least 2 stops from the widest aperture. On an MC Rokkor PF 55mm f/1.7, there was some heavy aberrations, flaring, and "fogginess" of the image, even at the best focusing job I could do, until f/3.5. Likely as a result, **infinity focus is achievable with this adaptor, but at slightly less than the infinity focus on the actual lenses tested (e.g. "infinity" was at 20m focus distance instead of the 30m/Infinity you expect). This was to be expected with an SLR to DSLR glass-corrected adaptor, but as a result, my... results... aren't exactly gospel truth.

Pixco MD-EOS EF Glass Corrective Adaptor (shot on a borrowed native EF lens)

I should also note the DSLR... this thing is very old. With a 12MP sensor my smartphone can compete with, and digital noise being introduced at anything >800 ISO (according to Wikipedia), this will have also affected the final image quality for comparison. 3200 ISO was selected as a compromise between shutter speed and noise interference since the evenings in Scotland get dark quickly. The images were taken in quick succession however (8 minutes between the first and last sharpness tests, 7 minutes between bokeh tests), so light differences should have a minimal impact. Achieving focus was the most difficult part of the tests, which combined with the glass correction and the lack of focus peaking on the Canon meant I was focusing by-eye.

Finally, the Beercan used in this test I initially received in a mildly fungus-y state, with the outer elements affected. I have some experience in disassembly and lens repair, but I'm not a professional. By eye, you wouldn't know it was mouldy now. But what the fungus and my repair efforts might have modified from the original may have impacted the final images.

View the comparison with these limitations in mind. But, until someone can actually compare these lenses more objectively (like lensQAWorks), this is the best you'll get in the meantime!

Lens Technical Information

	MD Zoom 70-210mm	MD Zoom Rokkor75-200mm	Difference ("Loser" in RED)
Focal Range (mm)	70 - 210mm	75 - 200mm	15mm
Maximum f/	32	22	1 f/stop
Minimum f/	4	4.5	.5 f/stop
Minimum Focus (m/ft)	1.1/4	1.2/4	0.1/~
Filter Thread (mm)	55mm	55mm	-
Macro?	Yes	No	Macro
Weight (g)	635	630	5
Year of Manufacture/Classification	1983 (MD III "New MD")	1978 (MD II)	5 years/1 Version change

The Results

Now with all that out the way, the results I found.

Focus Testing

MD Zoom 70-210 f/4 (Beercan)

70mm

f/4

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

f/32

210mm

f/4

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

f/32

From these initial results you might notice that at >f/8 some dust on the DSLR starts to come into focus, and is clearly seen at f/32. I did say the camera was old 😉. Image results are pretty sharp at f/'s 8 to 22, but starts to falter at f/32, likely due to the slow shutter speed (approx. 1/4s). Shutter slap may have negatively influenced the final result here, as the tripod is a standard consumer model. Some odd artifact sphere of foggy brightness starts to appear at f/22 and f/32, likely from the shoddy adaptor. With a cleaner sensor and a brighter scene however, I reckon it wouldn't be half bad, although not as sharp as a the standards of modern zoom lenses today.

MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 f/4.5 (Beercan't)

75mm

f/4.5

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

200mm

f/4.5

f/8

f/11

f/16

f/22

Again, sharpness seems to falter at f/16 for some reason without a change in focus, and again some dust on the sensor comes into clear view around f/16 and f/22. At f/26 and f/22, the same spherical artifact of fogginess returns in the centre of the image.

Focus Comparison

From a quick comparison of the images, both show similar results. Both have an odd central artifact appear above f/16, and both lose some focus at f/16 only. A quick glance between images can show mild differences in focus, with the Beercan (70-210 f/4) winning out by a small margin we take the artifacts and dusty sensor out of the equation. On a more personal note however, the "aperture stars" created by the 75-200 f/4.5 seem more appealing due to less spokes created by the aperture blades. This is a subjective assessment however, and as the reader you might think the complete opposite.

Bokeh Tests

It should be noted that after a review of the focus test images showing the dusty sensor, I gave the sensor a good dust blowing to clear out the worst of it, and then reset the composition of the scene. Since this test is more about the bokeh than anything in-focus, this shouldn't affect comparison between bokeh images.

MD Zoom 70-210 f/4 (Beercan)

70mm @ f/4

""@ f/8

""@ f/11

""@ f/16

"" @ f/22

70mm @ f/32

The lights of the train depot do provide a lovely environment for bokeh testing! Anything above f/8 in this case however brought some nasty flaring up, which only became narrower with increases in aperture (such as the prism-light-split across the centre of the images). A darker vertical bar of the image also becomes noticeable at f/8 and above along the centre of the scene, which is a flagpole about 20m away. As usual so do the new dust residues on the sensor. As this was shot indoors looking out, the windows (and their relative dirtiness!) will be the cause of the particulates seen catching the spokes of the white lights. Very spokey lights at tighter apertures!

MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 f/4.5 (Beercan't)

75mm @ f/4.5

"" @ f/8

"" @ f/11

"" @ f/16

75mm @ f/22

Again, very nice bokeh at f/4.5 for the Beercan't. The central black bar-flagpole starts to come into existence at f/8, but doesn't manifest into the scene as strongly as the Beercan's f/32 aperture of the scene. The "rainbow smudge" seen strongly across the centre of the scenes of the Beercan are not seen in the Beercan't's images, and only becomes identifiable as a standard hexagon shape in the centre of the scene at f/16 and f/22.

Bokeh Comparison

Less flaring seems to occur in the Beercan't (75-200 f/4.5) lens, evidenced by the nice hexagon rainbow central bokeh shape compared to the Beercan's (70-210 f/4) glaring "rainbow smudge". Subjectively, I prefer the 75-200 f/4.5's bokeh 6-spoke lights rather than the Beercan's 14-spoke bokeh lights, but that's just me.

Overall Results and Conclusions of the Tests

As an amateur doing a lens comparison for the first time, there's a lot that can be improved in the testing conditions. Ideally, I would have liked to have a mirrorless camera to do away with the corrective glass adaptor that will certainly have influence the final images, as well as have focus peaking and other technological advances that would have come in handy. Nevertheless, here we are with some results in the interim before somebody better equipped and better experienced has a go at it and publishes it online.

From these results, I found that the Beercan (MD Zoom 70-210mm f/4) performs marginally better at the focus test, and as an added bonus gives you an extra aperture stop to perfect your landscape shots. That said, the Beercan't (MD Zoom Rokkor 75-200 f/4.5) performs subjectively better at the Bokeh test, with it's 6-spoke bokeh balls at maximum aperture, and reduced flaring across the same scene. Outside of the results, the Beercan has a reputation to uphold, and as such can found at higher prices than this particular "Beercan't" and other "Beercan't" variants. Price obviously fluctuates with supply, demand, and general interest in the product, so depending on when you read this, this might still hold true, be even more exaggerated, or have the opposite be true. Probably why most "official" comparisons don't go into price discussions, particularly for vintage equipment.

These results may be in part due to external factors beyond my current control, such as the quality of the respective lenses' construction at the time of manufacture, their environments for storage since their creation, and the quality of the lens adaptor I used for the test.

One thing I can say for certainty, a 15 GBP corrective glass adaptor is more of a novelty than a utility. Unfortunately, the only other option apart from the Pixco adaptor I used to combine EOS-EF to Minolta MD/MC mounts is a 45 GBP Fotodiox adaptor, which also has mixed results. Unless like me, you have no native EF lenses, and can't shell out for a mirrorless upgrade, I would not advise using such glass adaptors unless the quality can be assured and improves from the current selection. Mirrorless adaptors don't have glass, so they should be a lot better!

If anyone else can better verify these hurriedly strung together results, than I would appreciate it - Now I have a Beercan and a Beercan't, and I don't need both!

Acknowledgements

Shoutout to LensQAWorks who does a far better job than me in his "Lens Wars" tests, and that inspired me to try it out myself for these lenses that often get this comparison question online, but with no direct comparison to be found.

I suppose I should mention the communities I take part in, to various degrees, r/AnalogCommunity, r/MinoltaGang, the Minolta Collectors Group on Facebook, and the Film Photography Discord(Invite Link). All of ye are great.

I should note this is being hosted temporarily on this url, so if you intend to bookmark it, I would reccomend bookmarking this Wayback Machine Link instead. If you are reading this from the wayback machine, that link is what you're reading from!