I have a nice clean copy of the Minolta 70-210 f/4 zoom. I found this copy last year and paid $300+ for it which is well above "market." It was worth it because it is a nice clean copy with excellent image quality, smooth zoom, smooth AF, clean glass, and only light scuffing on the lens body from normal use.

I've been very pleased with this lens on my A900, but have recently purchased the Sony 70-200 f/2.8 and this lens is now redundant.

$180.00 shipped CONUS - price reduced to better reflect market (No international shipping, please.)

PayPal

300 US$ for a beercan?
wow!
Internet forums skyrocket prices on some "classic" Minolta lenses, that are actually "fine" on digital cameras.

I bought mine for about 80 US$ (not in the same shiny condition as yours) and sold it for a little more of a 100 US$ when I bought the Tamron 70-200 f2.8

Good luck!

Or you could say you can have the original oil painting or a signed print of it. You get what you pay for.

You understand that cosmetic condition doesn't guarantee optical quality, specially on a 25 years old lens.

That's why I go to the opticians, but your point is well made, though it may be fair to say if it's been maticulously looked after and is cosmetically pristine, likely the optics will be as well. The case could be argued for any of the legacy Minolta stock.

The OP has one immaculate copy of the Beercan IMHO. I have a similar one but boxed with instructions and totally original. Very rare to find a complete copy.

You sure about that? As far as optics are concerned, I'd rather go for the used model than the mint one. A good lens usually gets used whereas a bad one is put into a locker where it stays mint.