Minolta AF 20-35mm F3.5-4.5 A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 7   
reviewer#39927 date: Aug-26-2017
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:I not compared just tested
price paid:150 USD
positive:I have to admit others ratings , but with full frame camera in good lights conditions and far distance is quite nice lens with minimal distortions .
negative:in full frame close distances have some distortions , and sharpening is a shame bad in the corners
comment:If you have others alternative buy that ones this is maybe good if some give you like present and will be useful in good light conditions far distances:)) for close up shots buy another lens .
reviewer#7275 date: Apr-11-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 2
overall: 3.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 20mm f2.8 RS
Minolta 24-85mm RS
Minolta 28-105mm RS
Minolta 28-70mm G
Sigma 12-24mm
price paid:Ł150 new old stock
positive:Small and light, excellent for town and country walks.
Excellent sharpness (my example)
negative:Rotating front element.
Lens hood supplied is useless!
Can be prone to flare
comment:I'm waiting, like most a mount users to get a 17-35 f3.5 G lens, failing that, the CZ 16-35..... I saw the 20-35mm and bought it. I then read the few reviews at Dyxum. Oh dear! The lens arrived and I started using it. Okay. it needs a good multicoated filter if you are looking at lens protction.Forget the standard lens hood ( I realy think Minolta's lens hoods have been awful for most of the lenses they produced in the 90's, whatever happened to the lovely black felt lined hoods from the 60's and 70's??)I use a spare 28-70 G lens hood, it makes a big difference.
Vignetting at full aperture at 20mm is less than the 20mm f2.8 RS.Sharpness is excellent over the whole range, with some fall off to the edge of the FF when fully open. Stopping down to f8 or F11 is fine. There is barrel ditortion when at 20mm, but on most "average" subjects it's not an issue.Flare can also be an problem..needs that hood!
This lens is a great travel lens, small and light, and gives lovely resuts overall.
reviewer#4823 date: Feb-8-2009
sharpness: 2.5
color: 3
build: 3
distortion: 2
flare control: 3
overall: 2.7
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:17-35 D
17-35 G
price paid:300 USD (new)
positive:Price
negative:Everything else
comment:I've sampled almost the entire Minolta and KM lens lines and this is the worst of the lot by far. I'm guessing the 17-35 D was the replacement for this debacle. This is one of the few Minolta A lenses that is exceeded by the 18-70 kit lens. The AF is quick due to the short focal length but that's all you get. I had this lens for about a month and got rid of it. Those considering buying this lens because of it's low price should think again. It's not sharp. The glass is slow making it a dark lens even outdoors except on the brightest days and the famous Minolta bokeh is noticeably absent. As though that weren't enough, the build is cheap and plasticky. Did I mention this lens sucks? They sit on eBay forever as they are slow sellers. On top of that, if you're shooting with anything but an a900, you've lost your wide angle. I replaced this lens with a KM 17-35D for the same price which was a significant improvement but still lacked the performance I required. I've since replaced the D with a MN 17-35G and although it was 5 times the price, along with an upgrade to an a900, it does what it's supposed to do. I'm not a rich guy. I think it's much better to spend $1500 and get your money's worth than to waste $300 on a lens that's almost useless.
reviewer#3935 date: Aug-6-2008
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 3
flare control: 3
overall: 3.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 20/2.8AF
price paid:500 (new)
positive:Affordability, size, weight
negative:Sharpness, distortion,
comment:It was a bargain comparing to 17-35G and I was thrilled with 24-85's performance especially comparing to 20/2.8
reviewer#2741 date: Sep-16-2007
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:17-35G
Sigma 17-35/2.8-4
price paid:
missing
positive:Nice color
Shaprness is good if stop down
negative:Rotating front element
Hood is not very useful
comment:I purchased this lens at the time when I could not afford the 17-35G. This lens is sharp when stopdown but the hood is not very useful.
I used it for several years before I sold it and bought a Sigma 17-35/2.8-4 and later the 17-35G
reviewer#1397 date: Nov-8-2006
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 2
overall: 3.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Std kit lens
price paid:420 GBP(new)
positive:Light weight
Fast AF
Better than kit lens
negative:Not sharp enough
comment:Sturdy plastic construction slightly heavier (more glass?) than kit lens. Some barrel distortion at wide end and image softish throughout range and prone to flare. Originally used for occasional landscapes, city buildings and interiors. On a DSLR it is transformed into a compact short range walk about and maybe portraits. When last listed it was Ł420. Overall quality and performance is superior to kit lens but it is marginal and original price difference not justified. A disappointment.
reviewer#1103 date: Aug-21-2006
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 2
flare control: 2
overall: 3.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Tamron 20-40, Min 18-70, Cosina 19-35
price paid:125€(used)
positive:
missing
negative:Flare, heavy distortion at 20mm.
Ineffective lens hood.
Rotating front lens.
comment:Minolta look but not Minolta quality. Good center sharpness wide open at 20mm, but very soft corners. Heavy distortion and some vignetting. Better at 35mm.
Update: Heavy FF at 20mm. Corner sharpness much better after
manual focusing.
reviews found: 7   

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 7
  • sharpness: 3.93
  • color: 4.14
  • build: 3.86
  • distortion: 3.14
  • flare control: 3.00
  • overall: 3.61

to add your review
you need to login

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+