Minolta AF 24-105mm F3.5-4.5 D A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 100    1 2 3 4 >>
reviewer#39953 date: Oct-10-2017
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4
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:Sony 18-55mm DT kit lens
price paid:NZ$379
positive:A nice all-rounder of a lens; good colour, sharpness, and compact size make it a great lens to use as a walk-around lens on my A99
negative:Would have preferred a wider aperture such as f/2.8.
comment:No aspect of this lens performs *exceptionally* well for me, but it does do everything *very* well - it has become my defacto "kit lens" for general use on my A99, and while 24mm becomes a bit tight for my liking on the APS-C A57 the sharpness and colours are still there. I did pay quite a bit though from a local shop - ones on ebay are cheaper.
reviewer#32725 date: Dec-3-2016
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
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 AF 28-75mm F2.8 D
Minolta AF 35-105mm F3.5-4.5
Sony Carl Zeiss - 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 DT Vario-Sonnar T*
price paid:100 USD ( used )
positive:-compact
-zoom range
-fast and correct AF
negative:-stiff zoom ring
-sharpness starting from F4.5
-some CA at wide open
comment:Nice zoom range for FF . Can also be use at the APS-C . Original minolta colors at sunlight . Size and weight better than many aps-c lenses . Building quality better than DT lenses .
reviewer#30693 date: Oct-1-2016
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
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:Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS
Minolta 24-50 f4
Minolta 35-70 f4
Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6
Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5
Minolta 28-100mm f3.5-5.6
Minolta 35-105mm f4-5.6 N
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sony 50mm f1.8
Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6
Sony 18-135mm (tried, not owned)
Sony 55-200mm f4-5.6
Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6
Soligor 60-300mm f4-5.6
Tamron 90mm f2.8
Sigma 28-200mm
Tamron 28-200mm aspheric
Various other wide angle and tele lenses plus MF primes & zooms.
price paid:£48
positive:Very small and compact lens
Good range of focal lengths on FF & APS-C
Sharp enough
Bokeh generally pretty good
Reasonable MFD (good enough for flower close-ups)
Very little CA/PF
Good flare/ghosting performance
Good aperture at full length.
negative:Not quite as sharp as dt lenses
May not be wide enough for some on APS-C
Front element is close to front of lens and will need careful protection.
Slightly stiff zoom control
Bokeh can sometimes be less good!
comment:I bought this s/h at less than half the price I've seen on e-bay, from a non-specialist on-line shop with a guarantee but no indication of condition. I got lucky!
I already have a range of lenses quite wide enough for most purposes, but wanted a small walk-around lens with a longer focal length than the 18-55 and which would allow the camera to sit nicely on my chest without the usual telephoto droop. I also wanted something which would cover this focal length range for train photography on APS-C, where perspective distortion at the 18-22mm end is too upsetting and the longer end is useful for trains which aren't as close.
This lens has proved an excellent choice, and I think the results are better than the quite-good 28-100 and (almost as importantly!) it's black and not silver.
100% crops on a 20Mp APS-C camera show the lens isn't quite as sharp as the Sony dt lenses listed, and a little softness may be noticeable at full tele when cropping heavily, but it's quite sharp enough for normal use, and vastly better than either of the two 28-200mm lenses I've owned.
Close-up performance is okay, though not as good as the dt lenses which have a lower MFD, but flower close-ups work well enough, and if I want insects sharp I would expect to use a macro lens.
Geometric distortion is quite low with just a slight amount of bowing of the horizon on wide angle pics when it is near one edge, though this doesn't seem to be any worse on film that it is on APS-C digital.
Colours are nice, and the lens is pretty free from CA and PF unless you examine 100% edge/corner crops; neither this nor the Sony version benefit from in-camera jpeg corrections, unlike the dt lenses, but it stands up well against the corrected dt lenses.
For those occasions where I want more length than the 18-55 I don't miss the wide end that much - I have ultra-wides I can take instead if I wish - and on film and FF digital the range is just about perfect. I don't generally do a lot of telephoto work on film but the range nicely overlaps the Minolta 75-300mm or 100-300mm.
The aperture is also good - not quite constant aperture, but the almost-one-stop benefit over the usual xx-f5.6 cheaper zooms is a usefully smaller DOF on narrow-angle views and portraits plus the ability to zoom in and out in A-priority mode without losing the f4.5 setting.
Best of all, though, is that the lens is pleasant to use and handle, and the bokeh is great*. Background sparkles usually produce lovely circles of uniform density and smooth edges, like the Minolta 50mm f1.7, with none of the harshness that more recent lenses (usually optimised for sharpness) so often show.
One area in which some of the older lenses do suffer is veiling, flare, or ghosting from sun either in-shot or just outside. However despite the front glass element being so close to the front of the lens itself, the 24-105mm seems to suffer very little from this, being much more typical of the later well-coated Minolta and Sony lenses than early ones. My copy didn't have the lens hood, but I found a 62mm collapsible rubber one which works a treat on APS-C, though on film it needs to be collapsed at 35mm and below to avoid vignetting. However I have discovered the SH0005 lens hood fits and cheap chinese copies of this are available on e-bay.

I feel that Minolta were right to produce a range of lenses which gave very good results but which were small and light. Today there are lots of bright shiny new lenses with amazing performance, but the cost of this performance (apart from the £ & $ required) is that they are so big and heavy. If you don't really need f2.8, it's nice to have a small, light lens you can rely on to produce good pictures.
The cheaper plastic 35-100mm lens makes an interesting comparison; in most respects that one is worse, much less sharp and with terrible corners (see my review) but if you want a soft portrait or close-up lens with good bokeh it may be better.
So, all in all, I really like this lens and it will be a regular visitor to my cameras. Note that I didn't feel the lens quite merited a '5' in several categories, but overall is much better than the total score would suggest; if I could have given it a 4.5 I would have done.

*Edit: Did some more careful bokeh tests on APS-C digital and film in the 50-100mm region. In general, bokeh looks pretty good, soft and smooth; however at some combinations of focal length, focus, and distance (eg white flowers in close-up), there is a noticeable bright edge to the blur circle which can on occasion make the near-background look very busy, and curiously this was much more obvious through a film OVF than the A58's EVF.
However blur circles do remain complete circles over the whole APS-C frame and well into the sides of an FF frame, with only a little squashing in the very corners at FF, and this is much better than many other FF lenses.
Contrast this with the 35-105mm N (the plastic one) where the bokeh in the centre is softer and with less bright an edge, but squashes immediately you leave the centre. I guess the smaller, cheaper lens has smaller bits of glass in it.

Edit 2: Recently acquired an A900 which has 100% FF coverage on the OVF, and it is now clear that the corners darken heavily at 24mm near full aperture, something which wasn't obvious on print film with the 600si. If you have a narrower coverage VF you may not notice it, but expect to crop a bit from the sides at 24mm near full aperture unless you correct it in PP.
reviewer#29673 date: Aug-26-2016
sharpness: 3.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
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:Minolta 24-85 28-135 Zeiss 16-80 Tamron 17-50 KM 28-75 D Minolta 35-70F4
price paid:100
positive:Extrem good drawing! Very good color, and sharp f8

24mm focal sharp f5,6.
Small
62mm filter
good focusing
Film cameras sharp in 3,5
Very good distorsion
Very good Flare and CA
negative:Very very soft in F3,5 the digatal cameras
comment:This is very good lens, but soft during f8.
Film cameras is no very soft.
This is Film lens
reviewer#29650 date: Aug-9-2016
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4
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 have experience with this lens
compared to:Sony CZ 16-80 F3.5-4.5 DT
Sony DT 16-105 F3.5-5.6
Sony DT 18-135 F3.5-5.6 SAM
Sony DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3
Minolta AF 24-50 F4
Minolta AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5/RS
Minolta AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 D
Minolta AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5
Minolta AF 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D
Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5/RS
Minolta AF 28-135 F4-4.5
Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5/New
Sigma AF 28-105 F2.8-4
Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5
price paid:98 USD (used)
positive:Fairly compact and light
Internal focus
62 mm filter threads
negative:Build: broken encoder, stretched zoom grip
Gritty focus control
Poor performance at wide end
Purple fringing at long end
Heavy focus breathing
comment:A very used looking with original hood and caps that came in the retail packaging. Both rubber grips were dirty and the zoom grip was stretched and loose (and was noted by the seller). The seller didn't note that the focal length encoder was broken but did refund me quickly. "JAPAN"

It is slightly smaller than the 24-85/3.5-4.5 but much larger than the 35-105/3.5-4.5 New or the 24-50/4. It has a petal hood that is slightly different than the one from the 16-105 and more different than the hood for the 24-85.

The minimum focus distance is larger than the 24-85. The 24-85 and 24-50 both have better image quality at the wide end of their ranges.

It doesn't have a warm color cast like the earlier 28-85, 24-85, 28-105, and 35-105 lenses. Overall performance is better than I expected.
reviewer#25514 date: Mar-3-2016
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:Minolta af 28-105 xi
price paid:€75
positive:Nitidezza colore e contrasto notevoli con A850.
Maneggevole, compatta sufficientemente robusta.
negative:Niente da segnalare.
comment:Ottica versatile, pratica e di ottima qualità.
Ideale per reportage.
reviewer#20382 date: Oct-18-2015
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.1
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:Minolta AF20. Sigma super wide 2. Minolta AF28f2. Minolta AF35f2. Zeiss FE2,8/35. Minolta AF50. Sigma 50mm f1:4. Zeiss FE1,8/55. Sony 2.8/85 SAM. Minolta AF135.
price paid:£124.00
positive:Great colours. Sharp at F8.
negative:Zoom action is not as smooth as it should be. Softens as you move either side of F8.
comment:Cheap full frame street lens that can give great results at F8 but disappoints elsewhere.
reviewer#11990 date: Sep-24-2014
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.8
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:Sigma 30/1.4
Minolta 50/1.7
Sony 18-55/3.5-5.6
Sigma 55-200/4-5.6
price paid:100EUR (used)
positive:Small
Well built
Full frame compatible
Very sharp
Rubbered zooming and focus rings
negative:Focus and zooming rings stretched a bit
Little bit long inside on APS-C
comment:It's very well built. Sharp from wide open, very sharp stepped down 1 stop.
Bokeh is better from 7.1 when shooting with contrast background.
Much smaller than Sony 18-135, Sony 16-105, Sigma 18-125 and similar lens.
This lens is a keeper. It's in my bag all the time. Great walk-around lens.
reviewer#11986 date: Sep-19-2014
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 3.7
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 own this lens
compared to:The Zeiss Fe 55 1.8 is another league. The 28-105 rs is a little better before 5.6 and at 105
price paid:150 euro
positive:Small, compact, sharp from 24 to 85 from f 5.6, very useful range on ff, good colors
negative:Not sharp at all at 105 (also f8) and on intere range under 5.6; this is more significant when the focus is far, from 20 meters to infinity. At 24mm heavy distortion and heavy vignetting (can be corrected by software)
comment:Maybe my copy is a lemon, but it seems never sharp at 105. I use it with the A7r and the le-a4 adapter. Autofocus is normally fast. Maybe the 36 mpix sensor exceed the lens qualities. I spoke with the importer of Konica - minolta in Italy and i Told me that this lens ha problems with sony software; over 70mm is not able to find the focus. So is Sharp also At 105, but the real issue is focus. Maybe the sony version is better.
reviewer#11943 date: Aug-9-2014
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
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:Minolta 35-105 (2nd version w/o macro switch)
Minolta 70-210 "Beercan"
Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 28/2.8
price paid:100 UKP
positive:Dead sharp (except wide open at 24mm, and even then only corners/edges are soft).
Lovely colours.
Great focal range for street photography and photojournalism (on full frame).
Well built, feels sturdy.
Relatively compact.
negative:Wide open at 24mm, vignettes a bit and corners are soft (up to about f5.6).
Zoom ring is a bit stiff and not very precise, though that may be my copy.
comment:Maybe I have an unusually good copy of this lens, but my experiences of it on film and full frame (A900) are superb. I've used it for shooting marches and demonstrations and it's performed brilliantly. It is always dead sharp over most of the frame, only vignetting a bit and having soft edges/corners up to about f5.6 at 24mm, and even then the pictures are usable - sometimes a bit of vignetting is dramatic. Some minor CA but nothing significant, and colours are lovely. The quality is as good as my primes, and it is _much_ better than my Minolta 35-105 which is horrible at anything below f8.

If I have any complaints it's that the zoom ring is a bit stiff on mine - I don't know whether this is a general issue. Not a problem in practice; I usually use it at either 24 or 105 anyway, and it's not _that_ bad if I need intermediate lengths.

Given the quality, great range of focal length and also its relatively small size, this is my standard lens on the A900 now.
reviewer#11858 date: Jun-6-2014
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.6
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:Sony 16-50 f/2.8
Minolta 24mm f/2.8
Tamron 90mm macro
Tamron 70-200 f/2.8
Sony 50mm f1.8 SAM
price paid:280 USD used
positive:Mostly sharp (see comments).
Good range for day to day use.
Feels good in hand and on camera, small size makes it a great 'walk around' lens.
Reasonable maximum aperture.
negative:Old design. Not as contrasty or 'snappy' as more modern designs.
24mm is a bit long for some things.
Not as sharp zoomed out to 105mm.
comment:I like this lens! It is compact and comfortable to carry and use. It seems fairly sharp open and by f/5.6 it sharpens up real well. Zoomed all the way to 105mm things get a bit soft at all apertures. If not for this I would have rated it a 4.5 for sharpness. Generally, any deficiencies can be corrected in post. Sharpen a bit, add some contrast, and the images are very good.
The build is fine. The only problem I've had ist the zoom ring. It became so loose that I had to make a replacement from a leather strip. There is a bit of mass to this, but comfortably so. The zoom and focus rings are smooth throughout the range. Auto focus is quick and accurate. A keeper!
reviewer#11493 date: Nov-21-2013
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
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:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Sharp stopped down
Light
Focuses fast
Compact
negative:For what it is, NONE
comment:I bought this lens to keep on my Dynax 7 as travel buddy :) and it was best choice to do so. It's very light and sharp lens (Stopped down), It's good (not great) wide open too. It focuses fast and range of the zoom is great for Full frame or 35mm SLRs. I tried it with Slide film, Negative and B&W and result were great. I used it the most last summer and ran through over 20 rolls all came as expected. No regret. If you are looking for travel lens, I don't think you'll be disappointed with it
reviewer#11371 date: Oct-7-2013
sharpness: 4
color: 3
build: 5
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
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 28-75mm f/2.8.
price paid:£45 in car boot sale
positive:Tiny lens that always finds room in the camera bag.
Matches the tamron for sharpness for all focal lengths at f/8.
Decent bokeh for a zoom and better than the tamron.
negative:Vignettes badly wide open and not perfect even at f/8. Worse with filters.
Corners are not competitively sharp under f/5.6.
If you are after the classical Minolta colors you will hate it.
A little more CA than the tamron but still decent enough to be ignored or corrected.
comment:Don't think of this as a cheap lens. It originally sold for good money (bar meltdowns) and is capable of excellent results.

A modern lens and thus decent flare control and contrast but without the classic Minolta colors. Not a good single lens solution because it is just not fast enough for poor light. Excellent as part of a kit of lenses and reserved for sunny days when it easily justifies its modest size, weight and market price with an image quality that is every bit as good as the other options for a standard zoom. Don't add more than one thin filter. One of the few options for getting as wide as 24mm in a standard zoom.
reviewer#11348 date: Sep-24-2013
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 3
flare control: 3
overall: 3.8
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:
missing
price paid:£80
positive:Excellent zoom range on film / ff
Compact
negative:Extremely soft wide open
Distortion at 24mm
comment:This is my first Minolta lens and it's a good lens as long as you are aware of it's limitations. Particularly at it's widest setting it is so soft as to be unusable. Wide open at 24mm I can't even print at 6x4. It's still unacceptable at f4.5 and only becomes useable at f5.6. The tele end is not as bad but this is a lens you want to keep stopped down. Perhaps my copy is really bad. Having said that it's a good walk about lens covering most situations well.
reviewer#11334 date: Sep-10-2013
sharpness: 2.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 2
flare control: 3
overall: 3.1
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:All primes at those focal lengths; CZ16-80 (comparable focal length on aps-c)
price paid:240 EUR (old)
positive:Very small and light
negative:Significant vignetting
Significant distortion at most focal lengths
Very soft wide open
Corners never really do get sharp, even when stopped down
comment:The lens is worth maybe 100 euros so I way overpaid for it. I guess I was a little naive: I thought, cool, look at how small and light that thing is! But it's just a dog of a lens. It really takes the a99 and some heavy handed post-processing to make up for its flaws. Even when it sharpens up stopped down the images never really pop and as I mention the corners never really get sharp. Not that corners are the most important thing in the world but they count sometimes for some photos and this lens is so soft in the corners they can't even be salvaged by savvy post-processing. The colors are nice though, I'll give it that. I would almost say: perhaps this lens would be OK on film but then the distortion is horrible and that's one thing you can't fix so easily on film. I know that that would drive me nuts, I like for nice, straight lines in my photos and this lens won't give you a straight line.
reviewer#11253 date: Jul-16-2013
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 3
distortion: 2
flare control: 3
overall: 3.5
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:Minolta 28mm 2.0
Tamron 28-75 2.8
Sony 50mm 1.7
Minolta 85mm 1.4 G
Sony 70-300 G
price paid:120GBP (used)
positive:Central sharpness on all apertures after closing 1 f.stop
Very versatile range on FF
Minolta color
Light and compact
negative:Corner sharpness
Vignetting
Color fringing wide open
comment:The lens is not bad if you know how to use it. It's cheap (2nd hand), small, light, great zoom range.
Center is sharp at f4.5 (24mm) or f8 (120mm).
When stopped down (f8-f11) the corners will sharpen and vignetting almost disappear. In fact I think this lens is very sharp at these apertures.
Problem with stopping down, any dust on the sensor (or even semi translucent surface of the A99) will be visible.

I personally like the colors. They seem very much the same as the 28mm 2.0 and the 70-300mm G, which are regarded as having great "minolta" colors.

Usually my question is whether to take the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or Minoltas 24-105 + 50mm 1.7. The Minoltas will have better colors, better zoom range, better bokeh (50mm 1.7) and in total will cost less than the Tamron.
reviewer#11158 date: May-31-2013
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 3
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 have experience with this lens
compared to:MAF 28-15, MAF 28-135 4.0-4.5, MAF 35-105
price paid:110 EUR (used)
positive:24mm at the begining, f.3.5, lighty
negative:Not sharp enough for me.
comment:Wide angle of view. I used it for daily taking pictures and indoor photography. Much better and sharper was MAF 28-105
I sold due to a bit short for me range it and changed for MAF 28-135 4.0-4,5 As I do more reportage pictures, where longer range is important.
reviewer#11135 date: May-23-2013
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.7
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 own this lens
compared to:24-50AF f/4,
28-85AF f/3.5-4.5,
24AF f/2.8,
28AF f/2.8,
50AF f/1.4,
28-105xi f/3.5-4.5,
28-135AF f/4-4.5,
Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-5.6
price paid:€ 100
positive:- nice range
- D (ADI) when using flash
- great for reportage/event photography
negative:rubber zoom ring tends to loosen
comment:Love the range on both full frame (film) and digital. Gets most use for reportage/event photography. Also great for weddings!
reviewer#10475 date: Aug-29-2012
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 2
flare control: 4
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 APO 100-300 mm
price paid:1.9 USD
positive:Very sharp
Good colour and contrast
Nice build and weight
Range
Nice hood
negative:Too much vignetting
Zoom ring hard to rotate
purple flare
soft when wide open
comment:I like this lenses, i bought this because i want to collect all minolta lens.
reviewer#10189 date: May-11-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.9
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 28-105RS
Minolta 35=105 (original)
price paid:115 GBP mint
positive:Very sharp
Good colour and contrast
Nice build and weight
Range
Effective hood
Little distortion
negative:PF beyond 80mm upto f8
Flimsy hood
comment:Second copy of this lens (see review below)

This copy is very good without ever reaching the sharpness levels of the two lenses above, but worth its place for the extra range. Very sharp 24-70.

Capable of producing beautiful images but PF needs to be managed at larger apertures above 80mm.

Recommended if you find a good sample.
reviewer#9928 date: Feb-13-2012
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.3
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 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 RS
price paid:
missing
positive:Very good range on full frame, ok on APSC. f4.5 at 105mm. ADI compatible. light weight.
negative:Plasticky body. Renders less appealing images than Minolta 28-105 version. Ok bokeh
comment:A good choice for both APSC and full frame that covers usable range from 24mm to 105mm. However if I do not need that extra 4mm at wide end, I'd rather go out with Minolta 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 instead.

While 24-105mm is sharp and has vivid colors, it tends to render the images that look dry and has less dimensions and appeal compared to Minolta 28-105mm f3.5-4.5. Also the 28-105mm has better build quality, bigger and more solid in hands despite its shorter range.

The thing I like most about 24-105mm is its light weight that balances better with a light camera body like A55.

In conclusion, it's a good lens and can deliver good results. No doubt about it. However there are just so many alternatives in this range, especially for APSC, that will make you question if you really this.

See my photos with Minolta 24-105 and 28-105 RS on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/
reviewer#9172 date: Jun-22-2011
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.9
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 have experience with this lens
compared to:MAF 28-105/3,5-4,5
MAF 28-135/4.0-4,5
price paid:130 EUR (used)
positive:range 24-105, light weight, good alternative to MAF kit lenses, D version, real Minolta colors, tullip lens hood,
negative:much worse than MAF 28-105/3,5-4,5, not sharp (I-ve tested 2 examples),
comment:I bought this lens based on the Forum opinions, but 2 examples I used I found they were worse I expected, Much better were 2 examples of MAF 28-105/ and its RS version, much sharper, heavier, stabile in my hand, I didn't like them so I sold them out.
reviewer#8298 date: Nov-24-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.6
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:

KM 28-135 F4-4.5
KM 35-105 F3.5-4.5
KM 35-105I F3.5-4.5
KM 28-75 F2.8
Sig 24-70 HSM F2.8
KM 35-70 F4
Sigma 18 F3.5
price paid:225 USD
positive:Small
Sharp stopped
ADI
negative:Color is not Minolta
Bokeh has to be practiced
comment: I bought this lens and it does pretty well. I went on a hike with my girlfriend and we traded lenses several time. She had a 35-105. The color is not up to Minolta glass and the 35-105 seems sharper wide open, however, the 24-105 had ADI, more range, shorter MFD and is more compact and light. I would still use the 35-105 in the studio, and the Minolta 28-105RS has some advantages over both of the others.
reviewer#8268 date: Nov-18-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.4
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 35-105 f3.5-4.5 original.
Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 (Aspherical)
Minolta 24-85
price paid:£84 (used)
positive:Range
Build, nowhere near as bad as some of the reviews suggest (Beercan lust!!)
negative:Could be sharper
Colours not Minolta
comment:Competent lens, BUT is it worth the money.

It generally sells for more than the other two lenses in my comparison put together. Yet performance wise, with the exception of range, it is probably the worse of 3 very good lenses.

BUT they are all very good lenses!

UPDATE:- compared to 24-85 this lens just doesn't deliver. not as sharp. Not Minolta colour. Sold it. Amended ratings after a lot of use. With the exception of range, 24-85 far better
reviewer#8251 date: Nov-13-2010
sharpness: 3.5
color: 3
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.7
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 own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:
missing
positive:Lens build is fine and the range is useful as walk around
negative:Zoom ring is a bit too stiff
comment:Have used lens both on A100 and A850. I like the range and use it extensivelly for walk around. I have never been fully happy with the color - this copy does not seem to have good Minolta color. Very noticeable vignetting on FF.
reviewer#7982 date: Sep-17-2010
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.9
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:Min 35-105
Sony Kit 18-70
price paid:usd 275 used
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
comment:I bought (and now enjoy) the Min 35-105 because my copy of this lens is just so poor. It just goes to prove that sometimes a lens slips by the quality control staff. My copy has appalling blue high-contrast aberrations and poor sharpness even in the center; the colors are not Minolta, and it's just not a good lens. I had wanted to like it because it is lightweight with a very useful fullframe range, and is ADI capable. But it just isn't right -- and it was poor on APSC before I had the fullframe. It's such a pity, but I feel I have an aberrational lens.

reviewer#7880 date: Aug-27-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 3
overall: 4.5
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:MINOLTA 24-85
TAMRON 28-75
price paid:545 USD (new)
positive:Very good on both FF and APS-C cameras
negative:Needs to be stepped down to f8- 11 to get rid of vignetting.
Rubber band on focus ring came off, had to glue it.
comment:I used this as my standard zoom on my 7D for many years. On APS-C it is very good. Gives nice picktures, has all The Minolta-look.

A very nice walk around lence both for APS-c and FF.
reviewer#7486 date: May-26-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
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 used to own this lens
compared to:18-70 kit
24-85 new
28-135
50 F/1.7
beercan
price paid:110 euro
positive:Sharp for a zoom.
Very compact for the range.
Useful range on APS-C.
negative:Neutral / hard colors.
Zoom ring hard to rotate.
comment:After reading the reviews this looked the perfect walk around for my A100 as an upgrade of the kit lens. And I have to say I'm not disappointed in it's very useful range and excellent sharpness. The zoom ring on my version is a bit stiff but workable. Build quality is below the beercan range and even a step below the 'new' range.

I never got satisfied with the IQ. Bokeh is ok but I never got that 3D feeling which I get with the 28-135. The colors come out very neutral, almost flat and hard. A lot different compared to the traditional Minolta feel of the beercan range. I've tried it with a skylight 1a filter but that also did not lead to satisfactory IQ. So in the end I sold it.
reviewer#7407 date: May-6-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.6
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 28-105/3.5-4.5 RS
price paid:
missing
positive:good zoom rage
D lens
great build
lightweight
good zoom rage
negative:purple flare
not a lot sharp at TA
comment:I tested the 28-105 vs the 24-105 and the 24 is clearly a lot more prone to purple flare and ca than the 28 that is also more sharp at TA.

The 24-105 has also the D capability(ADI support)but keep in mind that in the new cameras(latest digital minolta and all sony)the ADI works also whithout a D lens,it's theorically less precise but i didn't get any difference between my two lens.

The zoom range is perfect for indoor shots and the build is absoluty perfect!

The sony version has the same optical scheme and should give similar results,i recommend the 28-105(RS if possible) if you can find it for sharpness and CA even if it's a little more heavy.
reviewer#7384 date: May-2-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
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 - AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5 N
Minolta - AF 70-210 F4 (beercan)
Sony - AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6
price paid:EUR140
positive:Range
Weight
Non rotating front
negative:Zoom ring has some resistance between 35-50 mm
Slight backfocus
comment:A big step up in quality compaired to the kit lens. Image quality comparable with my Min 35-105. I think the 35-105 is slightly sharper. Colors of the beercan are nicer.
reviews found: 100    1 2 3 4 >>

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 100
  • sharpness: 4.25
  • color: 4.51
  • build: 4.12
  • distortion: 4.18
  • flare control: 4.27
  • overall: 4.27

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+