Minolta AF 24-50 F4  reviews

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Bob Socko   review date: February-16-13  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

* Zeiss 24mm f/2
* Minolta 35mm f/2
* Sony 50mm f/1.4
* Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8
* Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 (MinO)
* Minolta 70-210mm f/4 Beercan

price paid:

89 USD

positive:

* Very small - comparable to the Sony 50mm f/1.4 or Minolta 35mm f/2
* Classic Minolta colors
* Well built
* Quick to focus
* very little distortion
* very short MFD compared to other Minolta zooms from this era
* constant aperture throughout zoom range

negative:

* only the center is sharp at f/4
* purple highlights in high-contrast shots
* hard to find at a reasonable price
* short zoom range is not terribly useful

comment:

I've had bad luck finding a copy of the Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5 that I was really happy with. I saw this lens on eBay for a reasonable price and figured I'd give it a shot. For the most part, I'm pretty happy with it. It's soft wide open (except in the center), but no worse than the Beercan. Like the Beercan, it has great color rendition and a nice, sturdy build. I'm surprised at how tiny the lens is.

This is a lens worth picking up, but only if you can find one at a reasonable price - say, $100 or less. Though I don't regret picking it up, I'm not sure how often I'll really use it. My Minolta 35mm f/2 falls right in the center of its zoom range, and is sharper at wide apertures. Still though, it's a nice lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: chriseen   review date: December-04-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

24mm f2.8
28mm f2,8
50mm f1.4
135mm f2.8
35-70mm f4
70-210mm f4
50mm Macro f2,8
100mm F2,8 macro
80-200mm f2.8
500mm f8 Reflex
Sony Zeiss 16-80mm f3,5-4,5

price paid:

180 euros secondhand

positive:

Very sharp, great Sharpness
Nice Colors
Accurate and fast AF
Good Aperture (f4)
Very nice and smooth Bokeh
Nice build quality ,relatively light, small sized, yet solid
good focal length for portrait,
in and outdoors,
city en country-sights .
Nice minolta glass colours
Very decent contrast .
Makes very detailed pictures, even on dark parts .

negative:

Hard to find !

comment:

A very good zoom : sharp, small, practically no distortion.
So small, it can fit anywhere in the camera bag.
Best colour reproduction in this range , even on aps-c
Excellent lens. Having a lot of fun when shooting in low light situations.
This is a truly versatile lens.

I'm very impressed with the lens' focusing speed, lack of noise in AF and great sharpness, overall an excellent optical quality.
It is a great portrait lens on a digital camera!
I got this lens at 180 Euro in pretty good condition.
This is a very good lens, especially for sharpness and colours.
I do not have any flare complaints. If you can get it, buy it.
This is what people call : A fine performer !
Highly recommendable - if you find one:
BUY IT ! You won't regret it !

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: July-03-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 24-85
minolta 24-105
minolta 35-70

price paid:

100 GBP mint

positive:

sharp wide open throughout the range.
Minolta colour
Negligible distortion
General IQ - excellent

negative:

Range
Needs hood to control flare

comment:

Very sharp above f5.6 but the 35-70 f4 is sharper below f5.6.

Superior colour rendition to the 24-105, but similar to the 24-85 (original version).

The IQ is prime like above f5.6 with no noticeable distortion and sharp edges and corners. Considering it covers 4 major focal lengths (24, 28, 35 & 50), for the price a no-brainer if you don't need the larger apertures below f4.

Highly recommended.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Bahudda   review date: May-15-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony CZ 24-70mm f2.8 SSM
MinOolta28-105mm f3.5-4.5 RS
Tokina 28-70mm f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8

positive:

Small, light and well built
Great color and contrast

negative:

Distorts at the wide end and overall range

comment:

Surprisingly similar to the 28-105 RS but with ever so slightly richer color. Holds it's own against all the above except the Zeiss. This lens performs really well under real world shooting circumstances. I have been wanting this lens for a while and was fortunate enough to catch this and the 28-105 RS at the same time with the intent of only keeping one. Well, I'm keeping both - LOVE them!

I would whole heartedly recommend this lens - the Best Kept Secret!

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Ratsters   review date: May-13-12  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Carl Zeiss 16-80 on the A700
Carl Zeiss 24-70 on the A900

price paid:

100.00

positive:

I'm still surprised at the quality and sharpness of this older Minolta lens, just as good on the A900 or the A580

negative:

Not much to say if only for the CA, normal for such and older Minolta lens. Focus a bit slow in candid shot situation.

comment:

I paid close to $2000.00 CDN for the Carl Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 and for a $100.00 I get this small, light, sharp older Minolta lens almost as good as the CZ version, naturally CA is much more control on the CZ as is on the 24-50, but still for an all around lens, traveling lens even portrait I would recommended it anytime if you are on a low budget.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 5 

user: Mescalamba   review date: December-30-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

95 EUR (used)

positive:

small and light
well build
really good Minolta colors
perfect range for both APS-C and full-frame
pretty much doesnt flare

negative:

bit of CA in corners
visible distortion even on APS-C

comment:

Ive chosen this lens for my KM7D as "kit" lens, cause it mimics 35-70mm f4 range (its actually 36-75mm equiv on APS-C). And cause its small plus it has constant aperture.

Its nice lens, quite cheap, works well on full-frame film or digital or on APS-C. I like its colors and as most of f4 constant series, it has quite strong "Minolta" character.

Performace is very good straight from wide-open. Its better (at least my sample) at 50mm than at 24mm. From f5,6 to f13 is really sharp. f16 is where diffraction kicks in, so only emergency use (anyway DOF of f13 on APS-C is like f20 on full-frame and you hardly could need more).

Even stopping down to f4,5 helps, so if you want constantly sharp photos, simply take it as f4,5 lens and you will be happy with results.

Definitely recommanded if you want cheap wide-angle zoom for full-frame or "normal" zoom for APS-C. If you dont mind its f4 only.

Edit: Turned down sharpness rating. Its nicely sharp in center at f4, but corners need a bit more. Corrected my distortion rating. It has a lot of distortion even on APS-C, which means it will be pretty nasty on FF too. Tho distortion seem as simple kind, so Photoshop or similar software will take care of it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Doublejayz   review date: December-03-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SAL18-55 f3.5-5.6
Minolta AF28-105 f3.5-4.5 RS
Minolta AF50 f1.7

price paid:

233 USD

positive:

-Constant f4
-So Shape (stepped down)
-Small & Light
-Quite good range even on APS-C
-55mm filter size

negative:

-Even shorter than 18-55
-Secondhand price is about equal to the new Kit!
-Soft wide and tele open
-Funny hood (Still I don't have it)
-No macro switch

comment:

This comment is made when I first test this lens only with a few (10-20) shots.

I got this lens with a OK price and wanna try it cause it's quite rare around here, in fact the price is not so much less than the 24-105D I aim for but that one has focus malfunction.

My 24-50 comes with a cheap-looked uv filter and causes flares when pointing at the sun but it disappears when I take it out, I'm a little surprised that this old lens still fights flare so well (or maybe not)

At f4 wide and tele end is quite soft and perhaps usable, I step to 4.5 and things get so shape as hell!

The price is too high in my opinion cause it's much much more expensive than 35-70 f4

And as for it short length, it makes me miss my old 28-105 RS

Anyway I'll still keep this one for awhile til I know what I should really own

24-50 is nice but not about its shortness cause that's why I got rid of the Kit 18-55!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: KCG   review date: November-27-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Mini Beercan

price paid:

USD 200

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: teejay   review date: November-01-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CZ 16-80

positive:

nice range on aps-c
great colors
good sharpness in center of frame
good mfd

negative:

sharpness at 50mm
harsh bokeh wide open
some focus hunting

comment:

Bought this lens on a whim - the range is nice on aps-c, size is compact, fits perfectly with a33/a55. The minimum focus distance is good compared to other lenses of its generation (35-70,35-105,28-135...) , making it more versatile. Colors are nicely saturated, contrast is good. Sharpness is good except at 50 mm where the lens needs to be stopped down to f8-f11, and even then , some blurriness remains in the corners. One really notices the radial increase of aberrations away from the image center - and this on a cropped sensor, which does not bode well for corner image quality on full frame.
The bokeh is somewhat harsh wide open, highlights are outlined, but this improves significantly upon stopping down.
Overall, a decent little lens for apsc, but it is no match compared to recent lenses except in the color + contrast department, where it shines.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Ratsters   review date: October-30-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85
Sony CZ 24-70
Sony CZ 16-80

price paid:

150 USD

positive:

Surprisingly sharp on my A900
Perfect for landscape and close portrait

negative:

Flares and some CA at 24mm
AF a bit noisy
Somewhat soft at f4 - 24mm

comment:

I love the Sony CV 24-70 but on long photo session it gets to be heavy, but the Minolta 24-50 f4 is light, discrete for candid shot and surprisingly sharp from 24 to 50. For the price I paid for it compare to the CZ 24-70 it's a steal. Sweet spot from f8 to f11.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: saikomol   review date: September-21-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 18-55mm

price paid:

150(used)

positive:

excellent color
sharp

negative:

a little bit distortion

comment:

This is a great walk around and party lens, I took a lot of picture during company's party. I was not really impress when I saw the photos in the computer, I was thinking about to sell my copy. However I went to Costco to develop the picture, there were different a story. I was so amazing with all the photos, the color are beautiful and really sharp. Now the lens is for keep.

So what I learn is "I don't see how good of the lens until I develop the photos"

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Ovas   review date: September-05-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MINOLTA 24-85mm.

price paid:

215 USD inkl postage

positive:

Very sharp. Small and light. Low distortion.

negative:

Not so far.

comment:

THIS IS THE HIDDEN GEM OF MINOLTA!

Bought this to replace TAMRON 28-70 which broke down due to a loose skrew. I was impressed over the performance of this lens. It really shines on my A900. Sharp good colors. High dynamic range. My best walk-around lens for my A900. At the A450 it becomes a good 35-70mm f4 lens but I have other alternatives.

It is better for street photography then the MINOLTA 24-85mm as there are virtually no distortion.

If you can find one - buy it what so ever!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: jakejones   review date: July-28-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Weight
Size
Price
Image Quality

negative:

Lens Flare

comment:

I love this little gem. It has become my favorite walk around lens, and one of my favorites in general. I shoot full frame (a900) and I like wide angle shots, and this lens doesn't disappoint.

I own some Zeiss lenses (including the 24-70 f/2.8) and I'm not sure why some have given this a low sharpness rating, unless they got a bad copy.

This lens doesn't handle lens flare well at all, which is also true of almost every older Minolta lens, so care certainly must be taken in those situations.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Pirate   review date: June-09-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma AF 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 DC Macro
Sigma AF 24-70mm f/2.8 EX DG
Minolta AF 24-105mm (D)

price paid:

£56.50 (used)

positive:

Close MFD
Excellent colour rendition
Acceptable sharpness
Weight (light)
WA capability

negative:

If my copy had one, the original lens hood

comment:

I bought this lens from Ffordes as being described with a 'marked front element'. All I could see was the slightest of blemishes at the edge of the front element which seemed to come off after rubbing with a lens cloth.

The lens hood (if you can call it that) was missing, so I ordered a generic screw-on flower hood from eBay as well as a decent new Camlink UV filter.

Since moving to FF from the A700, I wanted a short MFD WA lens similar to the Sigma 17-70mm DC Macro, and took a chance on this copy. All I can say is that the lens delivers in spades. It's light, the bokeh is nice, lens is pretty sharp and colour rendition is classic Minolta. Flare control is based on a generic flower hood being fitted and not the original.

I got a good deal and a quality lens to boot.

EDIT: Since been sold in lieu of a Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: sonolta   review date: March-14-11  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 35-70/4
Minolta AF 50/1.7

price paid:

about 100 Euros

positive:

negative:

comment:

This is one special lens because it has a very low contrast. Some might find the pictures taken with this lens to be flat and boring because they are not that vibrant but in low light situations it really shines. The reduced contrast acts like a built-in DRO (without the noise!) so you can still make out details in darker parts of the picture. Constant F4 but not that sharp at 50mm, best performance from 24 to 35mm. On APS-C you sometimes want it to be a 20-50mm, especially when doing street and building photography. Build quality is okay, but many Minolta lenses from that generation are better in this aspect, feels a bit cheap compared to 35-70/4. I would not use this as my primary lens for that range but if pictures come out very dark with other lenses you might give this one a try.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: December-02-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85 RS
Minolta 24-105 D

price paid:

70 GBP (used)

positive:

Sharp
Typical Minolta colours

negative:

Needs an effective hood

comment:

Fine lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Dynaton-DK   review date: March-27-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF24-85
Minolta AF24-105D
Minolta AF28-135
Minolta AF35-70 F4
Tokina AF20-35 Pro

positive:

Compact and light
Colour and contrast
Nice IQ
Constant F4

negative:

Not for "pixelpeepers"
Range limited

comment:

Great little walk-around lens - very compact and light.

Nice pictures with good colour and contrast as well as appealing "feeling" in the pictures. Sharpness maybe not perfect when "pixelpeeping", but who cares - the important thing is that the pictures comes out very nice and feels sharp due to the colour and contrast.

Stopped down a little this lens delivers. Very good for outdoor shooting.

The range is of cause lesser than its brothers/sisters (going to 85mm and 105mm), but this one is smaller/lighter.
Performance otherwise is about same in this family. Pro's and Con's are also the same.

My original plan was to use this lens to fill a slight gab between my Sigma AF10-20 and Minolta AF28-135, but in real life I tend to use the Tokina AF20-35 F2.8 Pro even though it is much larger and much heavier. So I'll probably sell the Minolta AF24-50 F4 as it really deserves to be used much more than I do as the pictures come out very nicely.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Cougar66   review date: February-16-10  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24mm f2.8
Sony 28mm f2.8
Tamron 28mm f2.8
Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4
Pentax 50 f1.8 m42
Minolta 50mm f3.5 macro

price paid:

260 USD

positive:

sharp
minimal CA
low distortion
good colours balance
well built
nice filter size

negative:

cost
lens hood too small
slow (f4)

comment:

In a search for a high quality walkaround for my Sony a700 it seems that at last I have found one. Many of the options either cost the earth (cz 24-70) or have huge filter sizes.

This lens is sharp from 24mm to 50mm from centre to corner especially at f8 and f11 where it gains maximum definition. It is quite sharp wide open at f4. It is NOT as critically sharp at the CZJ 35mm, the Minolta 50mm, the Minolta 24mm or the Pentax 50mm m42 but there is not much in it.
CA is just visible at all apertues and focal lengths but is very well controlled. THere is noticeably less CA than with the Minolta 24mm.
Rectilinear distortion is well controlled being mild at 24mm, dissapearing by 30mm.

This lens has just enough range to make it a good walkaround lens. It is sharp enough for that purpose and exhibits well saturated but natural colors. It is well constructed and has rapid focusing. It has a sensible filter size (of 55mm) and balances well on a Sony A700.

It has taken me 6 months to find a lens that I can leave on my camera most of the time and used in combination with a WA zoom (such as a 10-20), a tele zoom (such as a 55-200) and a porttrait lens (such as an 85mm f1.7) makes an excellent all round mid range zoom.

It makes a good alternative to the Sony CZ 16-80 which suffers from vignetting and marked CA wide open and is more costly. The restricted focal range of the Minolta 24-50 is solved by the other lenses that will complement it (as above).

This lens is under rated and often not considered. It should be. Note the higher prices it is starting to command on Ebay.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: tuanle   review date: November-16-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

245 (Amazon)

positive:

negative:

comment:

Great walk around lens.
Light weight for travel. Good for somewhere you don't have too much space to take a picture.
Minolta Color. I did use it to take pictures of flowers when I forgot the 50mm macro. Not sharp as 50mm macro.
The unique high quality lens for the special range: 24-50mm

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: raszomon   review date: November-16-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

20,sigma 24 f1.8, 24-105

positive:

Good colour, small, sharp.

negative:

f4 at 50mm is soft

comment:

worth to buy , lightweight, small - much better specificaly wide open than maf 24-105,very sharp as good as primes.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: michaelg   review date: October-02-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

M50/1.7
T19-35/3.5-4.5
M35-70/4
M35-105/3.5_4.5

price paid:

US $150

positive:

Sharp
Fast
Good colour
Constant f/4
Cheap

negative:

None

comment:

(Edited)
I have had this lens for a while now & find it very useful.
As a wide angle on the a850 it shines. Sharp at f/4 & even sharper by f/5.
It is reasonably low contrast which can help when shooting in high contrast situations.
Nice lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: zeroone   review date: August-24-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tokina 19-35, Zeiss 16-35, Minolta 28-85, Minolta 35-70, Minolta 50 mms (Various)

price paid:

150 USD

positive:

Good range for FF, great colour and nice highlight rendering, low distortion and very low CA when used at optimum settings

negative:

Flares quite strongly and low contrast compared to modern optics, needs to be well stopped down for optimal performance

comment:

Actually a very interesting lens that has some nice features for certain types of image making. Build quality is pretty good, but not great, I would rate it just below the 35-70 f 4 and way short of the stellar build of the 28-85 3.5-4.5, but still it is better than lots of other non OEM lenses and should last a long time.

Up front there is no way on full frame you can use this lens at anything like maximum aperture if you want clarity from edge to edge.

After extensive testing, the following apertures can be considered the practical minimum. 24mm f9, 28mm f11, 35mm f11, 42mm f10, 50mm f6.3.

And here is the kicker, at all focal lengths except 50 mm it gives it best quality at f18!, at 50 mm its f16. Obviously these apertures are well into diffraction territory but the files actually sharpen beautifully so despite the theory it actually works for this lens.

Two other aspects are worthy of note; First it has very little barrel or pin cushion distortion, in this respect it beats most of the other Minolta lenses of similar age. Second, once stopped down about a stop and half from open it has virtually no CA, and is much better than many lenses I have tried in this range both new and old designs.

Colour is very nice, skies render beautifully, almost as good as the 28-85 and about the same as the 35-70.

Its over-riding characteristic is low contrast and flare. Now flare is a problem for many unless the lens is well sheltered but low contrast is often a good thing as highlights and shadows can be easier to maintain in the same image with suitable post editing and that is the case here, once edited the files look terrific.

So who would need or use this lens. It is a good lens for architecture due to low distortion, for the same reason its a good choice for panoramas, and the low CA helps a lot here. It is also a good choice for deep DOF landscapes, in fact that is really its forte, where you want maximum DOF and are prepared to post edit.

I wouldn't use it as a 50mm lens, whilst fine, the stellar performance of the 35-70 f 4 at 50 mm renders it utterly out of contention, its optimal performance is around 28-35mm, 24mm is fine but at wide apertures has very poor performance on FF .

In general although I ran no specific tests on APSC sensors, crops equal to that format indicate it would be useable across the full range f6.3 except for 24 mm where f8 is needed.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Derek   review date: July-29-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 24-50 f4-f5.6
Tokina ATX 24-200

price paid:

L69 (s/h)

positive:

Sharp, even wide open
Colour

negative:

Needs lens hood

comment:

Great compact lens. I can't understand why this range is so unpopular when in full frame (film) days a 35-70 was considered to be an ideal walkround lens. True - lens technology has moved on but this is still a great little lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: vorka   review date: July-12-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 Kit lens

price paid:

80 USD

positive:

Color, build

negative:

comment:

I haven't worked with many lenses so far, but this is the one I'm gonna keep as long as it's gonna work. Wouldn't sell it ever, it's a fantastic lens and flare doesn't bother me at all, I even kinda like it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: Anbesol   review date: April-30-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 18-70 f/3.5-5.6,
Minolta 50mm f/1.7,
Minolta 70-210 f/4,
Minolta 100mm f/2.8,
Nikkor 18-70 f/3.5-4.5

price paid:

100 USD (used)

positive:

Constant F/4
Great Minolta Color
Very sharp stopped down a bit
good build quality - smooth focus/zoom
Great wide angle start (24mm)
Decent Bokeh

negative:

Flare
Weak telephoto range
Weak lens hood

comment:

I got this lens mostly for the f/4 constant, I simply hate dealing with variable aperture lens', particularly at wide end. Its also my perfect range for landscape shots, as I prefer to avoid anything wider than 24-28mm (due to distortion).

There have been several flare anomalies I've caught on this lens, sort of obnoxious but its the one downside. It is often just a very small rainbow colored dot in the image. It can usually be controlled with a filtered rubber lens hood add-on, or even putting your hand up to block the light path.

Distortion is very well controlled throughout the zoom.

Color is always wonderful. The color always pops with this with a very impressive vibrancy. Very much Minolta color, color being the strongest point of this lens for me.

I quite like the build, its not heavy and solid as the Beercan, but it doesn't need to be, its not a huge telephoto zoom. The focus and zoom rings both glide very smoothly, though the focus ring does rotate.

The bokeh isn't fabulous, but its decent for an f/4 wide angle zoom, better then average bokeh for lens type.

I put this up against the 18-70 f/3.5-4.5 G ED Nikkor (that is *not* their Kit lens), and it ran circles around it, for what that is worth.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jvandegr   review date: January-05-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24mm f/2.8
Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta 50mm f/1.7
Minolta 35-70mm f/4.0

positive:

Compact
Low weight
Constant f/4
Can be sharp at any focal length
True Minolta colors

negative:

Soft at 50mm f/4
Included hood of limited use
Focus ring needs better dampening

comment:

On a Sony A350, this lens is sharp at any aperture from 24mm to about 36mm. Stopping down makes it even sharper, but I'm comfortable shooting at f/4 between these apertures. At 50mm, this lens is not sharp wide open. It really needs to be stopped down to f/5.6 and preferably to f/7.1 to get a critically sharp image. The good news is that it can compete with Minolta's original primes when stopped down. The more modern Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 is sharper with slightly better contrast at 24mm, but it too becomes softer toward its longer focal lengths.

Chromatic aberration is well controlled with this lens, although some is apparent in high contrast areas when shooting wide open. This is very common for the 1980's Minoltas. Distortion is also well controlled and not really a problem if care is taken to maintain a camera position that is level with the ground at 24mm. Flare can be a problem with very bright objects and the included lens good does little to prevent it. Still, I found slight changes in shooting angles were often enough to eliminate it.

Build quality is good and this lens is designed to last. The focus ring on my copy was looser than I would have preferred, but the zoom ring had nice dampening.

If 50mm is more critical to you than 24mm in a zoom lens, the Minolta 35-70mm f/4.0 is a noticeably sharper lens with even slightly better colors for the same weight and less money.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 1 

user: Ome_Joop   review date: January-04-09  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50 1.7
Minolta 28 2.8
Sony 18-70 kit

price paid:

100 Euro

positive:

Sharp
Small
Zoom
Constant F4

negative:

Flare!
Does it come with a real lenshood?
Limited zoom

comment:

Built like a tank (just like all other old Minolta's) it is more usefull than the 50 or 28 that i got (altough those are better used inside or low light).
One of it's problems is that it's a flare magnet and needs a proper hood (original doesn't help at all).
Wish there was a zoom like this (old style Minolta) but wider!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: suorama   review date: December-19-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 24 - 60 / 2,8
Minolta 50 / 1,7

price paid:

cannot remenber

positive:

Light weight and small.
Gives good pictures.
F4 all range

negative:

comment:

My first lens. It came to me with my Dynax 600si Classic.
I like use it with my film camera but after I get my Sony A100, it start stand my bookcase.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jedidentite   review date: October-25-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 Kit lens
50mm 1.7

price paid:

79 usd used

positive:

Sharp as a prime when used in the right situations.
Very small and light.
Cheap so I don't have to worry about being careful with it.

negative:

flares.
Limited range.

comment:

Bought this lens as i wanted something better than the kit lens. Didn't want to spend too much until i figured out what lens exactly did i want to spend all my pennies on. Very happy with it as my kit lens replacement.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: dogears   review date: October-24-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SAL1680CZ

positive:

Very sharp at 24mm
Minimum Focus Distance
Very good flare control!

negative:

comment:

Even with a short range of 24-50, this is fun to use and I really love the IQ specially at 24mm which I think is even sharper than SAL1680's 24mm. My copy suffers from a wobble when at 50mm. At 50mm, it is soft so I don't use it that much at that FL. From 24-35, it is very dependable. It really shines when used with film|FF where 24mm is 24mm :)

Get one if you find one, you'll absolutely love this lens. It's a keeper :)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: sparky81   review date: June-05-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 28-85 3.5-4.5 (old)
minolta 35-70 4.0 (old)
minolta 50 1.7
sigma 28-70 2.8 (non EX)
tamron 28-105 2.8

price paid:

300USD (used)

positive:

old good quality minolta lens
small
light
good, usefull range
perfect colors
sharp

negative:

it is what it is... don't expect more! :)

comment:

I bought this lens as I wanted something "better" than 50mm 1.7...

How is it better? For first - minimal focus distance is shorter, it is zoom so Yo can do what You can't with 50mm lens...

It has beautiful bokeh, lovely colors and even on A700 sensor it is quite sharp... Yes, of course, not as sharp as 50mm but... Do You really need such a sharpness anyway?

So, if You need small lovely lens that is superb in every little aspect, You should go for this little gem. I just love it and it never goes off my A700, unless I replace it with beercan ;)

And If You have 100-300 APO or 70-210 3.5-4.5, attach it's lens hood to this one and flare will be gone! :) It doesn't shade the corners and looks just like killer :D

And don't ask me, what lens would be better than this... After long searching and changing I just found my BEST... Here it is - 24-50!!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: ckone   review date: June-05-08  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG

price paid:

180 (ex+)

positive:

Small & compact
easy to use lens

negative:

Build a little bit weak
Hood?!?

comment:

It was a great lens which I always had as an easy to go lens; picture quality is typical Minolta Beercan Generation very good - I really loved it with every picture I shot; finally I sold it as it was too slow for me - I replaced it with the 2.8 Sigma 28-70.
The hood is nonsens, it doesn't help; build is okay, but zoom ring feels a little bit loose, but is always okay!
Rare lens not noticed by others - for I reason I can't understand; lens is underestimated - for sure.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: ja   review date: November-21-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Bard1   review date: August-26-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 kit, Min 70-210 4.5/5.6, Tamron 90mm macro

price paid:

145. usd

positive:

Sharp, Fast autofocus, light weight, great color, low distortion and CAs, price

negative:

nothing significant

comment:

In my opinion this lens is a real gem, yet I don't think I have ever seen it reccomended in a lens forum on this site. It's range, although not as wide as some, more than meets my needs for a wide angle architectural/landscape lens. I have the Sony 18-70 kit lens which I initially thought quite satisfactoty but never use it since I got this one. The excellent highlight and shadow detail combined with the rich colors and sharpness produces pictures that are typically crisp and pleasing to look at, something I can not often say for the kit lens. While very good wide open, all the way to 50mm, at 24mm, stopped down to f7-8 its sharpness is awesome. Although I have occasionally experienced flare issues I haven't found it to be a signifigant problem. Given my experience with them it is a mystery to me how this and the equally overlooked 70-210 4.5/5.6 recieve so little attention from fellow Dyxum members.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: artuk   review date: July-10-07  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 20-35 F3.5-4.5
Sigma 24-70 EX DG f2.8

price paid:

$180 New

positive:

Sharpness fully open
Very good distortion control
Compact & Lightweight

negative:

Nothing specific

comment:

Originally launched in the late 1980s, not long after the release of Minoltas first auto focus cameras (e.g. 7000), this was an early "wide angle" zoom. It is important not to forget that at this time, an angle of coverage on full frame of 24mm would be regarded as quite extreme in a zoom lens design - most standard zooms would start at around 35mm, or maybe 28mm if they were newer more adventurous designs! The lens used a relatively complex design that changes the size of the aperture during zooming to maintain a constant aperture.

The sharpness of this lens is surprisingly good. Technical tests at the time revealed a solid performance. At 24mm, central resolution is very good straight from full aperture, with corners that are also good. (Corner resolution on any wide angle zoom will never match central resoltuon at full aperture, though should improve when stopping down. It is an inherant weakness of wideangle zoom design). Stopping down by a single stop improves performance, and brings near parity from centre to edge. Overall performance on full frame at 24mm is very good, and can be used at full aperture with confidence.

Performance across the focal length range is consistent. At the 50mm end, the overall performance is also strong, with good centre and corner performance from full aperture. Stopping down improves performance to very good.

The lens exhibits the "classic" look of early 1980s lens designs. Colour is well saturated and gives the "liquid" feel to some Minolta lenses of this era, which appeared to favour micro-contrast over absolute resolution (see my comments on Minolta 35-200 Xi and Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5). Contrast is moderate by current standards, but this tends to protect shadow detail, and I find it preferable and more "pictorial" than the current trend for aggressively high contrast modern lens designs. Overall colour and contrast are very good to excellent (borderline 4 or 5).

The lens is in typical early Minolta AF livery, with a shiny black surface and wide ribbed zoom ring. Construction is mostly engineering grade plastic and some metal (e.g. lens mount). A typical Minolta thin clip-on lens hood in included. Filter size is a modest 55mm. Overall it is a lightweight comapct lens, but better made than modern kit lenses.

One of the advantages of such a modest zoom range is surprisingly good control of rectalinear distortion. The specification would have been dictated by it's vintage and lack of significant computer aided design. Lens designs of the time relied on the knowledge and experience of the designer and what was possible; today, lenses may be designed and prototyped on computer before a sample is ever manufactured. By designing a lens with a modest zoom range, the distortions in the lens are kept within a manageable range, which can then be corrected for. The result is that whilst there is a small amount of rectalinear distortion and field distortion (barrel distortion at 24mm and pin-cushion distortion at 50mm), edges remain remarkably true and flatness of field is very good. Surprisingly for a zoom, the lens could be used for architectural work without great concern.

The front element is of modest size and not extremely convex, therefore I have never noticed any significant problem with flare.

Overall, a very good performance. I like the "look" of the pictures taken with this lens very much. I find the low distortion, wide coverage on full frame, and very good performance wide open ideal for city and architectural use. A lovely little lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mudslinger   review date: October-06-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- 24-105/3.5-4.5 (D)
- 28-75/2.8 (D)
- 50/1.7
- 28/2.8

price paid:

$130 (Used)

positive:

- Light Weight

negative:

- Odd range
- Not sharp wide open

comment:

I expected this lens to be much sharper than the 24-105; however, after testing the two lenses, the 24-105 was sharper at all ranges and apertures up to 8 between 24-50. It's an odd range, especially considering the 1.5 crop factor on a digital camera. Both the 50/1.7 and 28/2.8 produced sharper pictures than the 24-50/4 as well. At the current used prices ($115+) I really can't recommend this lens unless you simply need it to feel a void in ranges.

You might also find this thread of interest:
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=7157

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: kusa   review date: July-12-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Minolta 18-70/3.5-5.6
- Minolta 28/2.8
- Minolta 50/1.7

price paid:

85 EUR (used)

positive:

- small and light
- AF speed is ok
- very sharp
- minimal distortion

negative:

- filter rotates
- flare
- range a bit short at WA end

comment:

A very good zoom : sharp, small, practically no distortion.
Its range becomes a bit less interesting with digital (36-75 equivalent) but is quite useful nonetheless.
Its main problem is flare, care must be taken when taking pictures with strong lights around.
This lens has become my walkaround lens because of its size, weight and very good picture quality.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: taomeister   review date: July-09-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

20/2.8,28-85/3.5-4.5,28-100kit

positive:

Cheap, sharp, good AF speed.

negative:

Flare, filter rotation annoying.

comment:

I noticed no distortions and the color was fine. It's small and light and a decent travel lens, but flare was an issue even when the sun isn't in the frame, even with the useless hood on. Not as sharp as the primes in the range, as expected.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: oliphoto   review date: June-08-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

negative:

comment:

[Note: Performance judged on usage with a full frame camera]

I don't understand why this lens has not become more popular, even in the film days. It's sharpness is good at 35mm and 50mm. But it is really outstanding at 24mm (stopped down a bit), where this lens is the most likely to be used. I was quite shocked to see that this lens at 24mm and f:8 was the best performer of all the lenses I have. Yes, it's better than the 28mm f:2 or the 85mm G.

This is a very rewarding lens when used in its sweet spot.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: Panito   review date: January-24-06  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

- Good standard range for digital (eq. 35-75mm)
- Very sharp
- Compact and light

negative:

- Front lens turns when focusing

comment:

Sharp is very good at 24mm and 35mm wide open and excellent >f/5.6, quite good at 50mm wide open and very good >f/5.6.

Very compact, this is an excellent lens for travel.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: lifephoto.it   review date: December-04-05  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Light and solid

negative:

Lens turns when focusing

comment:

In my opinion, very good lens, but unforunately with 7D it shifts to a 36-75 mm, so a bit "tele" and long for life-reportage. Perhaps I should buy a 12-24 mm, but when Minolta will be produce it?.....
;-)

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 2 

user: Rainer   review date: July-25-05  

tested on film camera:

tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:; 16MP:; 24MP:

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 3.5-4.5 / 19..35mm

positive:

Light weight
Fast autofocus

negative:

Lousy flare control
Front turns with AF

comment:

I liked it due to its size and quick response.
With 7D, its focal range isn't very attractive anymore and the lower sharpnes becomes apparent.
Biggest problem is flare control, even with the associated lens hood. For many years, I used a rectangular 24mm lens hood, which I had to readjust after each focusing.

The Tamron 19..35mm is better in any respect except AF speed, color and of course size.