Minolta AF 24-50mm F4 A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 49    1 2 >>
reviewer#38881 date: Jun-14-2017
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
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:Minolta 24-105mm
Minolta 28 - xx
Minolta 35-70mm f4
Minolta 50mm f1.7
Sony 18-55mm
SOny dt primes
Lots of other Sony & Minolta lenses.
price paid:£49
positive:Compact
well made
constant aperture
sharp wide open
useful zoom range
good MFD
nice feel
negative:busy bokeh
prone to flare
comment:Not a particularly common or much talked-about lens, but worth a look nevertheless. It's very much from the same stable as the more common 35-70mm f4, with similar appearance. It is slightly larger, which is not a problem at all as it is still a compact lens, but it is nicer in a several ways; firstly the narrow focussing ring is not inset like some of the other similar lenses (50mm f1.7) and not quite such a pain to use if you have a lens hood. Secondly it focusses much closer which is a benefit. Lastly, it has a much more useful zoom range for general scenic work. It's really nice to have a decent 24, 28, 35, and 50mm lens available without having to carry a lot of primes (as I used to do before I came across zooms).
I haven't done a lot of testing on this lens, but speak from experience using it. It seems pretty sharp wide open, possibly sharper than the 24-105mm which is one of my favourite lenses, and it's quite happy being left at f4 most of the time.
I've read some comments about geometry but haven't noticed any issues myself. Like most old lenses it suffers badly from flare, so you will need a lens hood. There is no bayonet fitting, but a collapsible 55mm screw-on rubber hood works well. On APS-C you can leave this up all the time, but on FF/film you will need to collapse it below 35mm or so, being aware that you may get vignetting on film or digital that is not evident through the restricted view of the OVF. Even collapsed, though, the hood still gives you benefit at 24mm.
Downsides? There are a few.
The aperture is quite slow at f4 and on film I found myself wishing for an f2 or f1.7 prime more than once. Not such an issue on digital.
This lens isn't a good lens for portraits, not long enough and with poor bokeh. The bokeh is very busy near MFD at all focal lengths, and through the OVF of my 600si it looks terrible, though images taken with the A58 (APS-C digital) never show this and although backgrounds are often more busy than I'd like, I haven't had to reject any digital pics for bad bokeh. Odd!
The lens seems to me to be a very good choice for scenic and general use on film, and perhaps on FF digital, but I can't really recommend it for APS-C simply because the Sony 18-55mm dt SAM II lens is so much better in almost every respect except aperture, and has a usefully wider zoom range too. That's progress, I guess, but if you like older lenses this is still a good one.
reviewer#27605 date: Jun-12-2016
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
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:Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM
Sony DT 16-80 CZ
Sony DT 16-105
Sony DT 18-55 SAM II
Sony DT 18-135 SAM
Minolta AF 24 F2.8
Minolta AF 28 F2.8
Minolta AF 50 F1.7
Minolta AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5
Minolta AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D
Minolta AF 35-70 F4
Sigma AF 24 F2.8
Tamron SP 17-50 F2.8
price paid:54 USD (used)
positive:Size and weight
Close focusing
Smooth and nicely weighted zoom mechanism
Very little lens extension
Parfocal
55 mm filter size
negative:A little soft
Softer at long end
Curved focus plane
Purple fringing at long end
Filter threads rotate with focus
Minor focus breathing
Tiny circular hood
comment:I bid too much on this lens, but it is in good shape and works reasonably well. The obvious comparison is to the later Minolta AF 24-85 F3.5-5.6. That lens is larger and heavier and doesn't keep f/4 at 50 mm. The other obvious comparison is with the little Minolta AF 35-70 F4 kit lens. The larger 24-50 F4 feels much nicer and has much closer focusing ability. It is very similar in size and weight to the 1988 version of the 35-105 F3.5-4.5.

The 24-50 and 24-85 have similar distortion at 24 mm, and the two perform rather similarly. The 24-50 has less of a warm color cast. Both of the zooms are a bit wider than the Minolta AF 24 F2.8.

The 24-50 is considerably larger than the 35-70 F4, but the 24-50 doesn't extend as far as the 35-70 F4 at its maximum at 35 mm. Like the DT kit lenses and 35-70 the 24-50 is fully retracted at 35 mm. Also like the 18-55 it extends more at the widest end than the longest end.

The zoom mechanism is very smooth and nicely weighted. Despite being an external focus design it has negative focus breathing (the focal length decreases a little with close focus.)

The stock circular hood is comically small--even shorter than the 28/18mm circular hood. The larger clip-on hoods from the 70-210/75-300/100-300 lenses fit perfectly and don't vignette on APS-C.

Test chart comparison on an A65 with the 24-85, Carl Zeiss 16-80, Tamron 17-50 F2.8, and Sony DT 18-135 SAM.
reviewer#15253 date: May-21-2015
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:Sony AF DT 18-55/3.5-5.6 SAM
Minolta AF 24/2.8
Minolta AF 28/2.8
Minolta AF 50/1.7
Minolta AF 24-85/3.5-4.5
price paid:555 SEK (66$)
positive:Nice small lens, fixed max aperture through the zoom range.
negative:Some distortion, a little more flares than the fixed lenses. Not as sharp either. Approx as sharp as the kit lens on APS-C. Corners in FF needs stopping down. Sharper than my copy of 24-85.
comment:Nice small light lens with nice sturdy build. Focal length is great for walk around on APS-C, and is great for architecture on FF:
reviewer#11890 date: Jul-3-2014
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:Sony 18-55 F3.5-5.6 (original)
Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 28-135mm F4-4.5 (Secret Handshake)
Minolta 35-70mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-80mm F4-5.6 II
price paid:110 USD (used)
positive:Nice IQ
Light and compact
Covers popular 24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm
negative:Lens hood is a joke
Mediocre speed
~2x zoom factor
Price. Not expensive per se but 2nd most expensive used lens on this list.
comment:I went on a bit of a FleaBay lens buying binge. As you can see, I need another lens around the range of the Minolta 24-50mm like a hole in my head. ;^) I think my logic in buying it was it was a wee bit wider (though I also own the 11-18mm Sony so really...).

Then again, I find each lens has it's own characteristics and appeal. Nothing here particularly expensive so what's the problem?

The colors aren't exactly classic Minolta. Ironically, one of my better examples of those wonderful colors on the above list is my Minolta 35-70mm which I picked up on FleaBay for $16. But the 24-50mm is a more solid performer that's never let me down. Not as solid of a performer as the 'Secret Handshake' which is just 'wow' special. Yet, I rarely use the 'Secret Handshake' because it's big and clunky with poor ergonomics (I have floppy rubber hood on it making it look comical). The 24-50mm is a very useful range, extremely light and compact, and just a joy to use.

All that said, I tend rotate between the 35-70mm (and the very similar 35-80mm that set me back like $26), 24-50mm, and the 28-85mm. Partly based on mood, part random grab, part what I plan to shoot. The cheap lenses have bolder colors as long as I keep the sun behind me morning or evening. The 28-85mm gives me a classic '80s postcard look in strong light. The 24-50mm is more modern without the boring neutral colors of the Sony 18-55mm kit. The 18-55mm is a fine kit lens with modern performance; however, it's images are, IMHO, too dull.

Sharpness-wise, the 24-50mm is fine but not the best of the bunch. The cheaper Minoltas are surprising sharp though distortion can be laughable and you've got to keep the sun strictly to your back. The 28-85mm is on par with the 24-50mm but with an older body style - yeah, that quirky macro switch.

The hood that comes with the 24-50mm is a joke. Seriously. I put it on out of habit but I can't imagine it preventing flare. The good news is I haven't had flaring problems with the lens.

If you plan to have only 1 lens in the range I don't think I'd recommend this lens. But if you like to fiddle around with different lenses this is a lens I *really* like. Like a *lot*.

Here are some full-size samples (un-retouched jpegs):

https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3733/14262455434_4df5426380_o.jpg
Bokeh example:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5579/14169252743_8e16619857_o.jpg
Distortion test (or sorts):
https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3827/12040880436_d53533f81a_o.jpg

reviewer#11879 date: Jun-24-2014
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
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 18-55
Sony 35 SAM
Minolta 35-70 F4
Minolta 28-135
Minolta Macro 50 2.8
price paid:80 USD used
positive:Small and compact
Excellent range on film
Constant F4
Close focusing at a little over a foot
negative:Distortions across the board, particularly noticeable on the wide end, peters out 35 and onwards.
Impossible to find hood, alternatives on APS-C.
Beware of the Flare.
As with all vintage lens, CA.
comment:This is my goto lens on both film and APS-C digital, it's small and it's got a pretty good zoom range on both. While often compared to as the weaker brother to the 35-70, it does have quite a few advantages over it's cheaper more popular brethren.

* Closer focusing: The 24-50 can get close, prime close. Starting in at a little over a foot, the 35-70 on the other hand needs 3x the distance.

* Common 55 thread: This thread size is shared by several consumer grade lens both vintage and new, makes switching filters a pinch.

I was never able to find a proper hood for it on film but luckily any generic screw on or the 100-300 APO hood work perfectly.
reviewer#11594 date: Jan-8-2014
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
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 used to own this lens
compared to:MinO 35-70/4
MinO 28-135
MinO 50/1.7 and 50/2.8 Macro
price paid:200 (used)
positive:- Compact
- Sharp
- Solid build
- Constant f/4
negative:- Short range
comment:I very much enjoyed using this lens, as with most of the original Maxxum lineup from the mid-1980's. It is solidly built, it is very sharp and delivers sharp results.

Because of the short range I had to have many lenses to cover a full FL range, and as such many lenses overlapped, I did not use it much and I ultimately sold it with a few other items to fund a pared-down f/2.8 dual zoom lens setup.
reviewer#11585 date: Jan-4-2014
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 3
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:Sigma 24/2.8 AF II
price paid:175 USD
positive:Great zoom range for APS-C, equiv to 35-70 full-frame
constant aperture
small and sturdy
negative:Mustache-shaped distortion at all focal lengths, difficult to correct for
Lens hood is pretty useless
You'll find yourself reaching for a good prime to swap
Not well suited for macro, video or manual focus
CA very noticeable against sky
Not particularly sharp at the corners and edges, even on APS-C

comment:This lens came recommended by Gary Friedman's A57 book, but clearly there was more to read first. I took this lens on a trip to Quebec and spent the next two weeks correcting for complex distortion on every image with a straight line or WA perspective. Also, every image had some kind of focus issue, either hyperfocus or general unpleasantness in bokeh. With this zoom, I never feel like I get a clean image out of the camera and is why I generally HATE zooms. I did use this lens to shoot a small party with a bounce flash of people standing around and it did fine, but for the money, I could have had many more high-quality options.

Sigh...I really wanted to like this lens and the longer I own it, the less I use it. I paid too much, didn't read the Dyxum reviews first and didn't know that the rare RS version is much better. I did know that the Sony 16-50/2.8 is in a league by itself and for a couple of hundred more, could have had a nice copy off ebay.
reviewer#11573 date: Jan-1-2014
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
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:Minolta AF 50 f1.7
Minolta AF 24-50 f4.0
Minolta AF 28-135 f4-4.5
Sony 18-135 f3.5-5.6
Konica Minolta 11-18 f4.5-5.6
price paid:89€
positive:Lightness, size, build
Amazing colors
Good distortion
Sharpness at center
negative:Not good sharpenss performance at corners
Not a useful range on a APSC
comment:Bought this lens to replace may fixed focal Minolta lenses (28mm f2.8,50 mm f1.7) and get an extra 4mm at the wide end.

Very good lens, fast autofocus and really silent for a mid 80´s zoom. Really light and well built, small but smooth ring focus and a good rubber zoom ring.

The thing that I appreciate the most of this lens is its beautiful color rendering, amazing, better than anything I saw before, the reason why I used it even more than my sony 18-135.

Sharpness at centers is good, but corners performance is worse, specially compared to the sony or the minolta 28-135, but takes a really good pictures.

I love this lens, I used it for panorama pictures since at 28mm has a decent sharpness and no distortion at all. If you can get it at a reasonably price (90-120€) I´ll buit without any doubt, it must be great on a FF camera.
reviewer#10923 date: Feb-16-2013
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:* 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.
reviewer#10753 date: Dec-4-2012
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: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 !
reviewer#10355 date: Jul-3-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
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: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.
reviewer#10202 date: May-15-2012
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:Sony CZ 24-70mm f2.8 SSM
MinOolta28-105mm f3.5-4.5 RS
Tokina 28-70mm f2.8
Tamron 28-75mm f2.8
price paid:
missing
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!

Update: I have been using this lens primarily for landscape and the more I use it the more I love it! It has the best rendering among all the above mentioned lenses. To me it give shape where others look relatively flat. The color is so close to the Beercan f4 that I pair them up when I go shooting. Absolutely no regrets!
reviewer#10193 date: May-13-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 4
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: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.
reviewer#9731 date: Dec-30-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 3
flare control: 5
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:
missing
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.
reviewer#9659 date: Dec-3-2011
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: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!
reviewer#9633 date: Nov-27-2011
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:Mini Beercan
price paid:USD 200
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
comment:
missing
reviewer#9555 date: Nov-1-2011
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 3
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 own this lens
compared to:CZ 16-80
price paid:
missing
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.
reviewer#9548 date: Oct-30-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 5
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 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.
reviewer#9441 date: Sep-21-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
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: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"
reviewer#9392 date: Sep-5-2011
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
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: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!
reviewer#9276 date: Jul-28-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
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:
missing
price paid:
missing
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.
reviewer#9115 date: Jun-9-2011
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:Sigma AF 17-70mm F/2.8-4.5 DC Macro
Minolta AF 28-85mm F/3.5-4.5
Sigma AF 24-70mm F/2.8 EX DG
Tamron AF 28-75mm F/2.8
Minolta AF 24-105mm (D)
Minolta/Tamron AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4
Sony/Minolta AF 18-70mm DT
Sony AF 18-50mm DT
Minolta AF 35-70mm F4 Macro
price paid:£47.00 (used)
positive:Close MFD
Excellent colour rendition
Decent sharpness (needs stopping down to improve)
Weight (light)
WA capability
Smooth bokeh
negative:Image quality (IQ) unless stopped-down.
Minimal lens hood protection for flare control
Not best suited for APS-C bodies
comment:Since moving to FF from the A700, I wanted a short MFD wide-angle (WA) lens, and this lens can produce excellent results after making some adjustments.

It's light and pretty sharp though soft on the edges thus the lens needs to be stopped-down for improved sharpness and image quality (IQ) and the colour rendition is classic Minolta and the bokeh is buttery smooth.

Flare control isn't the best due to the small OEM lens hood much like that for the Min AF 35-70/4 Macro.

It's a half decent lens, but the focal range is a bit odd and you might want to consider the Min AF 24-105mm (D) as it has a more versatile focal range, though the Min 24-50/4 can be used for various purposes which includes walkaround or for wide-angle (WA) use, though wider aperture lens options under 24mm are limited and apart from one Minolta 17-35mm G lens, the rest are of entry-level quality. Quality full-frame WA lenses are very limited (more like non-existent) unlike their APS-C format cousins for which you're spoilt for choice and also produce far superior image quality (IQ) compared to those in full frame format.

Would I recommend it? Well, yes and no. There are other options even if you considered a Min AF 24/2.8 prime or a 24-105 (D) lens, but for it's physical weight, short minimum focal distance (MFD), focal range and image quality (once stopped down), it's almost in a unique section of it's own in which case the answer is yes.
reviewer#8790 date: Mar-14-2011
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 35-70/4
Minolta AF 50/1.7
price paid:about 100 Euros
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
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.
reviewer#8338 date: Dec-2-2010
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
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: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.
reviewer#7170 date: Mar-27-2010
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 own this lens
compared to:Minolta AF24-85
Minolta AF24-105D
Minolta AF28-135
Minolta AF35-70 F4
Tokina AF20-35 Pro
price paid:
missing
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.
reviewer#6916 date: Feb-16-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 5
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 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.


reviewer#6397 date: Nov-16-2009
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
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:
missing
price paid:245 (Amazon)
positive:
missing
negative:
missing
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
reviewer#6395 date: Nov-16-2009
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:20,sigma 24 f1.8, 24-105
price paid:
missing
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.
reviewer#6159 date: Oct-2-2009
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
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: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.
reviewer#5896 date: Aug-24-2009
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 3
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: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.
reviews found: 49    1 2 >>

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 49
  • sharpness: 4.37
  • color: 4.84
  • build: 4.57
  • distortion: 4.39
  • flare control: 3.80
  • overall: 4.39

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+