Minolta AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5  reviews

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: kamabazi   review date: May-19-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70mm
Minolta 28-105mm
Sony 18-70mm

price paid:

55 USD

positive:

Minolta colors
Build Quality
IQ

negative:

Heavy
Sharpness at extreme ends

comment:

Nice lens for the price. Colors are vibrant and truly Minolta.
Sharpness near 28 and 85mm is not as sharp as in the middle.

This has been my walk around lens for almost 2 years and just recently acquired the Minolta 28-105mm, I am in process of comparing the two. Being heavy and short on the long range is really the only big concerns with this lens

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: steve kobe   review date: May-11-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28mm/2.8
Minolta 35mm/2.0
Minolta 50mm/1.4
Minolta 85mm/1.4
Sony 85mm/2.8

price paid:

CHF45

positive:

Good sharpness in medium zoom range
Great colors
Versatile zoom range on FF
Great build quality

negative:

Flimsy hood

comment:

This is a very useful walk around lens. In the medium zoom range it is sharp and actually compares quite well with the primes when stopped down to 5.6 or 8. At 28mm and 85 mm corners are soft, but actually at least as good as with the 28mm/2.8. Of course it does not reach the superb IQ of the 35, 50 and 85mm lenses and you are limited regarding DOF. Colors are great and the build quality is excellent. Plus you can't beat the price quality ratio. I am thinking of getting the Tamron 24-70/2.8, but whenever I look at the pictures of the Minolta I am wondering whether it is worth the extra money. Would appreciate comments on this "problem".

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: shadowgunner   review date: April-25-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 kitlens
Mino 35-70 F4
Mino 35-105 RS

price paid:

50 USD

positive:

sharp throughout the range
Minolta colors
tank like build
I use the beercan type lens hood: no flare issues.
Macro mode

negative:

a little heavy for the range.
not as useful in low light (without flash).
Minor CA in strong light and high contrast situations.

comment:

This has evolved into my go-to lens for most situations. I bought it a number of years ago on ebay attached to a Minolta 7000. I wasn't satisfied with the kit lens on my new A300. This lens has covered my favorite range and shooting conditions (outdoors with good light). I find that indoors it definitely needs light from a flash unit. With the macro mode it handles moderate closeups nicely. It is almost always sharp, whereas the kitlens it replaced was never sharp enough. I use it currently on an A700 and the performance is still excellent. My copy exhibits a touch of barrel distortion at the short end; but is easily corrected in PP. The CA is also easily corrected. The standard hood is a joke; doesn't help much. I use the beercan style hood which came with my RS 35-105; it works perfectly on this lens.

If I lost the use of this lens, I would definitely replace it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Freddan_6   review date: April-20-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 50 f/1.4
KonicaMinolta AF 28-75 f/2.8
Sony AF DT 18-55 f/3.5-5.6
Sony AF DT 18-135 f/3.4-5.6
Sony AF DT 50 f/1.8
Sony AF DT 35 f/1.8
Tamron AF 17-50 f/2.8 DI II
Sigma AF 70 f/2.8 EX DG Macro

price paid:

48$

positive:

Sharpness (especially short end), colors

negative:

flares, brightness

comment:

I use my f/2.8 lenses more. It is very prone to flares. In nordic countries it is best for the cloudy days. I even gets flares from just a lightbulp indoor. Colors are wonderful. Built to last I think. It is much darker than the other leses I prefer, so the narrow dof photos I am into right now is not that easy to take. But at the long end it is brighter than the kit lens. If you plan portaits with nothing disturbing behind you can get wonderful pictures. At f/4.5@85mm there is a small softness that is perfect for portraits if you dont have anything disturbing objects behind. OK bokeh.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: April-18-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105
Minolta 28-105 (original)
Minolta 24-85 (original)

price paid:

£35 GBP

positive:

Sharp
Minolta colours
Build

negative:

Needs hood
Noisy Af

comment:

Not quite as good as the above lenses, but at this price couldn't resist. Another addition to my beercan zoom collection

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Titticec   review date: March-26-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

28 euro

positive:

ben costruito, vecchia concezione(lenti in vetro), colori eccellenti, funzione macro

negative:

pesante

comment:

belli i colori!le lenti sono in vetro e pesano un po' ma la resa è decisamente eccezionale!per i nostalgici dei vecchi obiettivi minolta questo è un cult! si trovano a basso prezzo su ebay, molti in pessimo stato, come la mia copia che aveva il barilotto molto rovinato! se si prende in buono stato a meno di 40euro è un vero affare!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: homeranger   review date: February-03-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

N/A

positive:

Build Quality
Affordable & Value
Macro
Minolta Colors
Great for portraits, flowers, and landscapes.

negative:

Maybe a bit heavy for some. I actually liked the weight.
Some CA.

comment:

I really enjoyed this lens. It was on my camera a lot because of the versatility of focal range. Great walk around lens. I primarily used it for flower and landscape photos.

I really liked the color this lens produced. I also liked the heft of this lens. You could feel the quality that went into to build this lens.

I would definitely recommend this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: evtansk   review date: November-25-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 RS
Tamron 28-200 F3.4-5.6 XR IF
DT 18-55

price paid:

115

positive:

Sharpness, Solid, Colour, Macro

negative:

Size & Weight, 85mm must at least F8, not so good in low light cond.

comment:

Owned this lens right after I jump ship from Nikon D90 and got my self the a57. All I can say is the performance of this lens is superb! 28-85mm is just nice for me to carry around for street photography anywhere I go.

Sharpness is good from 28mm all the way to 85mm although start from 70-80mm, things got tricky. Those who facing sharpness drop, just set your aperture all the way to F8 and problem solved (at least on my copy).

Macro quality is great too! With the help of Peaking Function available, shooting in MF macro mode is fun and the red-colour-peaking-zone helps in determine which area u preferred to be sharp/focused.

The only downside of this lens is the weight and the size. I can live with it, but for those who travel frequent and size&weight is always 1st priority, I would say too bad then :)

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: kerplunk   review date: June-22-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 RS
Minolta - AF 28-135 F4-4.5
Minolta - AF 35-70 F4
Minolta - AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5
Tamron - SP AF 28-75 F2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical IF

price paid:

40 USD (used)

positive:

Nice size, weight, feels solid.
Sharp at 28mm.
Colors are great.

negative:

Not sharp at 85mm, pretty bad really.
Flare is pretty bad, a common issue with lenses of this age.

comment:

The lens has the nice solid feel of the older Minolta lenses with the metal construction without being too large or heavy.

It it pretty sharp at 28mm wide open, but somewhere in the range up to 85mm that goes away, and it gets pretty bad.

I'm not sure if it came with a hood, mine didn't, but I'm sure if there was one, it was similar in size / shape as the other lenses of this era, and piratically worthless, combined with a lack of modern coating to defer flare, it can be an issue.

Some of the better Minolta lenses might cost a little more, but it's not that much more, and it's money well spent.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: JamieZ   review date: April-24-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 35-135 macro
Sony 18-55 kit lens
Tamron 17-50 f2.8

price paid:

35 USD used

positive:

Sharp
Minolta color
Great short range macro
Great for flowers and landscape

negative:

A little short on range for a walk around.

comment:

This is a walk around lens in the spring woodlands. Shooting lots of flower macros and family photos.
As always the Minolta built like a tank standard we all know and love.
It has been rained on, splashed with mud, dropped and banged around yet still
shots like a champ.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: pbagley   review date: February-21-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-55 SAM kit lens
18-70 KM kit lens
24-105 D
50/1.7 (2)

price paid:

60 USD

positive:

Sharp at 28 and 50mm
Great colors

negative:

Not so sharp at 85mm

comment:

This is a recent e-bay purchase, and it was purchased based on reputation. I wanted to compare it to the other lenses I own in this range using my a580. I used a remote shutter release for all shots, camera on a tripod, natural window light. ISO 400 for all shots. comparisons of near 1% center crops (535x804 pixels) were done.

First the good -
28mm - I compared to the 18-55 SAM and 24-105 D this lens is sharpest at f4, 5.6, and f8. Colors are very slightly better than the 24-105.

50mm - I compared to all the listed lenses. Sharpest of the bunch at f4 and 5.6. At f8 the SAM and 24-105 are sharper, and at f11 everything except the 18-70 is sharper.

note - One of the 50's is not as sharp as the other. I need to clean both 50's and try again.

Now the bad -
85mm - Not as sharp at any f stop compared to the 24-105D.

Conclusion - I'll keep this around for the excellent performance between 28 and 50mm, but for longer focal lengths I'll reach for something else.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: derekw   review date: September-16-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85 (original and RS)
Minolta 35-105 (original)
Minolta 28-105 RS

price paid:

45 GBP

positive:

Sharp
Wonderful colour
Build

negative:

Macro at wide end
Flares without hood

comment:

Good lens, but not as sharp as my copies of 24-85s, 28-105 RS and the 35-105, which I rate as the sharpest zoom I have ever used, along with the Tamron 20-40 which I foolishly sold.

Very sharp at 28mm, but sharpness falls gradually away past 50 mm.

Notwithstanding, considering its price compared to the lenses above a very good buy if on a tight budget.

Needs a big hood to combat flare (I use the beercan hood)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: piano0047   review date: September-15-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-105, 35-105 (not beercan version). Fixed 28mm 2,8,50mm 1,7

price paid:

85USD

positive:

Cheap,solid,sharp,especially at the wide end,beautiful colour.

negative:

Not quite as sharp in the tele range.

comment:

Everything seems to have been said before. But shortly: my copy of this lens is WONDERFUL in the wide end. The colours are simply beautiful and the lens gives punchy pictures with exellent contrast. I can really say that it is as good or better than the fixed 28mm 2,8.Same sharpness- but more saturated colours. Already from 3,5 actually. And clearly sharper than 28-135mm.

But vice verca at the 85mm setting, and even 50mm. A little bit (5,6)stopped down it is ok even here. And at 8 very good. But the exellent pictures you get at 28mm-40mm is not reached in the rest of the focal range.

At 28mm the lens would have got 5+++ overall, except flare control.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: sonya300   review date: June-18-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

60.00

positive:

Sharp
Build
Colours
Macro

negative:

Heavy
Not true macro

comment:

A great lens, fab colours, a must have and cheap.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: olegoo   review date: April-01-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Sony Kit 18 -55
Exakta 28 - 105 2.8
Praktika 50 1.8
Minolta AF 50 F1.7

price paid:

25€

positive:

Definitely Minolta Colors
Sharp
Build Like A Tank
Macro Mode

negative:

Nothing, for this price

comment:

I bought this lens today from an old german man and it shows me again how great an original Lens from Minolta can be. My copy is brand new, which was bought in 1986 by the man. Absolutly sharp either normal Mode or macro Mode. The colour ist great und build Like A Tank with metal and glass. I'm in love with it and it becomes my walk around Lens now.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: blek   review date: March-26-11  

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 F4 "Baby Beercan"
Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6

price paid:

800.000 IDR

positive:

Definitely Minolta Colors
Sharp
Build Like A Tank
Macro Mode

negative:

Nothing, for this price.
CA? Well, there is, but again, that is normal for this price and you can correct it later.

comment:

Sharp, sharp, shaaarpp!!!
You got nothing to worry cropping anything came out from this lens. Acceptable images even from 100% crop.

Sweet bokeh from macro mode.
Definitely Minolta.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: mee   review date: March-13-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CZ1680

price paid:

US$ 30

positive:

Sharp
Minolta colours
Full Frame
Solid built like a tank

negative:

Weight for it's size
Focal length is short vs CZ1680
Bokeh & Macro at 28mm
Flare control as good as the Zeiss
Simply useless hood

comment:

This is the second copy that landed in my hand. It is underrated - maybe because of it's age. As sharp as the Zeiss. Love looking at the colour coatings on the front element that is richer than the Zeiss. Produce great colours like the other beercan series. Not a slouch performer compared to the Zeiss.
I will definitely look out for more copies just in case I damaged or loose those copies that I have.
Worth every penny.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: 12AMS   review date: March-06-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony SAL 18-55mm SAM
Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5

price paid:

$65 CDN (used)

positive:

Excellent build
Beautiful colors
Great on a film camera

negative:

Poor sharpness
Lateral CA

comment:

I got this lens when I used film exclusively, and it was amazing on the 7000i. In fact, it was my favorite lens. Unfortunately, this opinion did not carry over to digital.

Although the build is typical original Minolta (think of a battleship made by Swiss watch-makers; tough and precise), and the rendition of skin colors are sublime, the almost blurred images that my copy gave me on digital made me want to rub my eyes every time I looked at a picture for any length of time. Also, even though it had absolutely no longitudinal CA, the lateral CA drove me nuts. I could often see it in a full-screen image; forget pixel peeping. And lateral CA does not go away when you stop down.

My copy of the Sony 18-55mm is quite sharp with absolutely no CA, and my copy of the original Minolta 35-105mm is simply outstanding, so I'm going to thank this lens for all the great memories it has provided on film and let this little bit of history go.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: dreamknight   review date: February-08-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-50mm (kit lens)
Minolta 50mm F1.7
Minolta 135mm F2.8
Minolta 24mm F2.8

price paid:

40€ (Used)

positive:

+ range
+ inexpensive
+ Good build
+ Macro

negative:

- front element rotates on focusing
- Heavy
- No AF in Macro

comment:

Reasonable lens, color has quite good when compared with the kit lens (sony 18-50mm). It is a little big and heavy.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: SChurchill   review date: February-07-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-105 F3.5-4.5 original
28-135
35-70 f4

price paid:

part of bundle

positive:

Solid build
55mm Filter

negative:

Awful CA
Very soft especially at corners

comment:

I bought this by mistake as I thought it was 35-105 included in a bundle of lenses and 8000i body.

Unlike the 35-105, which it looks almost identical to, this lens performs very badly. It's very soft especially at the corners. Even when stopped down on an APS-C sensor.

It also exhibits all forms of CA to a high degree in any moderate contrast areas. Ironically the 8000i body that came with it has become one of my favourites so I guess there was a silver lining.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: bertran2   review date: February-07-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105
Sigma 28-135
Sony 18-70

price paid:

85 USD (used)

positive:

Sharp
Great colors
Very well built

negative:

A little heavy
Small manual focus ring

comment:

This lens is much more sharper than the 18-70 kit lens.
But not as sharp as 24-105 that i have.
On APS-C is not wide enough but other than that it is very versatile lens.
The weight is not as big problem as i thought that time.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: tranq   review date: January-29-11  

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

price paid:

68 USD used

positive:

Sharp
Color
Build

negative:

Nothing for me

comment:

My copy is sharp enough even wide open. Something like beercan.
I bought it instead of kit 18-70 to use it outdoors at close distance. It fully coincideв with my awaitings: sharp and pleasant colors.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mydarkstars   review date: December-21-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 35-70mm f4
Min 35-105mm f3.5-4.5
Sony 18-55mm
Sony 18-70mm

price paid:

£50

positive:

Cheap
Range

negative:

Mine broke (but I fixed it)

comment:

My first Minolta lens, good performer compared against both Sony lens. Mine broke, a zoom screw came out but thanks to instructions on web, I managed to fix it. Any lens you can fix yourself is great!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 1 

user: rouncey   review date: November-26-10  

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 lense

price paid:

45 pounds

positive:

sharpness
build
price
macro

negative:

flare
focus a bit slow

comment:

I bought this on a well known auction site for 45pounds on the reviews from this site,and i dont regret a penny of it,every image is pin sharp,the colours are lovely and it just feels right on my sony a300.it is a bit slow to focus but i have tested it for 4 days now and its just spot on in my oppinion,the zoom is just buttery and i think i have got lucky and got a good one.if you havent got one,get it before the price goes up,you wont regret it!!!!!!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: flyingscot4   review date: October-20-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 28mm f2.8
Minolta 35-70 f4.0
Minolta 28-135mm

price paid:

45 USD (ebay)

positive:

AF speed
AF accuracy
great for portraits
excellent build
Minolta colors

negative:

flare

comment:

Generally, my comments echo those of other reviewers, but one addition I would make is the usefulness of this lens for portraiture. I was doing some family portraits one day and tried this lens on a whim. I own most of the inexpensive Minolta lenses (no G's) and I have tried them all on my a700. I have found that this lens is absolutely perfect for my portraiture. At f4.5, it is just slightly soft enough to make PP easy. If I'm doing a "character" portrait where facial lines are important, I just remove a ND filter and stop down to f8.0.

The colors are Minolta and the bokeh is great with painted or natural backgrounds. One thing that may help others is to use a "beercan" lens shade to help with flare. I do quite a few "high key" outdoor portraits using backlighting and this sun shade solves many of the problems. While this lens has flaws that can be solved with a big bankroll of cash, for me, the flaws become advantages.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 2 

user: RTGuy007   review date: October-19-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70mm f4
Sony 18-55mm Kit Lens
Horrid flare

price paid:

$75

positive:

Great Minolta Colors.
Solid Metal Construction.
Sharp Macro.
Creamy bokeh.

negative:

A little on the heavy side.
Not good for low lighting indoor situations.
Macro at 28mm

comment:

I have had this lens for a few months and this is my current walk around lens. This lens is great for outdoor and well lit shots. Indoor shots I find that I have to use a flash to get decent shots or swap over to my Minolta 50mm f/1.7. Indoor shots without flash in lower light seems to produce grainy pics regardless of how I setup the camera. My copy seems to be sharpest stopped down a little.

AF is not the fastest but it isn't that slow either. It can have a tendency to hunt in lower light situations. I have also noticed that my copy doesn't seem to work well with the SteadyShot OS on my A330 that well.

This lens is not good with flare. If you have any direct light it shows a lot of flare. I don't have a hood to see if that will help but without one, it is bad.

Overall this is a good replacement lens for either of the Sony kit lenses if you are on a budget. If you have some extra cash to throw around on a lens, I would recommend moving up to the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 as it produces much better results.

As a side note, I have noticed that getting a good copy of this lens is hard to do. Not really sure why that it. I do have another one in pieces trying to figure out why the zoom is locked up in it.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: fute77   review date: October-19-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tokina 28-70 AT-X
Tamron 28-75/2.8
KM 18-70
KM 17-35

price paid:

40€

positive:

Macro
cheap
nice range

negative:

Macro only at 28 :(

comment:

nice lens. Very good for its price.

It is the lens that is generally on my A350.

I am quite happy about it. got it for very cheap in order to test it

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: James Yeoh   review date: July-24-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

1870 kit lens

price paid:

GBP 50 (used)

positive:

Solid Built
Sharper than 1870 at the focal length ends ie 28mm and 70mm onwards
Reasonable Pricing

negative:

Blur at mid focal distance compared to 1870
Noisy autofocus

comment:

I bought this lense to hopefully replace my kit lens 1870.
Tested this lense and I was a little disappointed with the performance. It performs slightly better than the 1870 but lose out or equally sharp at focal length of 50mm. However, the color is very good, unlike 1870 which appear to have "washed out" color.
I have read many good comments about this lense and also some bad ones which some people had claimed to have a bad copy of this lense. I probably gotten myself a bad copy which reflects why it is not as sharp as I initially thought this will be.
But after doing the comparison I am fairly happy with it slightly outperform 1870 and with the warm minolta color, its going to be my new walk around lens. Overall, a fair quality lense.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: leung0323   review date: July-24-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

75 USD

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: alphafreak   review date: July-13-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 24-75 f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8

price paid:

75.00 (USD) Mint

positive:

*Good Focal length for a walkaround
*Well Built like most AF lenses of its time
*Sharp stopped up (f/5 +)
*Affordable

negative:

*Soft from 3.5-4.5
*A tad Heavy

comment:

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: JamesAlpha850   review date: July-03-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony AF50mm f1.4
Sony AF100mm f2.8 macro
Minolta AF70-210mm Beercan
Minolta AF28-135 f4-4.5
Minolta AF 24mm f2.8
Tamron AF 28-300mm XR f3.5-6.3

price paid:

45.00USD

positive:

Renders lovely saturated colors
Has ideal kit range for FF DSLR
Is a superby-crafted lens
AF is responsive and sharp
Good availability at cheap price
Macro useful for effects

negative:

Weighty, but balanced on FF and offset by excellent build.
Not coated for flare. Don't shoot directly into the sun unless you seek flare. Invest in screw-on hood.

comment:

This is doubtless one of those underrated gems from Minolta 1985 vintage that perfectly auto-focuses on your Sony Alpha 850 or 900. While I alternate it as my walk-around zoom, it deserves mention for specialized uses, such as artistic imaging combined with skillful PP. You must appreciate it for what it is, a well-crafted optical. It is built to last. Great dampened zoom ring action. The range is a perfect fit for the FF and the colors are uniquely Maxxum, beautifully saturated. I have several lenses which are sharper than the 28-85, but, frankly, the stopped-down sharpness of this lens exceeds what I first expected of it, especially in the center. The edges fall off slightly, but at f5.6 they tighten up nicely. Maybe it helps to have a solid copy. For snapping shots at a party, outdoor events, it is ideal. For more serious portraiture, I can use it for a certain mood, given the richness of color it produces. I enjoy experimenting with the 28mm macro, even if it is not a fast AF100mm macro. I can move in really close for goofy wide angle portraits, although the macro of the AF35-105mm is much more functional. The 28mm macro range of this lens and the AF 28-135mm is limiting. My other Minolta zooms handle nicely, albeit with more weight than most of the modern production zoom lenses I have tried. As far as the 28-85 is concerned, I love its convenience, MFD and, yes, I will even say its images. Stopped down beyond f5.6, the sharpness of the 28-85 is better than my Tamron 28-300, much better than the kit lens that came on my KM 5D, and almost as nice as the Beercan. Can't touch the sharpness of the 35-105(old) or the 28-135, however. I would say that this is a great utility lens for FF owners and as such, a keeper. Great addition to the Sony Alpha array of lenses or just a great first lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Karel   review date: May-27-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-80 silver
fixed focal lenses
similar lenses from competitors

price paid:

85 Euro (used)

positive:

Build quality
Performance

negative:

Weight

comment:

Even an older lens design can perform very well. This lens is a fine example of good older optical design.
I think only a Sony or Zeiss prime design can outperform this lens.
I compared this lens with the good zoom lenses of Canon and this lens is the better one. Compared with a good fixed focus, the quality equals if you stop down 1 or 2 stops.
The disadvantage is the weight and the slower focus.
I use this lens on a 600Si Classic and a 3i. The lens (weight) is well balanced. Combined with a Dynax 5, you carry a lens with a camera :-)
This lens needs a good lens hood.
Macro capability is not like a real macro-design but for occasional use, it is a possible option.
Look for a good cosmetic and functional example, I found mine after a few weeks searching the net and a few local camera dealers. The price I paid was without orriginal lens hood or minolta lens cover. With this lens, price isn't important.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Alphaholik   review date: May-08-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

All the lenses I have personally used.

price paid:

80 USD MINT

positive:

SHARP SHARP SHARP
Colors (It's a Minolta)
Bokeh
Built like a German Tank.

negative:

Flare

comment:

So Sharp you could come away bleeding ;~) Simply LOVE this lens!!!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: April-18-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5

price paid:

L30

positive:

Sharp
Colour
Build

negative:

Flare

comment:

Fine lens, very prone to flare which is detrimental to IQ even when you think thereisn;t a problem.

Nearly sold it and then took someones advice to use a lens hood from 100-300 APO or 70-210 f3.5-4.5.

The transformation in IQ was amazing; like a different lens.
Scores above with hood fitted.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: terenz   review date: March-28-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

60 USD

positive:

nice colours
macro function
solid build
smooth focus and zoom

negative:

flare
manual focus on macro setting
bit heavy

comment:

My first walkaround lense for my A850. Nice colour, smooth focus and zoom. Works a lot nicer than the 18-70mm kit lense on the A100. Colours are good but really have to watch for flare.

sharpness: 3 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 2 

user: Romeo333   review date: March-23-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

50/1,4
24-70HSM

price paid:

0

positive:

Produces:
-better colours
-a tad sharper than the kit
-Macro mode
-Metal Mount
-Metal Body

negative:

-CA's
-Hunts
-Hood is shallow(Doesnt help much)

comment:

For a starter lens this glass is great! It was my first Minolta glass and it didn't disappoint. Its a nice replacement for the Kit or a nice lens to have on your a900(after shelling out a ton of money for it). Try it out and see for yourself.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: hrstrat57   review date: March-06-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100-200, 75-300, 35-105

price paid:

$49 USD

positive:

Built like a tank and handles beautifully. Fabulous Minolta colors, long reach on A 700. The macro actually works albeit manual focus!

negative:

42mm is not wide enough, heavy, I am still planning either a Sony 16-105 or Tamron 17-50 to widen my view.

comment:

My 35 - 105 owned since new quit and is in the shop, always wanted one of these little tanks, snagged this on ebay for $49. Was prepared to be unhappy based on some luke warm reviews but I have shot about 300 pics with this lens and have scored some real keepers. The Minolta colors I love are there and stopped down the images are crisp throughout the entire focal range. It is a real solid performer with my Sony 42 flash too, producing some nice family snap shots so far.
I like it a lot....with this on my A 700 with the Sony VG attached I have myself one heavy beast! Handles sweet tho, despite the weight.
A keeper for me, enuff so to be hunting down a backup!

**IMPORTANT UPDATE**
Recently picked up an old Minolta 55mm 100 macro hood which has eliminated problems with flare and makes this lens a solid performer in direct sunlight....with the stock hood this is a problem.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: fleptoeter   review date: February-19-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 18-70

price paid:

60

positive:

Colors
Sharp (stopped down)
build

negative:

slow AF

comment:

Picked up this used lens yesterday. It was heavier as I expected but feels good. on f3.5 a bit soft, stopped down it gets realy sharp. I use it on my a200, some people will say it doesnt get wide enough, but it doesn't realy bother me.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Shootist   review date: January-15-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

I think I've owned ALL (then perhaps sold some) of the Minolta Consumer lenses by now!

price paid:

$65 USD

positive:

Tough, mean looking lens...no weaklings allowed!

negative:

IQ is sub-par for it's (1985) generation of lenses

comment:

As I shortcut I want to agree with "nvc789" below, he's right on about this lens.

Let me add that compared to the other 1st generation models built when this one was (1985) this one scored pretty much last in my testing.

This lens was purchased in the middle of the lenses that I bought out of perhaps 40 Minolta lenses that I went through as I built my collection last spring and summer (2009)

And what a fun build is WAS! As many of you now know; Minolta consumer lenses are WAY undervalued and if you’re like me – you never really lose any money buying them. I sold 90% of the ones I bought for more money….

And I bought three copies, never one to give up, because of your outstanding reviews here. So shame on ME; you guys fooled me 3 times! They’re all sold now – maybe some of you have them…

-Shootist

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: Grodan74   review date: December-30-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 18-70
minolta 70-210 f4-5.6

price paid:

800 sek

positive:

Build!
Range
Macro-mode
Good sharpness at f5.6

negative:

Not sharp at f3.5
MFD

comment:

I wouldn't really call it a fast lens, it is really not sharp at f3.5, however at 5.6 it looks good, so i always stop down.

The macro-mode is really nice, I think the pictures come out really sharp even at f3.5 (sharper than the kit-lens), but in non-macro mode the kitlens is a little bit sharper

The MFD is not a pain in the ass, but not practical either

The feel of the lens is fantastic, there's something special with a lens that weighs more than the body

You can notice some distortion at 28mm but it looks cool

And i really like the range, 28mm is a nice focallength (on aps-c that is) and all the way up to 85mm

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mikejhart32   review date: December-26-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70
Minolta 35-70

price paid:

35 GBP

positive:

sharp!
great colours
built like a tank.
useful macro.

negative:

Heavy, Big.
would have preferred macro at 85mm

comment:

If I could afford a full frame digital body, this would be my walkabout lens. Better performance than the kit lens and better range than the 35-70.
The penalty you pay for such quality is weight, but this is normal, and in some ways it makes for a more steady shot.
The sharpness, colour and contrast are remarkable.
Weird macro at 28mm (manual focus only) means you can get very close to things, which is ok for still life, but not for flying insects! Would have been better at 85mm.
Weird backwards zoom action, longest at 28mm.
Built to last!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: megrim   review date: December-02-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony DT 18-70
Minolta AF 35-70

price paid:

60 euro

positive:

- Metal body of good build
- Does not creep
- 55mm thread
- Subtile focus range
- Great minolta colors

negative:

- Weight can become cumbersome
-

comment:

It is a very good basic kit lens replacing lens. Quite nice sharp where needed with great minolta colors and a pretty much trouble free lens design. Except for Flare this is an issue that is there. And if you are going to shoot the way of the sun expect a few mishaps.

But for the rest great colors, dependable lens with quality you expect. With a decent range to boot making it a nice budget lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: nvc789   review date: October-23-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 24-105mm
minolta 28-135mm
tamron 17-50mm
minolta 35-105mm

price paid:

$85, $75

positive:

solid build-like a tank
minolta colours
cheap

negative:

not much range for apsc
not sharp

comment:

this lens is solid, built to last, nice solid feeling to it, smooth zoon, unlike these newer style lenses. The colours are fantastic, similiar to the minolta 28-135mm, bokeh is nicer on the 28-135mm. pictures on this lens is not sharp straight out of the camera, adding some contrast and sharpen in lightroom fixes this. The lenses listed above are much sharper than this lens. the 28-85mm is more suitable for portraits where it will not show every single flaw on a person's face. I have 2 copies of it and same result with each. The macro part is nice to have but rarely used because of the limitations (28mm). Great thing about it is the price, if I break it(unlikely), it's cheap to replace and easy to find.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: NIKO   review date: September-15-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Konica Minolta AF 28-75 f2.8

price paid:

Traded X700

positive:

Relatively sharp beginning at f5.6. Colors are rather stunning. Good build. No noticeable distortion and flare seems to be controlled pretty well.

negative:

Hood really isn't usable. Lack of contrast at the telephoto end.

comment:

This lens was a rather nice surprise. I came across one at a camera show/swap and it was in very good if not excellent condition for its age. I had a Minolta X700 with a 35-70 f3.5-4.5 lens that I got for free and traded it for this lens. I felt it was worth it since it was an old camera that I never used. It's not like I really needed this lens, but I got it to add to my "Original" Minolta AF lens set up. Plus, it gives a unique look to photographs. My Konica Minolta AF 28-75 f2.8 is the superior lens in terms of sharpness and I feel has more neutral colors.

My take on this lens is that it is worth getting if you want "Original" Minolta glass that gives you that unmistakable Minolta look. It is actually pretty sharp wide open at the wide end through 70mm. Past 70mm the lens begins to get a bit soft. However, it will not match new glass for sharpness.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: razumovnet   review date: September-14-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 24-135mm SP AD

price paid:

40

positive:

GOOD range + sharpness for the lens from far 1985! Pleasant colors & bokeh!

negative:

Can be a bit noisy with slow AF in "bedroom" lightning.

comment:

Solid lens with good IQ from the past, and even in 2009 doesn't look awkward and performs well on A700. Recommended!

P.S.Recently bought Tamron 24-135mm SP and I stopped using 28-85mm (SP's range is more usable with my style of shooting... quieter & sharper)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: ws2112   review date: September-12-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Beercan
Minolta 50 1.7
SAM 18-70
Sigma 28-80

price paid:

50

positive:

Very Sharp
Reasonable price
Build quality is superb
True Minolta Color

negative:

Hood sucks
Flare

comment:

after putting this lens on my a200 for the first time, I have come to love it and now my kit lens rarely has a chance to stay on the camera. I love the color and sharpness of this lens. The bokeh is also a plus.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: cjhacker23   review date: September-09-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28/2.8
Sony 50/1.4
Minolta 28-135/4-4.5

price paid:

90 USD (used)

positive:

Sharp!
Useful MFD
Sturdy build
Nice range (on A850/900)
Macro

negative:

A little heavy
On APS-C, less useful range

comment:

This is a fantastic (and underrated) early Maxxum zoom, in every way the equal of the much-lauded 28-135/4-4.5. Not sure why it doesn't get better recognition. It is just as sharp, with the same gorgeous "Minolta colors", and the same solid build. And in two important respects, it is far superior to the 28-135. First, it has a MUCH more useful MFD, which was the tragic flaw of its sibling. Second, it is smaller and lighter than the 28-135, making it a much better walkaround lens. Try lugging the 28-135 around all day and you'll know what a plus those saved ounces really are! And I guess a final advantage would be price. Because of the reputation of the 28-135, it's selling on ebay for more than 3 times the price of this lens.

So, I'd say if you own an A850 or A900 or are thinking of going full frame some time in the future, this lens is a no-brainer!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: shendra   review date: September-06-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-70mm F4 babybeercan
24-85mm Minolta RS
28-105mm Minolta RS
18-70mm SAL
19-35mm Tamron

price paid:

USD 150

positive:

+well built
+sharp & contrast
+great for potraiture
+affordable

negative:

-flare

comment:

I may say that this lens is underdog, very few photographers using this lens and very few realise that this lens is a good lens. Tested on A200, 300 and 900, the result was out of my expectation!!

The sharpness, color and contrast is really good. It is unavoidable that this lens is great for portraiture and walk around lens, but the 28mm is not wide enough.

The built itself is really solid and strong.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: iltsi   review date: August-20-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

-KM 18-70
-Minolta 35-70
-Minolta 24-85
-Beercan

price paid:

55 €

positive:

-sharp
-built like a tank
-cheap

negative:

-weight
-not too wide on APS-C

comment:

Excellent value for the money. Great as walk around lens, but wide end isn't too wide on 5D. This is the lens I mostly use.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: zeroone   review date: August-19-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70 F4, MInolta 70-210 F4, Tokina 19-35, Zeiss 16-35, Minolta 50s (various) Tamron XR 28-75 F2.8

price paid:

85 USD

positive:

Brilliant Build Quality
Colour Is fabulous
Low Contrast (I will explain)
Nice Range
Good AF
Low levels of Barrel and Pincushion Distortion
Balances nicely on A900

negative:

Very low contrast
Strong CA at the wide end
Soft edges at all focal lengths
Not very sharp

comment:

Now this is an interesting lens, it has lots of faults, flares like crazy if you are not careful but it's build like a tank and feels like it could outlast the Pyramids.

But I quite like it! Let me explain. The lens has very low contrast and this might seem like a deficit but in fact it can be a good thing, it renders highlights and shadows in a rather lovely way so long as you edit properly and with appropriate editing the images look very 3D.

It has low levels of Barrel and Pincushion distortion so things tend to look quite natural in that department even at 28mm, thought the distortion does have a complex moustache characteristic which is a pain to fix for architectural images.

The CA is pretty strong but actually corrects very easily in Photoshop, once corrected the colour gets even better and the edges pop into focus, especially at the wide end.

The CA correction changes with focal length but once you see what happens when its fixed you realise almost all the complaints about low resolution are actually due to the CA.

Many people including myself felt this lens lacked corner sharpness and high levels of resolution, however after extensive testing I have found this is not the case, in fact the lens has been used badly . Let me explain, this lens has very significant field curvature which varies markedly with focal length changes, you simply cannot focus it in the middle of the frame and liberate cross frame clarity.

As an example the 28 mm end curves wildly rearwards at the corners, which renders the near corners way out of focus when the centre is focused, move the lens just 2 mm towards the 35mm setting (it still registers as 28mm) and the field curvature flattens, move it to 35mm and it bends back towards the camera on the edges.

Once you understand how the curvature is working you can use it to your advantage and importantly it is entirely possible to liberate very sharp corners, but you will never see it if if you let your cameras auto focus do the work for you. In fact this lans can give you control over DOF at wide angles in a way I have never come across before, it is in fact a very flexible tool.

And there is more, the infinity focus is no where near it is marked as being, you need to test to find the real spot, but once you do you realise that in the middle at least this lens is extraordinarily sharp.

An unusual quirk is that if you move it into macro mode just a bit and focus at infinity you will find a point just after the switch engages where you can get pretty much everything in focus and sharp (including the corners) at f8.

One very nice characteristic is the focus holds throughout the zoom range, so you can focus at 85mm zoom back to 28 and the point you focused on will be sharp, this might seem like stating the obvious but many lenses do not hold the focus anywhere near accurately.

Low contrast gives the appearance of low sharpness, however with multi pass sharpening using very low radius USM or High Pass filtering the detail comes from nowhere without blowing highlights or shadows. Note that the very outside corners will never get sharp at any aperture. The optimum aperture at all focal lengths lies between f10-f13, which is into diffraction territory but sharpening restores the losses.

The low contrast is largely due to the lenses inability to focus blue (check the channels) which is especially obvious at the tele end, but here is a kicker the green and red channels are superb so it is a great lens for those doing mono-conversions using red/green channels, which is about 95% of mono jobs.

Colour as stated is lovely, in fact I would say this is a close as you will get to getting an image on an A900 that looks like it was shot on super fine grained portrait film.

Overall I guess I like the way it draws an image, so here is my final opinion.

This lens is actually a very specialized tool, it would suit portraitists and landscapists and those wanting to use the lens for artistic expression. Because it is not clinically sharp in the way a 35-70 f4 or the 70-210 f4 beercan at portrait focal lengths it produces lovely portraits if the aperture is kept around the 5.6 mark and it really renders skin tones beautifully with smooth tonality that is quite flattering. Ultimately not a lens for those who don't want to edit (at least fix the CA), but for those who use it within its limitations, play to its strengths and really know their way around photoshop it can produce stunning results.

It is a perfect lens for bright contrasty days as it keeps things under control but not an ideal choice for flat heavy cloud days.

I would go so far as to say that now having exhaustively tested the lens I could pretty much use it for anything in the normal range and get brilliant results, it has become my favourite lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: orbity   review date: August-17-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

100 USD

positive:

Cool alternative for DT 18-70

negative:

comment:

I use this lens as kit lens for my DSLR A-200. Very useful, lens, IMHO, must have! Cool pictures for reasonable price!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Remko   review date: August-02-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-50AF f/4,
Minolta 24-105D f/3.5-4.5,
Minolta 70-210AF f/4,
Minolta 28-135AF f/4-4.5,
Tamron 28-300 f/3.5-6.3,
KM 18-70D f/3.5-5.6,
Minolta 28-105xi f/3.5-4.5,
Minolta 70-210 f/3.5.

price paid:

€ 5

positive:

Small, great performer for portraits, great build (glass/metal),
Macro-function

negative:

clip-on hood (I replaced that one by an old screw-on hood of the MD Rokkor 50-135/3.5),

comment:

Found it for a great price. Had been searching for this little gem for quite some time. I love the original series from Minolta for their colors, build and sharpness.

Tested this lens within low-light environment, and later during a portrait-shoot.
Great performer for portraits, nice & small. Wide enough for close range focussing and provides enough tele for nice close-ups as well.

Compared with other original series lenses as well, color performance is outstanding, for the rest comparable as the others.

Less weight to carry around than 28-135AF f/4-4.5.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: segas93   review date: June-27-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tamron 17-50 f2.8
konica-minolta 17-35 f2.8-4
minolta 28-105 RS f3,5-4,5

price paid:

50 USD used

positive:

+ very sharp from 28 to 85mm
+ best colours
+ good range zoom
+ nice bokeh
+ AF very good
+ solid built
+ nice to work with it

negative:

- flare when you have sun in front
- focus ring rotate
- not so important things

comment:

I'm very proud of this lense,very sharp,best colours.Nice results at distorsions,the single problem is flare(when you have the

sun in front) because of little hood.Is very good built from Beercan series.A lovely pleasure to work with it.It's my lens,and i use

it all day long.I recommand it.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: smoljan   review date: June-01-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5
Minolta 50mm f/1.7
Minolta 28mm f/2.8

price paid:

45 USD (mint)

positive:

colour
contrast
bokeh
sharp
inexpensive

negative:

none

comment:

This lens surprised me a lot. Nice colours, contrast, great sharpness, beautiful smooth bokeh. It is even better than Minolta 35-105mm, which I like a lot. My copy produce very nice bokeh and it is sharp wide open on the both ends of the focal range and in between. I tried to get some CA on bright and contrasty objects, but couldn't get any even wide open. This all surprised me a lot as some reviews were very critical of it's CA, sharpness and bokeh. I have seen photos taken with a lens like this that had unpleasant, busy bokeh. Sample variations?

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: dsoulsticec   review date: May-21-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 100mm Macro F2.8
Minolta 28-135mm F4.0-4.5 XX's Crossed
Minolta 135mm F2.8
Minolta 70-210mm F4.0
Minolta 50mm F1.7
Minolta 100-200mm F4.5
Minolta 35-105mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-70mm F4.0
Sigma 35-135mm 3.5-4.5
Minolta 100-300mm APO F4.5-5.6
Sony 18-70mm F3.5-5.6

price paid:

90 USD (used)

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: Boynielaad   review date: May-17-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

L26

positive:

Sharpness and colour - lovely.
Versatility - walkabout lens of choice now

negative:

Length - a bit too long
85mm max focal length a bit limiting.

comment:

Bought this 2nd hand from EBay and now adore it.
On the A300 virtually all the time and use the macro switch alot.

Don't dither - get one.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: vangio   review date: March-12-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

AF 17-35mm 2,8-4 (D)
AF 24mm 2,8
AF 28-75mm 2,8 (D)
AF 28-85mm 3,5-4,5
AF 28-135mm 4-4,5
AF 35-105mm 3,5-4,5
AF 50mm 1,7
AF 70-210mm 4
AF 75-300mm 4,5-5,6 1st
Tamron AF 11-18 4,5-5,6
Beroflex 400mm 6,3 1st

price paid:

30 € (used)

positive:

price

negative:

sharpness
blurry pictures
colors

comment:

I've used this lens for a short time together with my 7D and I was unconvinced. The pictures where blurry and cold. Because of this I've sold it and use the 28-75mm 2,8 (D) or the 28-135mm 4-4,5

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: ShiShelly63   review date: March-10-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 28mm f2.8
Minolta 50mm macro
Minolta 100mm macro
Minolta 28-80 D kit
Sony 18-70 kit

price paid:

$54.00

positive:

sharp, nice colors

negative:

Flare, weight

comment:

I was looking for a lens that was better then the kit lens I had. I didn't like the colors I was getting from the 28-80 D kit lens so I picked this lens up on ebay for a good price. I use this lens on an a700. For the most part, I'm quite happy with the sharpness of this lens and the colors are much better then the kit lens (D). I would have to say that I even like this lens better then the Sony 18-70 kit. It much sharper throughout. My major complaint is the lens flare. You can not use this lens in a backlighting situation or you will get flare. It is not as sharp as the 50mm 1.7 or the 28mm f2.8, but, it comes close. Obviously, the macro outperform it in sharpness. I'd have to say that if you are on a budget and want a better performing lens then the kit lens then you might want to give this lens a try.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: xinyang   review date: March-02-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

110

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: perslucht   review date: February-08-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

negative:

comment:

I'm sorry, wrong post. Must be 28-135mm

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jvandegr   review date: January-25-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70mm f/4
Minolta 50mm f/1.7
Minolta 24mm f/2.8
Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5
Minolta 24-85mm f/3.5 - 4.5

price paid:

$75 (excellent cond)

positive:

Sharp
Built like a tank
Smooth zoom and focus
True Minolta colors
Quick and accurate AF

negative:

Edge softness
Strong chromatic aberration at large apertures

comment:

I've been shuffling my zoom lenses to try to find a combination of sharpness, color, and focal range that fits my work flow. I decided to try this lens along with the Minolta 35-70mm f/4.0. Both of these lenses exhibit the true Minolta colors that I crave. The 28-85mm has more focal range, but the 35-70mm has the advantage of better edge sharpness and a constant f/4 aperture. Stopped down to f/5.6, the 28-85mm does show an improvement in edge sharpness, and but it can't quite match the 35-70mm. The centers are near comparable for sharpness. The 28-85mm has better build quality with incredibly smooth zoom and focus action - probably the best I've ever used, even compared to very high end Nikon and Sony lenses. On the other hand, the 35-70mm suffers less from chromatic aberration wide open. On the 28-85mm, CA can be apparent at large apertures in high contrast areas, and this is reduced (but not eliminated) by closing up the aperture one stop. Most of this aberration is correctable in Adobe Lightroom, but not all of it. My Minolta 100-200mm f/4.5 also does a better job of controlling CA, and has somewhat better edge sharpness. In terms of weight, this 28-85mm is a reasonably heavy lens, which can be a good thing for stabilizing shots. On the other hand, I'd much rather carry around the 35-70mm on long assignments. Not only is it lighter, but it's also about half the size. Compared to the Minolta 28-135mm, this 28-85mm is noticeably lighter.

Compared to my Minolta primes, this zoom lens holds its own for center sharpness when stopped down to f/5.6 or smaller, but cannot quite match edge sharpness. Of course, the primes also do a much better job of controlling CA. In terms of weight, even two primes are slightly lighter than the 28-85mm, and occupy about the same amount of space in my camera bag.

Autofocus performance is very good. I've never had a problem with its speed or accuracy, and I've found both to be similar to that of my Minolta 35-70mm f/4. Not quite as quick as my primes, but certainly not slow. Even in low light conditions, the 28-85mm performs well on my Sony A350.

In summary, this lens is unlikely to disappoint on APS-C sensors, as long as you can work with the focal range.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: gm4jjj   review date: December-13-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

L50 eBay

positive:

negative:

comment:

Old fashioned lens, rotating front element and no hood. Nicely built (like Beercan). MFD not great.
Rather odd that it is longest when zoomed out!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Dynaton-DK   review date: December-01-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF28-135 F4-4.5
Minolta AF24-85 F3.5-4.5
Minolta AF24-105D F3.5-4.5
Minolta AF35-105N F3.5-4.5
Sigma AF18-200 F3.5-6.3
Sigma AF17-70 F2.8-4.5

positive:

Very sharp
Fast autofocus
Beercan Design

negative:

No autofocus by macro
Long lens compared to modern lenses

comment:

This lens is surprisingly sharp, and a great alternative to the Minolta AF28-135 F4-4.5 when on a budget. It is almost as sharp at least in the center, color is the about the same and build is pretty good. The Minolta AF28-85 F3.5-4.5 outperforms all my modern Sigma's by miles in regard to image quality - and is a great budget alternative to Minolta AF28-135.
A lens that one should not be sad getting stucked with.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: wahgongzai   review date: November-12-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70
Minolta 18-70
Sigma 28-70
Tamron 28-70

positive:

durable "beercan" construction
macro
sharp

negative:

not true macro
hood...

comment:

This is one of the few lens I first owned and I use it to shoot products. Although is build like a tank, the weight is still light enough to carry around for the whole day.

The zoom range is not so attractive on a 1.5 crop DSLR but on a FF/film SLR. This is a good lens to start with

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: erix   review date: October-09-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 16-105,
minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5
minolta 18-70,
35-70/4

price paid:

60$

positive:

Colors
Contrast
sharpness
accurate focus

negative:

CA
Flare
minimal focus distance

comment:

My favorite. Consistently produces lovely images with 3D effect - pictures just look good. Minolta colors. "Liquid" bokeh. I think this lens is very much the same as hyped 35-105, works very well for portraits.

Sharpness:
At 28mm center sharpness is Ok wide open, but borders and especially corners are softish. In most cases you will never notice. At 85mm there is slight soft effect @f4.5, disappears at f5.6

Flare can be problem, I use hood from 35-105. CA is another problem, but not as bad as on 18-70kit. Distortion at 28mm is noticeable.

In comparison to 24-85, this lens has far better bokeh but is less sharp. Minolta 35-70/4 is better (sharper, less CA), but range is limited.

sharpness: 3 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: soter   review date: October-07-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-105 3.5/4.5

price paid:

30€

positive:

negative:

excessive softness

comment:

As karchon et al. noted, used with my A700 it is more or less soft compared to 35-105, that is sharp as laser.
I don't recomend to invest money on this.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: ferretracer   review date: September-13-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

kit 18-70 (sony and minolta)

price paid:

came in lot

positive:

range
build
macro function

negative:

comment:

I love the build of this lens. I had planned on selling it (it came in a lot with 2 others a flash and a camera) but liked it so much, I decided to keep it. This lens is great for walking around. I like the range and the macro function as well.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: electron3   review date: September-13-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50mm f1.4
Tamron 90mm f2.8

price paid:

75usd (used)

positive:

Very sharp in center at all apertures. Edges not bad. Good color and bokeh. Will have a good range on A900. Price.

negative:

Big and Heavy

comment:

I compared this lens to my Minolta 50mm f1.4 and Tamron 90mm f2.8; both very sharp lenses. I blew the test pictures up to 200%. From f5.6 and smaller there was no difference in center sharpness with the 28-85mm compared to the other lenses. At f8 the edges were similar sharpness. The 28-85mm has classic minolta colors and bokeh. I would say it is a very good lense regardless of price. I always use a big lens hood so flare hasn't been a problem. It will be a good companion for my "beercan"

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: madecov   review date: August-26-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-105 f3.5-4.5
24-85 f3.5-4.5
35-70 f3.5-4.5
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
kit lens

price paid:

$80.00 USD near mint

positive:

Good build, sharp, Nice colors. Decent AF speed and accuracy

negative:

Heavy, zoom range on ASP-C,variable aperture, No AF in Macro mode

comment:

Very nice lens. Sharper than kit lens. I think the 35-105 is a bit sharper. Fantastic colors.

I overpaid on mine from a private seller with the factory hood (useless), but it is still a very good value. All metal construction.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: gouldina   review date: August-19-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

70-210 Beercan
Sigma 28-70 2.8-4f UC

price paid:

L52

positive:

Good colours
Sharp
Great build

negative:

Heavy (though I like the weight)
Long minimum focus distance

comment:

A great companion to the beercan with a complementary range. Lovely beercan-like colours, sharpness and bokeh. Similar build etc. Beercan hood fits on it and doesn't (at least in my experience) cause any vignetting. Shares the same filter size as the beercan. As some here have mentioned, the front element is a bit exposed so a rubber hood might be a sound investment for protection. Also it does have quite a long minimum focussing distance. I haven't found AF slow at all as some have suggested, in fact quite the reverse. Very happy with this lens so far.

Update 19th June 2009:
Still think this lens is a good all-rounder. The only problem I've had with it is that the colour rendering is less good than (say) the beercan or a MinO prime and sometimes appears slightly greenish (on my copy at least) which needs a bit of fiddling with.
So in summary, a decent reasonably sharp lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: LECHER   review date: July-05-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-70 f:4

price paid:

8 USD (Broken)

positive:

Easy to Rebuild
Easy to Refocus

negative:

Slow AF

comment:

Well, again I bought a broken lens with the hope of fixing it and again Pete Ganzel was helpful in it's resurection.

Thank you Pete for all your help for everyone here.

After two days of fixing, I took it to the beach and took some incredibly sharp photos. A little bit a flare from the sun and a little blue-er than the 35-70 but all in all, this was a good buy. I have since been looking for more broken lenses to fix as I really enjoy the outcome of my labor.

This lens is beautiful and is a cheap alternative to a 28-105. Focus and bokeh are great and maybe my copy is just a bit blue but Photoshop can handle that. It's definatly worth looking into for a backup to a 35-70.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Derek   review date: July-02-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 N
Sigma 28-105 UCII f4-F5.6

price paid:

29 GBP

positive:

Sharp
Superb colour
Build

negative:

None

comment:

Superb lens but a bit on the heavy side.

Excellent value at current second hand prices.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: karchon   review date: April-23-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-4.5
Sony DT 18-70mm
Minolta 35-70mm f4

price paid:

68 USD (ok)

positive:

- Pretty Sharp
- Classic Colors and Contrast
- Solid Build & Feel

negative:

- Flaring
(I may have a bad copy so i wont write all the negs until 2nd copy arrives)

comment:

This lens is sharper than the Kit Lens (sony) that i have, but compared to the 35-105, it isnt as sharp. I think I've heard more hype about this lens than I needed. Its a good solid lens, but sharpness just isnt "perfect" for me. It feels a bit "soft".

I need to do more testing as I am picking up another copy of this lens. I suspect I have a bad copy.

sharpness: 3 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Ch.Froehlich   review date: April-18-08  

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: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: lattiboy   review date: April-13-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

A200 Kit lens

price paid:

42 USD (used)

positive:

1) Sharp!
2) Sturdy!
3) Excellent macro images
4) Can beat away attackers with the massive girth of lens!
5) Beautiful color.

negative:

1) Heavy! (also positive #3)
2) Macro is limited to 28mm
3) Lens flare is a constant worry

comment:

I really love this lens. It is my "go to" lens for most everything. Really nice range (especially on dSLR!), great looking (though limited) macro, built like a flipping tank! Get a lens good. A l-o-n-g one.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: alpha_in_exile   review date: February-22-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70 kit lens
Sigma 75-300 4-5.6 non-APO
Minolta MD lenses

price paid:

$21 USD

positive:

Fairly sharp, even wide open
Bokeh
Colors
Smooth MF
Smooth & quick AF
Build
Makes for a brighter VF than kit lens - good for MF macro

negative:

Poor min. focusing distance (except in macro mode)
Not quite wide enough on APS-C but functions well as normal to tele
Slight barrel distortion at 28mm

comment:

This was my first old-style Minolta AF lens. It has the feel or build quality of the old MD (manual focus) lenses. Feels great on the camera, though a little too heavy to balance perfectly. I can understand why A700 users say it balances perfectly, as the A700 is a bit heavier than my camera.

GIVES A BRIGHTER VIEWFINDER THAN THE KIT LENS - which is a good thing, because the lens is manual focus only in macro mode, though the hack to make the 35-70/4 AF in macro might work with the 28-85 (haven't tried it yet). Unlike the KM kit lens, the lens barrel does not wobble under the torque of the AF motor. It is noticeably sharper than the kit lens at all comparable apertures & focal lengths. Of course, I will have to keep the kit lens for wide angle shots, but I believe the 28-85 will be my walkaround lens.

The colors are outstanding, and the bokeh is very pleasant at wide apertures & particularly shooting macro. Too bad the macro is only 1:4, but it is sufficient for the occasional shot of a flower.

AF is just as fast with this lens as it is with the kit lens. It even tracks better in AF-C mode on the A100 -- which is to say it is still not sufficient for sports or fast action, but still, I was surprised to see it perform better than the (much newer) kit lens. I'll bet it would work really well on the A700.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Watty   review date: February-06-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Kit, 28-105xi, 28-70G, 24-105, 35-200xi

price paid:

20 GBP (used)

positive:

Hugely versatile

negative:

None

comment:

I wasn't sure whether I was going to get on with this lens, but I needn't have worried. It's sharp, but not as good as the 28-70G and solidly built.

I neglected it a bit when I bought my 24-105mm, but find I'm using it more now. It doesn't have the same broad range as the 24-105mm, but it does have the macro switch which lifts the lens from adequate to very versatile.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Kaishi   review date: January-03-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 75-300 F4.5-5.6 (SAL-75300)
Sony 18-70 F3.5-5.6 (SAL-1870)
Minolta AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6
Minolta AF 50 F1.7
Minolta AF 70-210 F4 (beercan)

price paid:

60 USD (good condt)

positive:

Very sharp.
Great bokeh at f/3.5.
Fairly versatile.
Macro functionality is fantastic.
Very smooth zoom-ring.
Inexpensive.

negative:

AF is a little loud and a little slow.
VERY heavy. Heaviest lens I own.
Front element rotates during focus.
Distortion (CA) - Read Comments for more info.

comment:

I love this lens. It's like a mini beercan. Built like a tank, almost *too* heavy. Macro makes it even more versatile (though APS-C does limit it a bit--functionally a 42-128 lens). The zoom-ring is so smooth that I can barely keep myself from touching it.

EDIT: I've been using the lens a bunch, and have some more thoughts on it. Firstly, if you don't own one of these, please do yourself the favor and get one. I like it way more than my Beercan, or any of my other lenses. It is now officially my favorite lens.

It is heavy as hell. Heavier than the beercan by a significant amount.

I've noticed a little bit of color-fringing at 28mm which wasn't apparent before. You can see it in this photo. I still consider this passable, a minor distortion issue in my opinion. The lens perspective distortion even at 28mm doesn't seem bad at all, so I'm giving it a 4/5. Flare doesn't seem to be a problem, at least for me. The included hood is plenty good for most purposes.

EDIT: Having worked with it a bunch more, I have determined the specifics of distortion. Firstly, chromatic aberration is present at focal lengths of 28-35, especially around the outer edges. This can be corrected digitally, and isn't so terrible that it cannot be overlooked, but for perfect, pristine, artistic shots, it may present a problem. CA is -not- a problem in Macro mode from what I've observed.

The Macro mode is reason enough to buy this lens. I can get in about 7 inches from my subject, for really nice macro shots. I don't know the macro size ratio for this, but I know it isn't 1:1. It may be 1:2 though, but I am uncertain. The advantage is that the aperture is at 3.5 in these shots, nice and wide, with good bokeh. It could be a little wider but for a lens this inexpensive, the macro mode is more than sufficient.

Check out my gallery, where you can see more of the photos I've taken with this lens. (check the description to see which lens I used)

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Wayne   review date: December-04-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Maxxum 28-75 D
Maxxum 28-105

price paid:

76USD (used)

positive:

Excellent contrast and sharpness. Classic Minolta colors. My Gen 1 lens is built like a tank. Very good close up capabilites when the macro mode is engaged.

negative:

The macro mode is manual focus. If used without the hood, there is some flare present when shooting towards the light.

comment:

Great lens for the money. If you find one, get it. This is a good alternative to the more expensive 24-105 lens. A little short on the wide side for some, but still a usable range and better cost vs performance.
It is built like a tank, uses 55mm filters (great companion to a beer can), and even though the macro mode is manual focus, it still works well on the bright 7D finder.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: donfenn   review date: December-03-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony Kit 18-70
Minolta 28-105 xi
Minolta 35-70

price paid:

$80 usd (used)

positive:

Sharp and Contrasty
Great Colors
Solid Build Quality

negative:

Weight(if that bothers you)
Small Manual Focus Ring
Slight Flare Issues

comment:

I love this lens. I recently compared it at similar focal length and f-stop to others noted above and it had most sharp consistant results....While not a real detailed or scientific test, my subjective results made this the best of the pack. The photos form this lens seem to have have a consistant crisp and contrasty feel with vibrant colors. I like the weight, but it is definately not a lightweight compared to kit lens. This is a wonderful lens, and I love the fact that it was had at a bargain price!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: martinbroes   review date: November-14-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105/F3.5-4.5
Tamron 28-75/F2.8
Sony 18-70 kitlens

price paid:

free (in kit)

positive:

- range (esp. on film body)
- solid build
- Rolls Royce feeling

negative:

- weight
- small manual focus ring

comment:

Got this lens with my Dynax 7000i back in 1990. There were 2 kitlenses to choose from. I preferred this one over a cheaper 35-70 and never regretted it. I's heavy thanks to the very solid build. Years of climbing/backpacking in the Alps (up to over 4000 meters) left some scratches in the paint, but this travel companion never broke down.
When I switched to digital, I got the Sony kitlens for only 10 euros. It took only 2 days to be sure that the 18-70 could not match this old standard zoom in any way. For a while I used the kitlens as a wide angle, just iuntil I got a 17-35. The 28-85 was on the body most of the time in the ealry days.
The weight always has been a problem, plus I wanted a constant F2.8 instead of F3.5-4.5. So I got a Tamron 28-75/2.8, it's sharp but the build did not allow manual focussing. It has been replaced with a better build KM version, which is too soft. On sunny days I still use the old M 28-85, which gives me more realistic colors and a nicer bokeh. Turning the zoom ring gives me a kind of a "Rolls Royce feeling".
With the scratches representing good memories, this lens will stay with me as long as I use the A-mount (or until it breaks down, which is highly inprobable....).

addition, august 1st, 2009
After almost 19 years of service, this is still one of the best lenses I own. Today I took of the Minolta 24-105 D which is my usual walk around lens nowadays. The first look on my pictures had made it obvious that this lens often is the best choice. On APS-C the range is not what it used to be. Still the sharpness and the bokeh are better then I had with twe 28-75/2.8 's and with my 24-105.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: pschoone   review date: October-31-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CZ16-80, 24/2.8, 35-70/4, 35-80/4-5.6, 35-105/3.5-4.5

price paid:

250€ new

positive:

Sharp; Built like a tank

negative:

Heavy; Not wide enough on APS-C

comment:

I only used this lens when I still used film. At some point it got stolen, but I still remember how well built it was and how well it performed. Since it was just not wide enough to my taste I had a 24mm in addition, but that gave me a constant decision whether to switch lenses or not (i.e. to be lazy and quick with the 28-85 or go for the optimum with the 24). On APS-C it for sure is not wide enough but then you may combine it with a wide zoom or prime with shorter focal length than 24mm.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: keith_h   review date: September-30-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75/2.8

price paid:

45 usd used

positive:

Build, classic Minolta look and feel, just a nice thing

negative:

flare

comment:

I bought this as a mate to my beercan and was not disappointed. Build is solid, it is precise and fast to use on the 5D.

It creates images that have the look and feel of the beercan. I use this lens now in preference to the 28-75/2.8.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: chad   review date: July-13-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 24-105, tam 17-50, sigma 24-135, beercan, minolta 24-85 minolta 50 f1.7

price paid:

72 usd

positive:

this lens is sharp stopped
down with nice contrast and
color. I've learned to appreciate it shooting interior and exterior scenes as well.I think it's one of the most undervalued minolta lens.

negative:

wide opened not sharp as a
prime like 50 f1.7 but acceptable.

comment:

WITH THE BEERCAN AND 50 F1.7 it's the best lens you can buy quality/price speaking. With this 3 lens and the kit lens (18-60) you can enjoy dslr photographic experience at his best for a moderate price

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: JimWWhite   review date: July-12-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70 kit, Sigma 24-135

price paid:

$80 USD

positive:

Sharp, especially when stopped down to F/5.6 and higher.
Great build quality.
Great colors.

negative:

Heavy, but to me this feels like quality.

comment:

Even though I gave up the wide angles lower than 28mm I got a high quality lens that in my opinion will rival some of the best. Excellent results for such a low cost lens. I got mine on eBay for only $80 USD and it came to me in mint condition. If it had been in a Minolta box I'd have sworn it was brand new. The only time it comes off now is when I want to use my Beercan which is another fine lens by Minolta. In fact, I think the quality of the images I get with the KM 28-85 are every bit as sharp and vibrant as the Beercan. I would highly recommend this as a replacement for the kit lens and you should go and get one before they're all snatched up. It's that good!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Sildra   review date: June-26-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 3,5-4,5
Minolta 50 1,7
MInolta 28 2,8
Minolta 35-70 4
Tokina 19-35 3,5-4,5

price paid:

50 USD

positive:

excellent build
sharpness
quite fast

negative:

heavy (not for women)

comment:

I bought this lens as I was looking for some more wide open glass. 28 mm at the short end is enough for me. For some architectural purposes I use Tokina 19-35.

This unit has some significant features. First it's pretty heavy which is a plus as it properly stabilizes body. Second it has quite fast AF and it works even in dark spaces. Third it built like a tank and that's why is worth to carry in hostile conditions like foot trips in mountains.

Suming up this is a sample of brillant work made by Minolta in 80's and this specific glass is so cheap that it's must to have it in your collection.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: tt44   review date: June-24-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SIGMA18-125, 28-200

price paid:

110

positive:

color, build, price

negative:

unsharp 85 mm

comment:

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Torchwood   review date: June-02-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Canon 28-105 USM, 28-70 F3.5-4.5 . Nikon 28-70 F3.5-4.5D, 28-85 F3.5-4.5 , 28-105 D

price paid:

45 UK

positive:

Well made like a small beercan - decent optics

negative:

Tendency to backfocus at 85mm, Macro mode rather useless being 28mm and MF. Soft Coatings on the glass again.

comment:

Bargain price and better made than the 1980s Canon and Nikon 28-70s, similar build to the optically weak but tough made Nikon 28-85 F3.5-4.5 . the King of the 28-xxx Budget lenses is the Nikon 28-105D, the Minolta 28-85 gets close at 28mm but loses it out towards the extreme edges, it suffers far less CA than the old Canon and Nikon 28-70s... At 85 this sample seems to backfocus and is sharp where it's actually focussed..
This lens is compact, tough and handles very nicely, AF speed is good . would be a full hit run if it focussed better at 85 and the vulnerable front element had tougher coatings.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: sooner   review date: April-29-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70, M 35-70, M 35-105, M 50-1.7, Sigma 28-200, Baby Beer Can, M 75-300 (silver)

positive:

Sharp at all focal lengths at f/8.

negative:

I prefer the macro of the 35-70.

comment:

I have tested this lens, and those listed above, using the Koren, 2003, (5mm) test charts to determine the resolution based on MTF-50. The following information is based on results from two of the sine-wave, test, strips; one horizontal near the center of the frame, and the other, diagonal, very close to the corner of the frame. The tests were made with a KM5D, hand held, image stabilization “on”, ISO 100, in bright sunlight so that the shutter speed was quick enough to satisfy the reciprocal of the focal length criterion. Results: (focal length/f-stop/lines per inch on an 8” x 12” print at center/ditto-at corner). (85/8/168/97), (85/4.5/94/41), (28/8/210/77), (28/3.5/122/62). My understanding of photo resolution quality is: >150 lpi=excellent, >110 lpi=very good, >80 lpi=good. I believe the corner results represent a pretty severe test since the test strip extended radially, and the region of interest was very near the corner. More details on this and other lenses can be found at:
http://www.geocities.com/royanddee/lens_test_results_mtf50.htm

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: charlemeign   review date: April-07-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135 f/4-4.5
Minolta 70-210 f/4
Minolta 24mm 2.8
Minolta 50mm 1.7
Tamron SP 35-105 2.8
Sony Kit Lens

price paid:

45 USD new

positive:

Sharp
Good Colors
VERY well built
Doesn't flare with hood

negative:

Macro isn't all that useful - only works at 35mm

comment:

I obtained this lens as an "extra" in a kit purchase on Ebay. I tried it out on my 5D and was very pleased with the results. While it isn't as sharp as my prime lenses (obviously) it is much better than the kit lens that came with the 5D or Alpha. While it loses out on the wide side, I shoot a lot outdoors and the range works well. I shoot buildings a lot, and I find the distortion isn't bad. If I could've given it a 4.5 I would have.
Build quality of these old lenses spoils a person. When they pick up the newer lenses they feel like toys.
This lens lacks the range of the 28-135, but I honostly cant' see much of a difference in quality.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: pashka20   review date: January-01-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28f2
50f1.7
90f2.8 tamron
18-70kit

price paid:

75 ebay

positive:

sharp, especially at longer end
cheap
good build

negative:

flare
not as sharp at 28 mm
slowish focus

comment:

I like the lens, it worth more than the price for it now.
Image quality is good, much better than any recent kit lense, though not as good as any of my primes. It is also not very slow, and quiet sharp even wide open.
It has nice minoltas cast in colours, good contrast when no flare.
The lens is prone to flare, hood, that comes with it, is not good.
Af is a bit slow, hunts a lot under poor lighting (without af assist).
Build is very good. When I had it as the only lens and was looking at Sigma 105 macro, I couldn't believe sigma wants such a price for such a plasticky thing.
I wrote many negative things about the lens, but I think it is good overall, and very good for the price.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: moggin   review date: December-31-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 18-50 EX DC

price paid:

21 GBP

positive:

Very sharp at f8+
Very cheap.

negative:

none

comment:

Bought this lens for a song on Ebay and am most impressed with it - far sharper than my previous walkaround lens, a Sigma 18-50 EX DC - but it does need reasonable light levels. This doesn't bother me as I tend to shoot on sunny days anyway! My particular lens is very sharp but I gather that there can be some variation amongst these lenses. The lens hood is far too small and is useless. Haven't found a replacement yet.
Overall a very underated lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: sparky81   review date: December-14-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Nikon AF-S 24-85 f:3.5-4.5, minolta 35-70 f:4.0, Sigma 28-70 f:3.5-4.5, tons of M42 lenses

positive:

Sharp, excellent colours, contrast and build quality

negative:

for the price... NOTHING better could be found

comment:

I bought this lens to get wider after using 35-70 (lovely lens) for a while... If You don't need wider, go 35-70 but if You need... Nothig better could be found for that price... I'm amazed with quality of photos that I took with 28-85. BUY IT if You need that range.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Frenske   review date: December-13-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- KM 5D 18-70mm
- Sigma 70-300 APO

price paid:

multi buy

positive:

- Very sharp
- Well built
- Reasonable fast (compared to kit lens)

negative:

- No wide angles
- A bit slow AF
- Useless hood

comment:

I bought this lens in a multi buy which included 50mm 1.7, 100-200mm and Minolta 7000 with flash. I was only interested in the 50mm but I fell in love with this lens. It is a fantastic lens and I think I degrade the kit lens as back up lens for this one. Although I will miss wide angles.
Total price was 86 GBP so that was actually a steal considering the 50mm goes for over 50 GBP.
This lens is not a lot on the market, but still you can get it for cheap. Grab it with both hands and praise yourself lucky ... rarely you will find easy bargains like this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jamesdak   review date: November-22-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35 f/2.0
50 f/1.7
85 f/1.4

price paid:

???

positive:

Sharp images
Solid build

negative:

Heavy??

comment:

My fovorite and most used lens for many, many years. I bought it new with a 7000i back in the late 80's. It is the only lens from that original purchase that I have kept. This lens has produced many winning photographs over the years and is one of the best bargains out there. My was retired only when I picked up a bunch of primes that cover the range. Hard to part with this one though due to the quality images it produces.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: kefkafloyd   review date: November-14-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 28-105 f/2.8
KM 18-70 DT (kit lens)
Minolta 70-210 f/4 (Beercan)
Minolta 50mm f/1.7

price paid:

$50 USD used

positive:

* Compact, weighs "just right."
* Common 55mm filter threads.
* Classic Minolta early AF build.
* Excellent picture quality for the price.

negative:

* Not wide enough on APS-C (no real fault of the design, though).
* Not lightweight.
* Rotating front element.
* Zoom not as smooth as the beercan.
* Macro mode not very useful.
* Mediocre AF performance.
* Useless lens hood.

comment:

Back in the film days, this lens was the "next step" up from the 35-70 f/4 zoom. It's a nice companion to the beercan, both in price/performance and feel. It's not a perfect lens, but it's head and shoulders, IQ wise, from the junk Minolta would use as consumer kit lenses later in life.

* BUILD QUALITY AND FEEL

I bought this lens from Henry's via eBay. It looks to be restored slightly (cleaned up). There was no fungus or other ilk, and the body is nice and clean. It certainly doesn't look like a 15 year old lens use-wise, though style-wise it is definitely old.

Just like the beercan, it feels built like a tank. Metal housing, metal geartrain, and a compact build make this a dense, substantial lens. In combination with the 5D, it gives it a kind of heft you don't get with most cameras.

The general handling of the lens is good, with decent balance. The zoom ring is rather narrow (which was fixed in the RS version) and isn't completely smooth, but this may be 15 years for the lubricant (if it works like the 28-13) to wear out. The focusing ring, like most early Minolta AF lenses, is narrow and hard to grip. The supplied lens hood is also completely useless. Two of these problems are fixed with a nice third party rubber lens hood, as turning the grip of a lens hood to focus works very well on this lens. You could also use a clip-on hood from lenses like the 100-200 or even the beercan, but they vignette around 28mm. A folding rubber lens hood is the best choice.

* FOCUSING AND ZOOMING

The AF of this lens isn't great. It's not slow, but it can be wonky in low light situations. This is fixed by using a flash with an AF illuminator. Outdoors in bright light, the AF is snappy, but not prime fast. Acceptable.

The zoom ring on my copy is a bit hitchy. It feels smooth until you start hitting focal lengths under 50mm. There's a definite "push" going from 35 to 28. This is probably just in the design of the lens; it's not the same zoom mechanism as a Beercan or 28-135, so there'll be some give. Used in conjunction with 5D, the lens feels like a nice extension of the camera.

* IMAGE QUALITY

This is where the lens shines and makes few compromises. Equipped with a proper lens hood, this lens is shielded from its natural enemy (flare) and produces sharp, stunning images. The colors have the typical Minolta cast (which some may like), and the out of focus backgrounds have a Beercan-like quality. It's really hard to knock this lens down on pixel-peeping. The main flaw is flare susceptibility (again, which is helped many times by a proper rubber lens hood) which ruins otherwise acceptable contrast and the fact that 28mm exhibits some barrel distortion. Taking a picture of a flag at 28mm on a golf course where the flag nearly fills the frame creates definite bending. The 28mm prime would definitely outperform this lens as far as distortion goes, but this lens could compete as far as sharpness.

I find this to be a great lens to work well with a flash. Pity there wasn't a D version.

If you can get the RS version instead of this older version, I'd probably reccomend it, the AF performance is better and the zoom/focus grips are much better. IQ wise, though? They're probably extremely similar.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: fmajor   review date: November-04-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta Rokkor Lenses (many)
Minolta AF 50mm f1.7
Minolta AF 35-70mm f4
Minolta AF 70-210mm f4 "Beercan"

price paid:

45 USD part of a bundle (like new)

positive:

- superb colors
- reasonably sharp
- solid build quality
- smooth, creamy bokeh
- good walk-about or travel lens

negative:

- not eye-catching sharp
- small bit of purple fringing
- MF ring too small
- std lens hood not useful

comment:

EDIT: 18Nov2008
While this lens has served me very well over the years and given me hundreds (if not thousands) of wonderful pictures, i have secured it's successor/superior - a Minolta 28-135mm f4-4.5. If that lens performs to it's reputation, as i suspect it will, my dear old 28-85mm will be relegated to the "back-up" bag. However, unlike the Minolta 35-70mm f4 i had, i won't sell my 28-85mm - it remains a very good and useful lens.

INITIAL REVIEW:
This old lens is a pleasure to use and i use mine nearly every day. It continues to give beautiful, consistent results. I have also used it with film and while not perfect, it is still very good - especially given the modest price.

This lens renders beautiful colors - neither overly saturated/rich or flat. In fact, my examples' color reproduction is equal to my Minolta 70-210mm F4's (Beercan). The out-of-focus exposure rendering is smooth, colorful and provides a lovely accent.

This lens feels like what ALL lenses should feel like - in a word - SOLID.

For me a deal/no deal point is sharpness and this lens simply does not have the "punch" I'd like. Also, the MF ring is really too small to use very well for quick-switches from AF to MF. The lens also struggles to focus well in lower light/contrast situations.

This lens is not what i would call a fast focusing lens. Not slow, but not fast. Though nit-picky and easy to remedy, the standard lens "hood" is utterly ineffective except as protection from barrel dings. I use a lens hood from one of my extra 70-210mm F4 lenses and this works beautifully.

While this lens does not have the professional attributes of G-Series lenses such as superior sharpness, constant F2.8, fast focusing, HUGE price tag, etc., it is an otherwise great performer.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: china   review date: October-16-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

minolta 28-135
minolta 18-70
tamron 24-135
sigma 17-70

price paid:

80

positive:

good colors
good build quality
good range on film

negative:

not as sharp as i would like
bad range on digital

comment:

dose not deliver the WOW effect
takes good pictures, nice colors but no superb sharpness

it is much better then the kit lens and is better then the tamron but it dosent even come close to the sigma 17-70 or the minolta 28-135.

the range is not that good in digital but is great on analog
i should give it a test on film and see how the pictures turn out...

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Jose de Luna   review date: July-31-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Excellent build and optics.

negative:

Dedicated hood useless.

comment:

One of the best zooms I've used in the Minolta line-up, great color saturation (available light or flash photography), sharpness excellent from f5.6-11 (very acceptable at f3.5-4.5). Image quality a bit inferior to its bigger brother (28-135mm). Definitely a better alternative and more serious performer than the kit lens (18-70mm). Dedicated hood not enough to control flare, I use the hood for the 100-300mm APO instead.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: CTYankee   review date: April-26-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75D, 28-70G

positive:

Sharp, moderately fast (aperture), cheap.

negative:

Slow AF, useless shade, lousy close focussing.

comment:

A great alternative to the 28-75D on a budget & far sharper (in terms of resolved detail) than the kit lens. AF is slow and a little quirky. Sharp across the range - I rated it a 4 in absolute terms; for the price and the class of lens, it's terrific, but there are obviously sharper lenses. There's a macro mode that allows close focussing when the lens is down at 28mm. It's not useful often, but I've used it in a pinch for goofy closeups when the lens doesn't focus close enough in normal mode. If you find one without a shade, don't hesitate to try some third party shades, especially since the crop factor on APS allows for a deeper shade. The one designed for the lens is next to useless. See my review of the [RS] version of the lens for a comparison !

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: alexey   review date: March-18-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Goog build. Contrast and sharpness. Price!

negative:

Macro regim is not useful.

comment:

Good lens for every-day!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Max Zappa   review date: March-15-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 and Minolta 50mm f1.7

positive:

Sharp across the whole range, compact and well built.

negative:

Might be considered heavy by some. I think only available on the second-hand market.

comment:

I gave this lens a pretty stern test, comparing it with the Minolta PLASTIC, by that I mean the plastic mount 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 and the 50mm f1.7 as a reference.

I took pictures at f3.5, f5.6, f8, f16 and f22 at the following focal lengths 28,35,50,70 and 85mm.

I had the 7D tripod mounted, and shot the same subject repeatedly. I then compared the shots from the 28-85mm against the 35-70mm, and 50mm f1.7. The results were surprising. I compared corresponding images in photoshop, at up to 200% magnification, looking at centre and edge sharpness, contrast and colour.

The 28-85mm is sharp across the whole focal range, being pretty much razor sharp from 28 to 50mm, at all apertures. At f5.6 and larger, sharpness at 70 and 85mm was slightly less than razor sharp, but nevertheless very good. Colour was warmer than the 35-70mm f3.5-4.5, contrast high, with no noticeable distortion.

In short, this lens is a cracker, being the equivalent of a 40-130mm zoom in full frame. The SURPRISE is this, the plastic mounted 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 is even better and is a real shock to me, since that was the lens that came with my 500SI 35mm SLR, many years ago, which has seen very little use. The 35-70mm at 50mm at f5.6 and f8 is just as sharp as the fixed focal length 50mm f1.7

In summary the 28-85mm is a superb sharp lens across its entire range, contrast is high, colour is on the warm side, build quality is very good, usually has a lens hood. The 35-70mm is even sharper, contrast is also high, colour is neutral, build quality does not feel as good, plastic mount etc and the focal range is less, does not come with a lens hood.

If I had to choose between the two, I would have to go for the 35-70mm, because I will always go for the sharpest tool in the box, it feels kinda cheap and flimsy though compared to the Rolls Royce feel of the 28-85mm. But image quality is my first priority so 35-70mm it is.

A word of caution. I have owned enough lenses over the years to know that individual sample quality can differ. The tests I conducted were in no way scientific, but were simply a matter of comparing images shot at identical apertures and focal lengths, under the same lighting conditions. I used my eyes as the judge. I bought the 28-85mm just 1 week ago for L45 on ebay, I got lucky, my copy is good. The 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 can be had cheap on ebay too, for ridiculously low prices. If you come across one of these little beauties for sale dont overlook it because of the low price and the plasticky feel, my copy at least is an absolute diamond. The Minolta 35-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF shall hearby be known as the Minolta "PLASTIC". Remember you heard it first here on www.dyxum.com, from Max Zappa.


Max Zappa

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: andapp   review date: January-04-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

55mm Filter
Useful length
Very sharp
Cheap

negative:

Macro a waste of time, noisy and slow AF.

comment:

I bought it cheap on eBay, currently use it as my walk round lens. It can deal with most situations fairly well, colours are good and it is sharp edge to edge at all but the largest aperture. A great little lens.

sharpness: 3 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: former member   review date: January-27-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 28-135 f/3.8-5.6: image quality is similar, build quality seems better (no zoom creep). Practical filter size of 55mm instead of 62mm.

positive:

- Very good 'old-fashioned' build quality
- 55 mm filter size
- Great value for money

negative:

- Macro function not very usable.
- Rotating front lens

comment:

This lens is very well built, *much* better than the lightweight kit lenses that are sold nowadays. The tubus has no play and there is no sign of zoom creep. The image quality is decent, especially if stopped down to f/8. The versatile zoom range makes it an all-round lens. The lens has a 'Macro' option, but it hardly deserves this name (magnification is only 1/4). It is not really usable either, because the macro position is at the wide angle side (so you have to come very close to the subject). Also the autofocus is disabled in this position. This is one of the few standard zooms with 55mm filter size (a common size for Minolta lenses). Very practical. Great value for money (discontinued, but a true bargain on the second hand market.)

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: agetan   review date: November-22-04  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5 Macro

positive:

Very very sharp
Very cheap in 2nd hand market
Well build

negative:

Macro setting at 28mm is useless for me

comment:

This lens is as good as the older brother in MD mount. This is very interesting lens, it is cheap and well build. Suitable for street photography.

Though AF can be faster (can't complaint for an old lens).

I love using it with my Dynax 7 or 800si. It is beautifull as far as image quality go. I love lenses within 28-105. So Either I go out with a 28-85 or 35-105...

well, my 28-135 f4-4.5 is coming soon... will review when I do 10 rolls of slide.