Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5 N  reviews

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

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:

Mino 28-85
Mino 35-70
Sony 18-70

price paid:

50 USD

positive:

Nice walk around range
Solid build
Lightweight
Inexpensive
Readily available
smooth & quiet AF

negative:

Not as sharp as Original version
no macro switch

comment:

Bought this with a 7000i. I knew it wasn't the original, but like other reviewers have stated, the original is sometimes hard to find. Most reviews seemed positive, so I gave it a try. Overall it's not a bad lens, just not exceptional. It is probably well above some of the other Minolta kit lenses of its' era (e.g 28-80, 80-200). I use it as a lightweight walk around lens with acceptable range. It is not as heavy as the beercan series, but it feels robust in construction.It's a pretty good hiking lens, due to it's weight and range.

When I wish to take better shots, it stays in the bag and I use my 28-85. The colors lack character, and sharpness= meh, not so much. I would recommend it, just don't expect images comparable to the Min 35-105 original.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: December-15-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 original
Tamron F 35-135

price paid:

30 GBP

positive:

Very sharp above f6.3
Minolta colours
Lightweight
Good MFD

negative:

Build could be better
No macro function

comment:

Vert good budget lens, a bargain at current prices.

Really good IQ for little money.

This copy is reasonably sharp at max aperture and becomes very sharp between f7.1 and f11.

Small enough for your pocket a very useful general purpose lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jenik.nk   review date: July-02-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 35-70/4
Min 35-105 original
Min 28-105

price paid:

1800 CZK

positive:

sharpness when stopped down
color
size
range

negative:

sharpness wide open

comment:

I was a quite disappointed with this lens. I wanted to buy the O version, but I could not find any, so I bought the N version for a good price. I was disappointed by sharpness. It took me some time to find out that sharpness can be very good or excellent if you stop down to 6.3 or higher. At higher f-values this lens produces wondeful images with beautiful Minolta colors.

Its size is great, I liked it for travelling. Build is OK for me, no problem. I haven't noticed any distortion, no problems with flare, but I don't think I have ever shot against the sun with it.

IMHO there is no point comparing its quality to the O version. Maybe we should not use the word "version", because the lenses are different, they are not versions. 35-105 O produces much better shots (sharpness, contrast), but is bigger, has much worse MFD (1500 vs 850 mm), is more expensive and a bit rare.

Finally I was satisfied and liked it, but I realized that when I want to go light, I usually choose 35-70/4 (or even 50/1.4), which is smaller, has fixed f4 aperture and can be used at f4 all the time, so it's finally much brighter. So I sold it, I had four lenses in similar range. Now I have also the fantastic 35-105 O, which has a different use.

sharpness: 3 

color: 3 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: kerplunk   review date: July-01-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (1st)
Minolta AF 35-70 f4
Minolta AF 28-105 RS
Tamron 28-200 (A031)

price paid:

35 USD

positive:

size and weight

negative:

Image quality.
Sharpness
Color

comment:

I bought this expecting slightly less quality that the older version in a much more convenient size, and was let down, and was not disappointed by the size.

When I first got it, I liked the size and build, put it on my camera and went for a walk. When I got home and started reviewing, I was a bit puzzled with what went wrong with all the pictures looking a bit flat, with no real sharpness. I pretty quickly summed it up to this lens, and figured I must have gotten a bad copy. So I got a second one and tried it, same results.

It was a cloudy day, and I didn't notice any flare, but I'm assuming it will have inherited this quality from it's older version (which is pretty bad), and gave it a 3. Neither of the version I got came with a hood, but it has the same clip on mount so I'll assume the original hood was similar.

If I want something this small and light to carry around, I'll take the 35-70 f4, the missing 70-105 range can be cropped in with better results.

The quality of this lens is far from the original version in my opinion. I think it's more comparable with my Tamron 28-200 super zoom (that is also pretty bad).

sharpness: 2.5 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: dealaddict   review date: June-26-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

45 (used)

positive:

cheap

negative:

too many

comment:

I bought this lens by mistake thinking it is the original version with the macro switch. This lens is really not good, I am not sure if I got a bad copy. It is not sharp. Focus is slow. MFD is long. I don't see anything good with this lens. Color and contrast are lacking. It is even worse than my kit lens. I guess you get what you pay for.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: matts   review date: May-05-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-105 original
28-105RS
35-70 f4

price paid:

$56 au

positive:

size
colours
price

negative:

sharpness

comment:

I was a little disapointed with this lense it definatly is not as good as its younger brother. Zoom ring was sticky, it had a problem with the zoom rubber as do a few of these lenses. I found myself going back to the baby beercan instead of this.

sharpness: 3 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Daaave   review date: March-24-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

22 € used

positive:

+ interesting range
+ colours
+ cheap

negative:

- sharpness

comment:

First of all: I really like this lens, even though it is definitely not the best lens! Most people are muttering about the range of this on APS-C, but I think it's rather great. The colours on this are really good while the sharpness is quite poor. Open you get a blur-ish image in the center and a blop at the edges :-D you have to stop down to at least f/8 to get it really sharp. But nontheless you can make cool photos with it. This has become my everyday-lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: andyken   review date: January-31-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-55mm SAM
18-70mm Sony
35-70mm Minolta
35-80mm Minolta
16-105mm Sony

price paid:

50 GBP

positive:

Very sharp stopped down.
Small & light.

negative:

Soft at wide apertures.
35mm not wide enough for APS-C.

comment:

I bought this on Ebay. Photo was cunningly unclear and listing said it was the older 'Beercan' generation lens. I was initially disappointed when I found I had bought the 'N' version, but actually its quite a good lens and at f8 can produce superbly sharp photos, but rather soft at wide apertures and at zoom extremes.

Sold it when I bought my Sony 16-105mm, which is much better suited as a walk-around lens for APS-C and much better at wide apertures.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Doublejayz   review date: January-21-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-105 f3.5-4.5 RS
Minolta 24-50 f4
Minolta 100-200 f4.5

price paid:

47 USD

positive:

Light
Sharp from f5

negative:

Soft wide open (usable)
Length on APS-C

comment:

I grabbed it cheap for fun as I heard this one is much worse than the older one, I never try that one either

Surprisingly sharp from 5.6

3.5-4.5 make a soft picture but it's like a soft filter or process in Photoshop, so is it still a bad side!?

28-105 or 24-105 is more useful but gain more weight and price

And for the price - A good len anyway

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jderuiter79   review date: October-07-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

€ 45,00

positive:

- Sharp
- Great Colors
- Solid
- Cheap

negative:

- Zooming range

comment:

I like this lens. I bought it second hand and it was cheap imo. The zooming range on the wide angle is not enough for me but for portraits, people and animals it's a keeper.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: MedsRX   review date: October-01-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony SAM 18-55 3.5-5.6 kit

price paid:

39 USD

positive:

Decently sharp. Light. Tough. Great Color. fun range. Nice-ish Bokeh

negative:

Can get soft in MANY situations. Flare Monster. CA and PF is strong.

comment:

I am starting a collection of 2nd+ gen MIN glass. I want to see how far i can push them and what can happen if you are on a SERIOUS budget!
This was a decent start. I found it has the potential for some RAZOR sharpness, the colors are stunning and really awe-inspiring to your clients and friends. Part of my "post-beercan era" collection is the search for quality lightweight yet sturdy budget glass and this fits NICELY in that category. It's plastic but you get the distinct impression that it can handle it's own.
I will say that in comparison to the sony SAM 1855 it can be a wee bit softer. and it hits that softness in more situations than the 1855 might. it is certainly no macro, but that much can be ascertained from any listing like mhoner or what have you.
it's not the creamiest bokeh ever but i think that can be over-done. however the bokeh is pleasant to look at even to the "cream-cheese" set. lol
One thing: it flares plus has some CA and PF popping out in any semi-harsh setting. doesn't bother me that much as i expected that from this era of coatings. it does tend to hunt like Elmer Fudd in low-light, yet i have had some great captures in these situations. Still a VERY useful & fun lens. I have the 35-70N coming soon and i look forward to a comparison.
for video: no zooming, too jerky. but it's lovely to view motion images made with it. i think it pairs nicely to my a33. It may not be in my "always" bag but it will be used.
-MedsRX

sharpness: 3 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 3 

user: Ovas   review date: September-11-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MA 24-50, MA 24-85, MA 18-55, AF DT 18-200, TAMRON 17-35,

price paid:

USD 104

positive:

Small, light.

negative:

sharpness wide open.

comment:

Could not find the vintage version so I bought this. Amazing small for the range. Maybe I got the only bad sample; Not sharp at all wide open, needs to step down to f11-f16 go get sharp picktures. Very week contrast not like the other Minoltas I have (14 ps). Gave unsharp picktures with bad contrast on A450. At 0.85 cm it is only sharp in the middle and very unsharp at corners at f11. I like the range for APS-C and bought it for my A450, but it failed to be usable.

Tryed it on my A900 and stepped down to f11-16 it is usable for general photography but not as the others I have in that range. At close range it was not sharp at the edges even stepped down to f16.

Tried it later on A77 - a total mess, on that camera this lens is just not good enough. I gave it away.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Introspect   review date: August-10-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

kit lens sony DT 18-55 SAM

price paid:

148 USD (used)

positive:

Colors
Fast, against the kit lenses anyway
cheap
build
good range in the alpha

negative:

not much for the price I paid

comment:

Well, first in Chile (where I live) there aren't many chances to get a lens for the alphas, except for the extremely expensive sony ones... So, when I had the chance to get this lens at a good price (at least in Chile) I took it. This is my first minolta and I just love it, It's been attached to my alpha 330 ever since... The colors are great, works fast and the size is just right, has better sharpness and is more luminous than the kit lens (at least to me)... the manual focus works well to me and is very useful in situations with low light... what can I say?... I need more minoltas...

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Metasynthese   review date: May-15-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

13,50€

positive:

-fast AF, very good for sports
-very nice colors
-good contrast
-bokeh
-price

negative:

-range on APS-C
-MF ring sucks
-nothing else for the price

comment:

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: rizkyputra   review date: April-06-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

sony 18-55mm sam
sony 55-200mm sam

price paid:

70usd

positive:

sharpness
color
build
cheap

negative:

funny wide

comment:

I love this lens and I take frequent travel, which is sharp enough and fast af .. I bought this from an online forum with quite cheap price. This is my favorite lens ..

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Csoeri   review date: March-04-11  

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
Sony 18-55
Minolta 50mm F1.7

price paid:

20 $ used

positive:

Weight, zoom-ring bulid, size, price

negative:

Focus ring is a bit inconvenient, and loose; focus in dark (f3.5 at 35mm...)

comment:

I like portrait view, so 52-150mm equivalent focal length is perfect for me, inside a room it is not so useful. Massive plastic bulid, zoom in dark hunts, and focuses there and back; Bulid is much better than the kit lenses, and God, I like Minolta design. On a300 faster than on a100. For sightseeing it is perfect. Size and weight makes it perfect for running there and back in a city, although i like more heavy lenses.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: mfdl   review date: March-01-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-200 DT

price paid:

25

positive:

Sharpness
Compact / light

negative:

Zoom range

comment:

Bought this lens as an occasion
Surprising sharpness and color on my A350 and A55

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: sungeunbae   review date: January-31-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50 1.7
Sony 1855/1870
Minolta 24-105
Sony 55-200

price paid:

100 USD

positive:

- Sharp
- Vibrant colour
- Nice bokeh

negative:

- Not wide enough on APS

comment:

Sold this lens after 6 month of pleasant use. I miss it a lot, especially its vibrant colour and excellent bokeh.

People say this version is not as good as the old version. I had no chance to compare side by side, but this one is way lighter. The only complaints I had was 35mm being not wide enough. I bought 24-105 instead and sold this one. But the image quality alone, I think 35-105 was better.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: al tent   review date: January-07-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-70 f4
beercan

price paid:

35 usd

positive:

Range,
Boken
Dead on sharp

negative:

Range
Searches a bit

comment:

I sat down tonight and looked through my stuff, had not done that in a long time. Sure enough half my Minolta Len’s were ‘new’, but then I had not noticed. Then again, half of them were originals.
This one is the 35-105, ‘new’, but I still love it. I used it as my walk around for a bit and I always have it around. I shoot on a 5D. That camera paired with that lens is really quite good. Better than that, really good.
So, It’s in my bag with the 35-70 f4 and the 100 f.28.
And the beercan.
Onward, through the fog!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: grose   review date: November-10-10  

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 50 1.7
Sony 18-70
Beercan

price paid:

50 USD

positive:

Sharp, classic minolta colors. Inexpensive.

negative:

My particular copy has a stiff zoom, feels tight...guess its the opposite of zoom creep.

comment:

This lense spends most of its time on my A850. It just feels natural there. I have used it on my A550 as well. I've been pleased with the quality of the pictures - they are sharp and filled with color.
As noted in my negative comment, my copy feels tight when adjusting the zoom. It doesn't have the silky feel that the beercan does. I'd like to get a chance to compare this second generation 35-105 Minolta maxxum lens to the first generation. The build feels solid, but not quite as rugged as the first generation.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: October-05-10  

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: 3 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: keitak   review date: September-20-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28mm f2.8
Minolta 70-210 f4.5-5.6
Minolta MD Rokkor 50mm f1.4

price paid:

500 JPY (~ 5 USD)

positive:

extremely cheap

negative:

awful

comment:

Super cheap, I bought this lens to take apart and use the alpha-mount for a MD Rokkor re-mount conversion, and thought I'd take a couple test pictures first.

Very slow, strange range (on APS-C, anyways)

I like prime lenses over zooms anyways, so that might have prejudiced me.

I wouldn't buy this lens for over $20.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: jychook   review date: September-01-10  

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

price paid:

$90 AUD

positive:

- Sharp
- Cheap
- nice colour
- smooth bokeh

negative:

funny range

comment:

The lens has very smooth and nice bokeh when zoom to 105mm.
Very sharp and nice colour. The only thing that I am not satisfied with is the funny range of 35mm. Nevertheless for the price I paid it is considered a very good lens, especially for potrait and zoom in objects.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Thelone   review date: June-22-10  

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 F3.5-4.5

price paid:

41.50€ (second hand)

positive:

- Cheap
- Light
- Reasonable range
- Quite sharp

negative:

- Weird range on APS-C

comment:

This lens is actually a good performer, but it never really make it in my line-up of lenses. Most of its range is already covered by other lenses I own (Sony 18-55 + Tamron 70-200), and that's just making it useless.

The other thing about this lens is that the range on APS-C is just awkward. With the crop factor, it becomes a telephoto lens with a 52.5-157.5mm range. It makes more sense on a FF sensor, but probably isn't good enough anymore against modern and/or more expensive glass.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: benibe   review date: May-23-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-85
Minolta 50/1.7

price paid:

110 USD (used)

positive:

Nice Color & Sharpness for this price, good bokeh,

negative:

build

comment:

this is my firt
minolta lens, i love the brightnes & sharp. good bokeh for this price

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: derekw   review date: May-07-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-105 f3.5 - 4.5

price paid:

L45 GBP

positive:

Light
Good colour

negative:

Nothing to mention

comment:

Very good lens for the price.

Dont judge it on its focal length; you know what it ia and the lens was designed foe film/full frame usage

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Cauldfield   review date: April-16-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210 f4 Beercan

price paid:

50

positive:

- fantastic IQ
- fast AF
- amazing colors

negative:

- manual focus ring a little bit too tight

comment:

This is the typical example of (in my opinion), the legendery "Minolta quality". I got this lens from a friend of mine, like a gift, and now it's my favourite lens at all. It's about the same IQ like the Beercan (very similar), but it's a little one. Really, it's not a big beercan :) But.. Sometimes You don't want to hold three kilogramms on your neck... And You need really SHARP images, then - this is your choice.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: JWG   review date: April-06-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

35-70 f4
28-80 f3.5-5.6D
28-85 f3.5-4.5
50 f1.7 RS

price paid:

25 GBP estimate

positive:

Good all-rounder
Weight/size
Image quality
Colour
Build quality

negative:

None

comment:

As every photography student knows, all lenses are a compromise. I think this is a great one.

It's not the fastest but 3.5-4.5 is respectable.
Build is not metal but hey it's roughly 20 years old and in great shape, no creaks, and all zoom and focussing mechanisms are still nice and smooth.
Colour is different to the metal build Minoltas, vivid but slightly less warm, in fact I prefer it.
Sharpness is not fantastic wideopen but is fine at f5.6 and what you'd expect at f8. Certainly excellent for a zoom though not the equal of the 35-70.

Range is very good for full-frame which is how I've used it. (I've in fact just purchased a 24-85 intending to use on an APS-C for this very reason)

The biggest surprise is its compact nature. It has the common and cost-effective 55m filter thread, weighs under 300g and yet delivers true Minolta quality far in front of the 28-80 kit lens I got with my Dyxax 5.

Bought in a package with 7000i and few other bits and bobs.
The 7000i is being used as a spare body but after tallying up the sales of the other lens, flash and filter I think for the camera and this lens I probably laid out about 25 GBP.

sharpness: 2 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: godsakes   review date: March-16-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tam 17-50mm
cz 16-80mm

positive:

very fast AF
cheap
compact
nice colour

negative:

unuseful range on APS-C
bad CA
needs to be stopped down

comment:

got sent this by mistake from an ebay seller so i thought i'd fire off a few test shots before returning it.

not particularly impressed, it suffers from bad CA (when wide open) which gives a ghostly effect. However sharpness & CA does improve greatly when stopped down to a very respectable level - its possible my sample had bad front or back focus.

The AF speed is very fast, but mine seems to almost rattle.

The build quality is pretty good compared to modern lenses but not quite as good as the 1st gen minolta lenses.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: March-15-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-105 Original

price paid:

L22 GBP

positive:

Just a great lens.
Underraed
Usably sharp wide open
Great Minolta colour
MFD

negative:

Not as good as original version! - but has much more convenient MFD

comment:

Jusr because this lens isn't as good as the original, don't disregard it. It is still a fine lens. Very sharp above f5.6.

Also consider that it is lighter, smaller, has a more workable MFD (850mm against 1500mm) and can be obtained for half the price.

I use both depending on the occasion. This is more than good enough for general photography.

Also consider that regardless of cost, it is difficult to find a zoom better than the original 35-105.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Tijn   review date: March-15-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 Sony
50 f1.7 Minolta
70-300 Tamron

price paid:

25

positive:

sharp from f6.3
fast af
decently build
cheap
nice colors

negative:

performs bad in low light
often very soft
weird focal length on aps-c
minimum focus distance

comment:

i picked this lens up for 25 euro at a local shop. dissapointed at first. wide open the images are really soft especially in low light conditions. but when stopped down and with decent light or flash it all of a sudden becomes really sharp. and the colors are just lovely (very warm). Not very usefull for indoor shooting as the minimum focus distance is 80cm (!).

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

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 28-85, 100-200, 75-300, 50 1.7, 28 2.8

positive:

Gorgeous colors, handles beautifully, light weight, sweet for walkarounds. Extremely fast and responsive auto focus.

negative:

Mine is in the shop, sticky blades hopefully it can be saved!! Lack of range on the short side on C format hurts but full frame this little monster should be a beast!

comment:

This is my favorite lens since I have been shooting Minolta, perhaps equaling my love affair with Nikon 135mm a1 lens when I was shooting F2's. Dunno why it gets trashed so badly around these parts, sure it is plastic but it is super high quality plastic, made in Japan with a sturdy metal mount. Maybe I am lucky and scored a good copy.
I haven't had a chance to shoot it yet on the A700 since it is in the shop for repair but I was getting fabulous results on the A 200....as before this was my go to lens despite the lack of wide in the C format. It was on my 9000 probably 80% of the time back in the day.
Hopefully I can get her back and post an update on results on my A700.

Updated!

My old friend has barely left my A 700 since she returned with clean blades. I don't see the problem many complain about with the range being a problem on APS-C camera. Approx 52-157 works fine for me. Wide is not my obsession anyway.

As said, I bought this new and scored a very nice copy. This remains a solid, highly recommended lens for me. It also remains one of my all time favorites.....it is good and fine to have my old friend back!!! Much better on my A 100 than the A 700

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: hardware850   review date: February-28-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony DT18-70
Minolta 35-70 f4
Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5

price paid:

69 USD (used)

positive:

Sharp
Color
Size

negative:

Nothing for the price

comment:

This lens stopped me from selling my A350! I had (and sold) a Sony A100 Because I was never impressed with the IQ. I have a Sony DSC-R1 that I absolutely LOVE - it's a Cybershot but it has an APS-C sensor and a Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T lens - it takes amazing pictures. When I had the A100 I purchased both Minolta 35-70s having read good things so when I found a deal on the A350 I was optimistic about the combo. To tell you the truth I was underwhelmed. I found the 35-105 on eBay and purchased it thinking that it was the older macro version so when it came in I was less than excited about it and threw it in a drawer. I was thinking that I should just sell the A350 and look at a Canon or Nikon but then I pulled this lens from the drawer, took some quick snapshots and WOW!
Maybe I just have a really good copy (ser# 14308347) because mine is very reasonably sharp at 3.5 and razor sharp when stopped down just a bit. This lens has by far the best colors of all my lenses. This lens is so good that I decided to keep the A350 and grabbed a Sony 18-55 SAM lens (so much better than the 18-70) as my wider angle. I am so glad that I found this treasure of a lens (even if in error) Now I grab my A350 before the R1!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Terpret   review date: February-18-10  

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 70-210 f4

positive:

Very Sharp
Nice Colors
Rubberized Focus/zoom rings

negative:

Focus is disappointing at wide aperture

comment:

Very sharp at narrower apertures but gets a bit hazy at maximum aperture. A small and versatile lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Mel   review date: November-07-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6
Minolta AF 70-210 F4 (beercan)

price paid:

EUR 40

positive:

sharper than Sony 18-70
fairly cheap
range

negative:

soft at 105 mm

comment:

A step up from the sony 18-70 in IQ and (for me) useful range. Best results at F6.3/F7.1, although still decent picture quality at larger apertures. Nice (warm) colors. The zoomring on my copy is a little stiff.
It looks great on my A200.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: snajper   review date: November-06-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MINOLTA 50MM 1.7
SIGMA 90MM MACRO
SAL18-70
SAL 55-200
Minolta 35-105 old

price paid:

70USD

positive:

NICE MINOLTA COLOURS AND PRETTY SHARP ABOVE F6.3
CHEAP

negative:

A bit noisy at ISO400 and above. Stiff zoom like everyone elses.

comment:

Best colour out of my all lenses by miles. Very good lens for outdoor shooting as long as you keep it above 6.3. I use it outdoors around f8 and it is fantastic.

Ended up selling it to buy 35-105 old version which is way sharper.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: razumovnet   review date: September-28-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Sharp, Range, Fast AF on A700, Compact.

negative:

Can be quite soft wide open.

comment:

Best value lens with high IQ for this range.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: michaelg   review date: August-30-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tokina 19-35
M50/1.7
Beercan
M135/2.8
Sigma 105Macro
M28-85
Vivitar Series1 105/2.5
Sony 75-300

price paid:

90 USD

positive:

Very Sharp Stopped down
Good Range
Very fast AF
Small & light

negative:

None

comment:

This lens is a very unassuming bargain!
Sopped down to f/6.3 it is incredibly sharp!
On APS-C it equals a 50-150mm which is a pretty cool range.
Very useful for portraits, shooting birds & the odd scene.
Small light & easy to carry. Very underrated.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Shootist   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:

35-105 Macro (1985) and Almost all other Minolta Legacy Lenses

price paid:

$115 USD Used

positive:

Compact
Sharp
Light
Minolta COLOR all the way!

negative:

For the price I don't see any!

comment:

I've tested most Legacy Minolta Zooms and Primes now. This is the first (non-telephoto)of many reviews where I hope I can guide the Alpha mount community.

I do all my lens testing in bright light, f4.5, on a tripod with official resolution test charts, no image stabilization.

This lens average rating is perfect. It's a 4.3. Given the size, weight, and appearance (looks count for something!) of this lens I have to say I've converged some of my attention around it as a real bargain.

Why?

This focal range is the best for me and my uses on my A350. I don't need that super wide 20mm (even though I bought one of those too!) or anything over 105mm for "walking around" purposes. Who really does?

And if you do want something wider you need to consider the competition. the 28-85 and 24-85 are not as clear as THIS little lens. Not. No way. Never. They also cost more, they're too big, and you should just buy a prime to do anything wider than 35mm IMHO.

This lens is NOT (even!) as sharp as the 35-105 macro (1985) lens....but what zoom is?! I've spent countless hours on E-bay and opened tons of dirty camera bags trying to find something better - so don't even try - take my misery and use it! 28-135? Nope - not the copy I got/sold.

What it comes down to is this. I'm not about having a lens that does it all badly. Or even one that does it all but only does a few things well. If I have a lens that does it all I'll DO IT ALL when I'm out stomping around and would hate myself for going above 70mm on a given lens or using the big F stop on another.

So...this lens is NOT the older 35-105 (which is my true walk around lens) but it's pretty close. If I need a light duty/inconspicuous lens that does about the same then I'd use this. If you ding it up you could buy another pretty cheap!

-Shootist

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Milan33m   review date: May-07-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MAF 100/2,8 Macro, MAF 70-210/4 Beercan, MAF 28-105/3,5-5,6, MAF 100-300/4,5-5,6 MAF 50/1,7

positive:

Have macro option, good bokeh, sharp, reasonable price

negative:

not very good range 35-105 mmm, a bit dark aperture

comment:

A good starter lens for every Sony Alpha user who does not hunted as yet MAF 28-135 or 28-105 lenses and don't like to use Sony 18-70 starter kit, goods equivalent of it. Takes good macro pictures.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: alphaPDX   review date: May-07-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5
Tamron 18-250
Tamron 17-35

price paid:

$150US (new)

positive:

light, small, Minolta color

negative:

slight softness wide open, slight distortion @ 35mm

comment:

I like this lens more than the ratings might indicate. At 52-157mm equivalent on aps-c, it's fine for portraits and general use. Sharp when stopped down a bit, and great colors - now I've seen what "Minolta color" looks like! I was surprised to note a bit of perspective distortion in one of my favorite shots I took with this.. not extreme, but noticeable when straight lines are at the edge of the image. The used price on this lens makes it an easy recommendation; I paid a high price for new-in-box and am still quite happy.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: minyo   review date: May-06-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

150USD

positive:

sharp, nice color

negative:

none

comment:

I like very much this lens, I've buyed it a years ago in Slovakia, therefore the high price - for dynax 500si super, my first minolta camera and I was satisfied, then I obtained 7D and "surprisingly" I'm still happy with it. Several of my favorite shots with my daughter was with this lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: fauxpas   review date: April-11-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

DT 18-70 Kit Lens

price paid:

$20 USD (Used)

positive:

Cheap fast and compact.
Reasonable picture quality.

negative:

I don't find it as sharp as other's report.

comment:

Find this one a bit limited on the A200. Will stick with the kit lens for a while for shear flexibility. I haven't noticed any increased picture quality over the kit lens but that may be due to this minolta being 20 years old...

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: andrewlamwc   review date: April-05-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony - AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6
Sony/Carl Zeiss - Vario-Sonnar T* DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5
Minolta - AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D
Sigma - 18-200 F3.5-6.3 DC

price paid:

51 USD (Used)

positive:

+ Cheap (2nd hand)
+ Acceptable Color

negative:

- Not wide enough on APSC
- flare in strong light
- Disappointed Sharpness

comment:

Acquired it from 2nd market in a very low price. However, I sold it out soonest when the sharpness is not as I expected under strong light condition.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Niethan   review date: April-03-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 kit lens
Minolta 28-80 xi F4-5.6
Minolta 50 f1.7
Minolta 28 f2.8
Minolta 100-200 f4.5
Tamron 70-300 f4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2

price paid:

50GBP a while back

positive:

-Sharp
-Light
-Cheap
-superb walk around/sports lens

negative:

-not wide enough on APSC for architecture shots

comment:

Put this little gem alongside the 50/1.7 and it's only about 1cm taller.It's absolutely amazing for it's reach.

It's sharp in the center even wide open and hits the sweet spot at around 5.6.It's really sharp to focus and it's a great companion at sport events. Try and take any other tele or medium range to a football game and the stewards will frown and probably won't let you in. I put this little prime-size gem and there's no problem.

It also comes with a nice hood so flare is no problem.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: Timbits20   review date: March-31-09  

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
Minolta 35-70, F4 xx
Minolta 50, F1.4 original

price paid:

can't say, but cheap

positive:

Very nice light and small piece of glass that takes solid pictures. Not really for pixel peepers, but your most beautiful pics usually aren't of brick walls etc. Available cheap and makes a good companion to Tammy 17-50 type lenses.

negative:

For what you can get them for, really nothing. However, this is not a particularly sharp lens below F8. To tell you the truth, even at F8 the difference between it and my other faster lenses is obvious.

comment:

OK, first off, I am not a lens authority and can only give you my subjective impressions of this lens which I have used close to 20 years on the 7000i, 7xi and A100. I don't know if this makes any sense (it probably doesn't) but it seemed sharper to me on film. On the A100 it's clearly softer than the Tammy, but holds its own in terms of the images it produces. Yes, the colours are "minolta."

I use this lens for the reach that the Tammy doesn't have beyond 50 and it does not disappoint. It's not nearly as sharp wide, but it holds it's own in terms of the images it produces, particularly stopped down. Indoors, however, it's easy to get into a situation where it's not wide enough.

The Minolta 35-70 F4 is a sharper lens no doubt, but the extra reach of this lens makes it a more useful. In addition, somehow I feel less nervous handling this lens than the 35-70 which to me feels "less tight" in terms of build. Although the body feels sturdy enough, the rubber around the zoom ring on my copy is oxidizing and a little loose - as a practical matter, it only looks bad.

In terms of the images it produces, my 50/1.4 "totally crucifies" (OK, that's a bit of hyperbole) this lens in terms of sharpness and low-light functionality (at 50 mm of course,) but that little gem is a classic low-light prime.

This lens is really light and handy. For the "cheap as chips" (as our British Buds say) price, you seriously can't go wrong with a proper copy IMO.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: NZalpha   review date: March-11-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

CARL ZEISS 24 - 120 on Sony R1
Minolta AF 35-105 F3.6 - 4.% non N macro

price paid:

129NZD

positive:

SHARP STOPPED DOWN
LOVELY COLOUR
BOKEH GOOD

negative:

SOFT WIDE OPEN AT WIDE END
NO MACRO

comment:

I bought this lens as a macro with a reversing ring to use on a Sony alpha 700. I have also tested it as a medium telephoto zoom fitted conventionally. Its the first Minolta lens I have used.It is quite sharp stopped down especially at the telephoto end. Corner softness is an issue wide open - its gets soft and mushy. Fast snappy focusing. Good for portraits. Flare control is mediocre. The main thing I liked about this lens were he Minolta colours and sharp performance on the long end giving a fair telephoto zoom on an APS sized sensor.
I have since sold this lens and bought the macro version.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: bono   review date: March-03-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 70-210 4,5-5,6
Minolta 35-70 f/4

price paid:

20 EUR (used)

positive:

compact
sharp

negative:

focal range on APS-C
no Macro
Bokeh (sometimes)

comment:

I really like this lens. It is sharp if you stop it down to f/8. There is no visible CA or flare and it is really compact. I would not use it for portraits because the bokeh is not so nice sometimes.
The focal length is a little odd on an APS-C camera, it is equ. to 53-153. But you can't beat it for the price!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: alphafreak   review date: January-16-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 24-70 f2.8

price paid:

$30.00 Used

positive:

Lightweight
Fast AF
Sharp / Clear
Rock Bottom Price

negative:

Wish it had larger aperture

comment:

Nifty little lens...Gave it a try cause there were very few bidders for this item on ebay .. Ended up owning it for $30.00. Tried it and did a few comparison Shots with the Sigma ... Colors and Sharpness of this Lens was quite close to the Sigma . I like the Mid-range focal lenght . Works for me . I'm keeping it ..btw I was lucky enuf to get it with the original lens hood. If you can get one for $50 or less take you won't be sorry = )

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: ciupo35   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:

kit lens

price paid:

90 USD

positive:

Small, not heavy
fast AF
nice bokeh

negative:

rotating front element
aperture not constant
Lower limit (35 mm) is not enough on APS-C

comment:

Useful for portraits, but in good light conditions.
Still useful in typical situations, but application in landscape photography (on APS-C) is limited - not wide enough.
Bokeh is easy to obtain.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Henrik K Kristensen   review date: November-26-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Canon 28-105
- Canon 50mm f/1.4
- Pentax 43mm Limited

positive:

- Great colors.
- Good sharpness
- Small and light

negative:

- Not sharp wide open
- Nothing else found yet (Because I did know that is was not f/2.8 when I bought it ;-)

comment:

This is my first Minolta lens - I have previously owned Canon and Pentax equipment, but have now switched to Sony and loving it. This lense was only purchased as a temporary lense for my A700. My first priority was to get a landscape lense (17-35 f/2.8-4) and a longer tele (70-300 G) so i needed a cheap solution for the mid-range (until I can afford the CZ4-70).

Having shot with this lens for a week now, I am not so sure I will ever sell it. It covers an amazing range for me and produce fantastic results from at least f/5.6. I might add CZ 24-70 later, but this little gem will still be in my collection for "going light" and in rough conditions.

Please note - the 4 in flare control does not mean it could not get a 5, but i have not yet shot much under harsh flare conditions so the lense is not tested well enough in this area - I have not had any flare problems in normal conditions.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: saxbike   review date: August-15-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 (kit)
Tamron 17-50 f 2.8
Minolta 50 macro f3.5
Minolta 50 f1.7

price paid:

$46 USD

positive:

Center sharpness
Compactness
Light weight
good range for portraits
precise focusing
Excellent color

negative:

weak corners
slow speed
Very poor on FF

comment:

I purchased this lens to fill the gap between the Tamron 17-50 and the Minolta 100-200. Sharpness in the center is equal to the 50mm 3.5 but it gets soft in the corners especially at the wide end. It appears that f8-11 gives the best overall resolution. I like the range of the zoom as it works very well as a portrait lens. It is also very compact and light, about the same size as the 50mm 3.5. As a portrait lens, the softness around the edges can actually work to my advantage. Color meets the usual Minolta expectations, and I do not detect any problem with distortion. Overall, an excellent lens for the price...actually an exceptional lens for the price. It is also nice to have a lens that I would not hesitate to bring into bad weather or dusty conditions.

Full-Frame review: It's amazing how different a lens is on FF sensor. My original review as done on the a200 and the 35-105 did very well and subsequently i have made some very fine images with it. I tested four lenses together on the a850-- Minolta 50mm f1.7, 50mm f3.5 Macro, 35-105mm and 28-135. The two 50's were almost identical and both were far superior to the 35-105. Very disappointing performance at all apertures. It did get a little better about f8 but corner were very weak across the board. Therefore, I find it necessary to lower my rating of the lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Derek   review date: June-30-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-85
Sigma 28-70 f2.8-4
Sigma 21-35 f3.5-4.2
Minolta 70-210 f3.5-f4.5

price paid:

20 GBP

positive:

Sharp at all focal lengths
Weight
Colours
Cost

negative:

None to speak of

comment:

Great lens. For L20 a steal (from e-bay - I was the only bidder). This lens is a masterpiece and is slightly better than the 28-85 and 70-210 at similar focal lengths.

Not heavy, could easily become my favourite lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: BasK   review date: June-12-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Tamron 17-50
- Minolta 50/1.7

price paid:

EUR 45 (used)

positive:

- compact
- sharpness

negative:

- zoom a bit stiff

comment:

I was looking for a lens in this range. And this is a nice one.
Sharpness is good when stopped down in all focus settings. Wide open it is not too bad at 35 and 105 mm, but strangely at 50 mm it is less than at both ends. All in all for this price it's a very attractive lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: N_Raged   review date: May-08-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50 f/1.7 (O)
Minolta 24 f/2.8 (O)
Minolta 70-210 f/4 beercan
Sigma 24-70 f/2.8

positive:

+colour
+really fast AF
+light and compact
+55mm filter diameter

negative:

-rotating front element
-poor sharpness

comment:

This lens was really made for film use; the zoom range is impractical on a 1.5x crop and its lack of sharpness makes use on digital undesirable. Only when stopped down to around f/8 is when this lens is decently usable. On the bright side, it is small and light to carry around and the zoom/focus rings are good to use.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: womprat4   review date: April-26-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

20 usd

positive:

- very light and compact
- super cheap to buy
- surprisingly nice image quality

negative:

- 35 on the wide end ain't so wide on a crop sensor

comment:

I picked up this lens as part of a lot, and had no interest in it whatsoever...then bored one night I cleaned it up, stuck it on my A700 and was pleasantly surprised.

Build quality is good, zoom action is nice and light and smooth and manual focusing is not terribly difficult.

Color rendition is very nice...rich color and nice tones. Sharpness is also quite good. After reading some reviews here I went back and looked again at the shots I've taken with this lens and cannot rate sharpness less than a 4 (4.3 is more appropriate), it's quite nice. The focal length is a little awkward, but it makes a nice portrait lens.

Recommended if you find one for a nice price...how can you go wrong for under 50 bucks for a nice compact, well built, and reasonably sharp lens...you can't! A nice little lens.

sharpness: 3.5 

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: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: neonights   review date: November-30-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70mm
Minolta 50mm F1.7

positive:

Good edge-to-edge sharpness but...

negative:

... it needs to be stopped down a lot

comment:

I bought this lens many months ago and was never really satisfied with it. I even thought I got a deffective lens until I decided to have some thorough tests with it.
So that's what I got:
When wide open (F3.5-F4.5, 35-105mm) it's nearly useless. VERY soft. And I mean it! It looks out of focus but it's actually softness.
But when you stop it down to F8 you get an amazingly edge-to-edge sharp lens! It seems another different lens!
Now that I 'learned' 'how to use' this one, I'll make it more useful.

sharpness: 3 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Robbie   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:

kit-lens SAL DT1870
sigma EX DG Macro 50 mm
sigma EX DG IF 100 - 300 mm

price paid:

31 € (used)

positive:

colors
decent build
weight

negative:

sharpness disappointing
zoom ring was a bit stiff

comment:

I bought this lens on ebay because it often was recommended here at dyxum for its sharpness and it should replace my kit-lens in most cases.
But different to others here my example isn´t very sharp, in my eyes it´s more badly than the kit-lens. Also the kit-lens has the better range on APS-C cameras.
Therefore I didn´t use this lens very often, I can´t recommend this lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: MCNGUYEN   review date: May-28-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 70-210 3.5, 28-85 3.5
Tamron 90 sp macro Di
Sony 18-70 kit lens

positive:

Built quality
Sharp
Fast focus

negative:

Zoom ring not so smooth
Not wide enough on a APS-C

comment:

Well built zoom lens but the zoom ring is a bit stiff. Compact lens but not wide enough for a walk around lens. That's why I bought the 28-85 3.5 this one is as sharp and gives better colors. I use it less now that I get the 28-85mm.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: mio-km   review date: March-27-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 DT (kit)
75-300 D (kit-tele)

price paid:

65€

positive:

Light, compact, faster than my other lenses, very sharp at the long end.

negative:

Small zoomring, hard to catch focusring, 0,85m as min. foc. distance.

comment:

So far my only additional lens appart from my two kit lenses. It perform very well when given some, light, distance and focal length (that´s actually funny as my other lenses perform better at the short end). At minumun focusing distance the depth of field is very limited giving and overall OOF effect that is very cool in some cases (a soft-focus/glowing effect) . I would have loved to be able to come just a little closer with this lens. (45-55cm would have been great). But still, a great small lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: maskinmester1   review date: February-23-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 (kit lens)
Minolta 70-210 (beercan)

price paid:

35 L

positive:

Very compact
Good AF
Nice colours
Fine Bookeh
Build quality
Sharp!

negative:

None

comment:

Bought it attached to a Minolta 9000i camera at 35L incl. shipping from Ebay - both the lens and camera is btw in very good condition, although the lens was a little tight at the beginning - guess it hasn't been used for a while. So I reckon it is a very good bargain if it is wide enough for you.
For every thing else than scenic photos I think it will do fine - especially considering it costs 1/4 of the 24-105!

I use it as my walk around lens as it is even more compact than the kit lens and delivers way better.

Buy one before it becomes a classic and the prices starts to steep up!

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: gustavjensen   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:

KM AF 18-70mm/3.5-5.6
Minolta AF 70-210mm/4
Minolta AF 70-210mm/3.5-4.5
Minolta AF 28mm/2.8
Minolta AF 50mm/1.7
Sigma AF 10-20mm
Sigma AF 70-300mm DG Macro
Cosina AF 100mm/3.5

price paid:

27 Euro

positive:

Build Quality
Image Quality pretty good
Mice bokeh
Clip on lens hood

negative:

None

comment:

Have tested it much yet, but I am very positive so far.
Love the build, look, price, IQ etc.

This is probably going to be my walk around together with the Sigma 10-20 and the Minolta 70-210/3.5-4.5

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Dumont   review date: November-28-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Kit 18-70, 28-80 3.5-5.6, 28-80 4-5.6 Xi, 28-105 3.5-4.5 Xi, 35-105 3.5-4.5 Macro, Quantaray 28-80 3.5-5.6

positive:

Compact and sharp

negative:

none that can think of.

comment:

This seems to be a lighter (sans macro mode) RS version of the 35-105mm. To me it's a another fine alternative to the kit lens if you want a slightly longer reach and lighter that the original version, and I guess if you don't need the macro mode that's better.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: mudslinger   review date: October-24-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

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

price paid:

$65 (used)

positive:

- Sharp
- Compact
- Great colors

negative:

- Soft from 35mm - 50mm

comment:

This is a nice little lens for the price. After taking many test shots with this lens at different apertures, I discovered that this lens is very sharp from 50mm on. Under 50mm, the lens does not perform as well as the other zooms I compared it to. The colors produced by this lens were right on, no post processing needed. I did notice some slight distortion near the edges. I'd recommend this lens for the price. The 28-75/2.8 (D) outperforms this lens throughout the comparable ranges/apertures and costs 5x more.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: Bob5D   review date: July-14-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70mm kit lens.

positive:

Superb glass at bargain price.
Sharp.
Lighweight but well built.

negative:

Manual focus ring too small.
Crop factor on digital but great on 7000i.

comment:

A L25 bargain from e-bay that produces stunning results. Must be one of Minolta's best bargains and very underrated.
Used with film camera to great effect but crop factor with 5D does mean it isn't wide enough to be my walkabout lens.
Good for portraits.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jimmyhan   review date: June-07-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70D Kit lens with D5D

positive:

Very good value for money lens

negative:

Manual focus is really no easy.

comment:

I was truly surprised with this under US$100 lens that produce this kind of result. I love this lens, the kit lens in not in cold storage unless I need the wide end.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Tsukiyomi   review date: May-16-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-135/4-4.5
Minolta 35-70/4
Minolta 18-70/3.5-5.6D
Minolta 28-100/3.5-5.6D

positive:

Robust, reliable, sharp, no distortions

negative:

Needs hood against flare

comment:

You get it used at Ebay for 45-60 Euro these days, for the 28-135 you pay at least three times as much. I wonder why the 28-135/4-4.5 is so expensive these days and so highly praised, and this 35-105 is hardly mentioned anywhere and that cheap? It´s more compact and optically at least as good.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: bharnois   review date: April-28-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Great portraits, range, lightness, durability, fast enough for general use, you name it I love it. Can be colorful.

negative:

Getting old! Typical small focus ring. Can be flat.

comment:

I find it hard to fault a lens that's been of my 2 mainstay lenses since before some forum members were born! Thousands of frames on my 7000i and works awesome on 5D. Of course it's no monster costing thousands but it deserves props. Great paired with a Minolta 100-300, you cant get a lighter pair with that range.

Can be awesomely sharp if stopped down just a little.
Can take very flat bland stuff under some conditions.
Not wide angle enough on a 5d (I want a 24-105 D!!).
Haven't done a lot of portraiture on 5D with it yet but had some stunning stuff on film.
Always use the seemingly useless hood outdoors!
Never really noticed distortions.
Color ranges from stunning to flat but usually nice. Would give it a 4.5 but refuse to give a 4.

Gave it a build of 5 since it's put up with me all these years and still works perfectly. Stayed clean inside.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Nico VG   review date: November-09-05  

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 F/2.8

positive:

Cheep lens with a suprizing quality. A wonderfull portret lens

negative:

A little flare in special circumstances

comment:

A surprizing sharp lens for group and portret phothography.
I use this lens more and more for portrets