Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6  reviews

sharpness: 2 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Peter1982   review date: January-12-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Sony 18-55
- Sony 18-70
- Minolta 35-70 F3,5-4,5
- Sigma 18-200 DC
- Sony 18-135
- Minolta 28-105 RS
- Minolta 24-85 RS
- some primes

price paid:

5 € (used)

positive:

- front element shutter

negative:

- soft, soft, soft

comment:

My copy was the softest lens I've ever seen. All pictures were soft, no sharpness. Pictures were not bad, but all unsharp, a little bit like a blur filter effect. I disassambled this lens to learn more about lens construction and for spare parts.

sharpness: 2 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: derekw   review date: February-08-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35-80 f4-5.6 II
Minolta 35-70 f4
Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (Both versions)

price paid:

5 GBP used

positive:

Cheap
Minolta colour

negative:

Everything else

comment:

Having used all the Minolta 'consumer' level AF zooms (except the 80-200s f4-5.6), this is easily the worse Minolta lens that I have ever used.

There is no comparison with any of the lenses above, they are all much better.

On the bright side, it could save you a fortune if you want a 'soft focus' lens, LOL.

Use it as a paper weight - oops, not heavy enough.

Don't buy it.

sharpness: 1 

color: 3 

build: 1 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: Freddan_6   review date: February-07-12  

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 28-80 4.5-5.6
Sony 18-55 3.5-5.6
Minolta 70-210 F4
Minolta 70-210 F4.5-5.6 (I)
Minolta 75-300 F4.5-5.6
Sigma 70 F2.8 Macro

positive:

Cheap, Lightweight

negative:

Sharpness, contrast, sound, macro ability

comment:

This is the worst Minolta lens I've tried (out of 15 in my lifetime). I can see that it is not sharp even on the camera display and viewfinder (Sony SLT-A35). It has however colors so maybe it can be usable as outdoor portrait lens. On the other side I have for other lenses I prefer for portraits.
Focus is slow and loud. Minimal focal distance too long.


Price was 1200 SEK (approx 136€, 178$) But then I got a Dynax 7000i house and Big Beercan as well.
edit - sold and everyone seems to know it's value. I got 1 SEK=14 cent on swedish ebay (tradera)

sharpness: 3 

color: 3 

build: 2 

distortion: 1 

flare control: 1 

user: megrim   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:

Minolta AF 35-70 F4

price paid:

10 Euro

positive:

-Light
-Small

negative:

- Un-sharp
- Plastic build
- Above 70mm worthless
- Feels like a My First Fisherprice product

comment:

Part of a combination with a Film SLR [Dynax 3000i]. Is it his the worst lens made by Minolta? I stack up it there yes and I have found the softness of it interesting.

Compared to the beautiful crafted 35-70 metal body it feels very cheap. Even cheaper then the Sony kitlens, the strange filter thread is not the only weird thing. Also the little flip cover makes you question what is going on. It definitely is not your usual Minolta Lens.

I found it not extremely un-sharp but it is very obvious not as sharp as you desire a lens to be. For normal shooting it would bug me but this will make an interesting portrait lens!

It does seems to have a few big weaknesses in design though and use above 70 seems very inadvisable. Up till 70 it is probably useful portraits only! It isn't though like an expensive portrait lens, more like a cheap bad one. Still at the price I am not complaining.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 2 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: Churst   review date: August-16-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 50 f1.7
Minolta AF 28 f2.8
Sony 18-70 f3.5-5.6

price paid:

21 GBP (used)

positive:

Amazing Colour for the price
Bokeh is actually ok

negative:

Very soft wide open
Poor Build Quality
Weird filter thread size

comment:

As has been said before, strange lens. But I don't think it's altogether bad. It's clearly soft when it's wide open in bright conditions (you can see the flaring around highlights all over the shop in the live view!). But when the aperture is set to around f7.1 it actually takes a pretty sharp shot.

I learnt a lot as a beginner from owning this lens. I think my £21 wasn't wasted, even though the built in lens cover was broken.

sharpness: 1 

color: 3 

build: 1 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: conor12   review date: April-21-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50/1.8 28-135/4-4.5 28/2.8 35-70/4
Leica 35/2 60/2.8 90/2

price paid:

25 Euro

positive:

Can't think of any

negative:

The softest lens I have ever used.

comment:

I was really disappointed with this lens. The Minolta 35-70/4 blew it out of the water on the few tests I did before giving up. Maybe a bad sample but I will avoid this lens like the plague in future.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: jakubh70   review date: March-15-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 28-100 D, Sigma 28-105, SAL-1870, SAL-16105

positive:

Cheap, solid kit lens, sharp (yes), internal focusing

negative:

Slow, 46 mm filters not so popular

comment:

I've bought it second hand for testing purposes only. My copy is sharp and produces much better images than newer kit lenses. No visible distortion, flare can be an issue. Automatic lens cap is nice, front does not rotate so one can use PL easily.

sharpness: 2 

color: 4 

build: 1 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: borjomi   review date: February-03-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85 new
Sony 18-70
Sony 35G

price paid:

6 EUR

positive:

Lightweight
Compact
Built-in "front cap"

negative:

Very low IQ
Cheap plastic body
Filter thread outside "cap"

comment:

Very soft old "kit" lens, may be worst zoom with Minolta logo ever made.
Usable for portraits in soft-style.
Unique for system (but very cheap) 46 mm filter size.

Good source of original metal bayonet rings and rear caps.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: tomiZG   review date: October-12-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-100 d
Minolta 70-210 f4
Cosina 19-35
Sigma 24 2,8
Sigma 28-80
Sigma 70-210
Sigma 400 5,6

positive:

compact and light
built-in "cap"
Minolta colors and bokeh.

negative:

range at DSLRs
soft wide open
soft on the long end
plastic body
build quality low
wobbly ring

comment:

Was my first lense, got it with the Dynax 500si.

Seems to be a kit lens anyway.

Produces OK pictures in the wide and mid range, but needs to be stopped down. Not usable above approx. 70mms, too soft throughout the long range.

35 mms wide end are getting you nowhere on a crop-factor-dslr.

Still, the lens is compact and light, but don't know if I will ever put it back on the camera.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: PeterB   review date: May-05-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105
Sony 17-70
Sigma 28-70
other Minolta zooms

price paid:

9.00 USD (used)

positive:

Light
disposable
surprising at times
built in lens cap

negative:

dark
unpredictable

comment:

I got this lens by mistake a couple weeks ago. But then it was only $9.00.

Today I played and compared several zooms in the 70-300 range. Just for fun I placed this 35-80 in this lineup. Using the auto setting a lot of CA was visible even on the camera screen and basically not much quality open or stopped down. But then I moved from the AWB to the shade option and that was a surprise. There was no CA, no blowout and good sharpness at f8.

I call it a good learner lens. Others have a wider usable ranges in every aspect but it can take good pictures once you know it's limits. I definitely will pay more attention to the WB options on my camera from now on.

Conclusion - $9.00 well spent :-)

sharpness: 2 

color: 3 

build: 2 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: Space Cowboy   review date: March-12-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-70/2,8G
28-80/3,5-5,6D
28-105/3,5-4,5xi
50/1,4

positive:

actually nothing

negative:

weak build, low colour and sharpness potential, useless f4-5,6, focal length

comment:

Looks like this is one of the worse minolta lenses. Even with its low price there are other cheap zooms which are much better. 35mm - too long for wide angle. f4 - too dark for useful experience. A peace of advice: get rid of it and find something more serious.

sharpness: 2 

color: 3 

build: 3 

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, 28-85/3.5-4.5, 35-70/4, 35-105/3.5-4.5

price paid:

?? (kit lens 7000i)

positive:

Compact

negative:

Not sharp; Flimsy lens cap; Filter outside lens cap

comment:

Getting only unsharp (or need I say “soft”) photos, I already returned this lens after the 1st roll of film and bought a zoom from the beercan series instead (35-105). Sharper and feels better (solid metal).

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 2 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Duur   review date: September-19-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 50/1.7
Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX Aspherical DF
Tokina AF 28-70 f2.8-4.5
Voigtländer Apo Zoomar 28-210

price paid:

2,50 euro

positive:

Lightweight
Small
Nice softness

negative:

Build
For most uses too soft

comment:

For the money a nice lens. It is clearly a budget lens.
When I got it, it was missing the lens cap knob and one of the internal screw mounts was broken (but easily glued)

The pictures are soft, but evenly divided over the picture. After repairing the screw mount, a lot less soft.

I could use it as a replacement for a 50mm lens with a mounted weak soft-filter for portrets.

sharpness: 2.5 

color: 3 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Bob J   review date: March-27-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 35-90, KM 18-70

positive:

Very cheap second-hand, no lens cap to loose

negative:

Soft wide open. Soft at both ends of zoom, better in the middle

comment:

Strange lens - it is supposed to be f5.6 at the long end, but it seems to actually be f5 - EXIF shows the lens as only getting to 70mm - it definately zooms beyond 70 (just not by enough to show up on EXIF). Only focuses down to 46cm despite macro claims. Maintains f4 up to 44mm, f4.5 from 45-60 and f5.0 beyond.