Sony AF 24-105mm F3.5-4.5 A-mount lens reviews

reviews found: 18   
reviewer#41967 date: Nov-30-2017
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 50mm f1.7
Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS
Minolta 24-50 f4
Minolta 35-70 f4 & f3.5
Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6
Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5
Minolta 28-100mm f3.5-5.6
Minolta 35-105mm f4-5.6 N
Sony 30mm f2.8
Sony 35mm f1.8
Sony 50mm f1.8
Sony 18-55mm & 18-70mm f3.5-5.6
Sony 18-135mm (tried, not owned)
Sony 55-200mm f4-5.6
Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6
Soligor 60-300mm f4-5.6
Tamron 90mm f2.8
Sigma 28-200mm#
Sigma 28-105mm f2.8-4
Tamron 28-200mm aspheric
Various other wide angle and tele lenses plus MF primes & zooms.
price paid:£55
positive:compact
sharp
good focal range, esp on FF
negative:MF is slightly stiff
You really need a lens hood.
comment:I'm not going to repeat everything I said about the Minolta version because the lens is almost identical. My copy of the Sony seems sharper than the Minolta, especially in the corners, and the focus ring is noticeably less stiff.
On APS-C corners are not at all soft but 100% crops of distant small tree branches show a very small, amount of CA plus a reduciton in contrast at full aperture, throughout the focal length range; the corners sharpen up and get back their full contrast by f5.6, except at 105mm where they are better by f8, but under less unreasonable tests you'd be unlikely to notice anything wrong anywhere at any aperture.
Bowing of horizontals is obvious (but not especailly large) on buildings placed close to the top edge but not usually an issue.
On FF the dark corners at the wide end are very noticeable and there's a little more CA at 100% crops, but overall it seems slightly better and sharper than the Minolta version. In fact it seems to be about as sharp as the Sigma 28-105mm.
This will probably replace the Minolta version as my favourite 'normal' lens on FF as well as being a good choice on APS-C, though there you may beed to carry a wider-angle lens as well. It all depends on what range of focal lengths youa r elikely to be using. For myself, I normally have some idea what range is most important on any given trip and how many lenses I'm prepared to carry to cater for it. Sure, 24mm is not very wide on APS-C, but if you find 16mm isn't wide enough either, then you'll want a proper ultra-wide as well so the 24mm end isn't a problem.
reviewer#22451 date: Dec-12-2015
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 4
overall: 3.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 24-105 D
Minolta 28-75/2.8
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Minolta 28-135
Sony CZ24-70/4 FE
price paid:137
positive:Great range
Standard Sony color
Small
Light
negative:Distortion
Wide open sharpness
comment:What a refreshing lens. I have had two copies of the Minolta 24-105 D and didn't care for either of them. The Minolta D coatings just did nothing for me. In fact, I hated them. Which is why I have sold that lens twice. But the Sony is a bit of a revelation. Much better performance in the area that matters to me: color. This lens has the ncely contrasty look of the Sony coatings rather than the more washed out -D lenses.
reviewer#20381 date: Oct-18-2015
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:Minolta AF20. Sigma super wide 2. Minolta AF28f2. Minolta AF35f2. Zeiss FE2,8/35. Minolta AF50. Sigma 50mm f1:4. Zeiss FE1,8/55. Sony 2.8/85 SAM. Minolta AF135.
price paid:£230.00
positive:Great colours. Sharp at F8.
negative:Zoom action is not as smooth as it should be. Softens as you move either side of F8. No better than cheaper Minolta 24-105.
comment:Full frame street lens that can give great results at F8 but disappoints elsewhere. Buy the older Minolta version and get the same results for less.
reviewer#11630 date: Jan-22-2014
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 3
flare control: 5
overall: 4.6
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:450
positive:Great Range
F4.5
Cheap
Colors
Sharp enough
negative:DISTORTION! @ 24mm
comment:
missing
reviewer#10603 date: Oct-19-2012
sharpness: 5
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.8
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-55
Minolta 35-105 (2nd)
Sony 35 1.8
Minolta 100-200
price paid:230USD(used)
positive:Nice Minolta colour
Not rotating front element
Very useful range
Very sharp for this class
Build is better than original Minolta
negative:Lateral CA - purple fringe (can be easily removed in PP)
comment:I think this lens is very underated. Certainly it loses <24mm wide range, but other than that it is very useful range and sharp at f5.6 all across the range.

Nice colour. I don't have a full frame cam, but who knows - if FF ever becomes mainstream and I upgrade, I won't need to buy another lens. Its a bit limiting wide coverage on APS-C is no longer a problem there. 24~105 will be awesome on FF.
Build is very good with distance meter, metal mount etc.
Better than plastic mount cheap kit lens or primes in terms of build.
Colourwise, it's more minolta than sony. Warm and well saturated. For a walkaround lens, it has a good range. Well balanced on a55. The hood is pretty good- flare is well controlled.
Some people complain about CA and purple fringing - it is noticeable in high contrast shots. Stopping down a bit helps and CA is easy to remove in post-processing. I worked out the formula in ACDSee and feed all the shots I took with this lens. The result is pretty damn good - no CA, a lot sharper and very 3D.
reviewer#10507 date: Sep-12-2012
sharpness: 4
color: 5
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 24-105 f3.5-4.5, KM 28-75 f2.8 & Zeiss 16-80 f3.5-4.5
price paid:
missing
positive:Good range (for me) on APS-C sensors. Reasonably Sharp. Good build. Accurate focus.
negative:Fringing on High Contrast situations.
comment:I just picked up this little gem brand new from Canada. I missed my Minolta 24-105 and had a chance to get this lens as a replacement so I did.

High Notes: on APS-C sensored cameras it gives "me" a good range. Is it sharp? Yes, reasonably so. However, if you want cutting edge sharpness a Zeiss 16-80 may be your better bet. However, this lens really gives you that Minolta color & image style/feel. It's build is somewhat better than the Minolta 24-105. Yes, it's similar, but it's different as well. It's focus ring (compared to the one I had) is fairly smoother. The zoom ring is somewhat stiffer, but consistant. Focus is fast and it is accurate.

Low Notes: The fringing in high contrast situations (mainly sun lit) is the same as the Minolta version. Stopping down helps a lot, but doesn't erradicate the problem. Shouldn't be to much of an issue though.

In addition, I bought this lens as a walk around lens for general photography. Not for critical shooting where I would use my Zeiss 24-70 instead. It has range, it is light and it is a full frame lens. Hopefully, to be used regularly when I eventually (finally) go full frame. Zoom effect will be reduced when compared to APS-C, but it would give me similar range that the Zeiss 16-80 gives me on APS-C cameras.
reviewer#9409 date: Sep-12-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 24-105
Minolta 24-85
CZ 24-70
price paid:150 GBP (used)
positive:Small
Compact
Lightweight
negative:Soft wide open (slightly)
Minor optical flaws
comment:This is a lens which I think is much under-rated.

It is not perfect by any means but it can give excellent quality if intelligently used. In "the old days" we never shot wide open unless the glass was Zeiss or Leitz and always shut down a stop or two to get optimum quality. The widest aperture was provided as a means of making focusing easier (no AF then!) and shooting wide open was for emergencies only. Consequently, this lens should always be stopped down by a stop or more.

That said, I would love it if Sony could make a better quality (wide open and distortion wise) version of this lens.

I am not a fan of the bulkyness of modern optics, I love the better quality of lenses such as the CZ24-70 or CZ 16-35 (I reserve these lenses for commercial work) but when shooting weddings or doing something where I need to hold my camera for long periods (CZ 24-70 + A900 + time hand-held = ouch!), I prefer a smaller, lighter lens and this is where this lens comes to life for me.

There are distortion issues but I have not found these flaws too bad for the purposes I use this lens. This is not an acceptable lens for architectural work for example but I don't think it was ever intended for such work.

So, my recommendation? If you want a lens for weddings, portraits and as a convenient walk-around lens, you could be more than happy with this one. If you are hankering after ultimate quality, you will need to spend a lot more and get something like the CZ 24-70 (ultimately, you only get what you pay for).
reviewer#9138 date: Jun-15-2011
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:Tamron 17-50
Sony 18-70 kit
Sony 16-105
price paid:200 USD(used)
positive:- Compact
- Light
- Range
- Build
- Competent performer on film/FF
- Sharp when stopped-down a bit
- Focus ring does not turn in AF
- front element does not turn when focusing
negative:- Obvious vignetting at the wide end, even on APS-C
- Bokeh
- Soft wide-open
comment:I use this as a walk-around and for vacations when I need to pack light. The range is really useful, but 24mm is a tad too long on APS-C sometimes. At half the price of the wider 16-105, I manage with 24mm ;)

I would compare the build and IQ to the 16-105, they feel and look pretty much identical in many aspects. Build is good and solid with tight tolerances. Nothing wobbles like on the 18-70 kit

Sharpness is not that good wide-open, but very nice when stopped-down to f/5.6-8. Good sharpness for quick landscapes at small apertures.

Bokeh is quite buzy and distracting, especially at the wide end. Flare control is not the best, but not that much of an issue if you don't shoot right into the sun.

I've had the zoom for a little over a year now, and have used it a lot. either as a walkaround or on a second body when I have a prime on the a700, never regretted the expense.

reviewer#7503 date: May-27-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:
missing
price paid:270 USD
positive:Small
Light
Good focal lenght
negative:some vignetting
comment:I had this lense on my A100/200/300/700 days. I was always happy. It is a very suitable lens when you don't want to take too much equipment with you. It is certainly not a AL lens. You'll still need some addition to cover that need.

It gives really sharp pictures on my A850. The color rendition is good. The A850 is not good if set to AWB. I strongly recommend to do it yourself. Bad WB = bad color rendition ;-)

Yes, i admidt, on wide angle it has some light vignetting. I would say, that nor more than my Sony 18-250 used to have.

The A850 Kit in Switzerland comes with a DxO 6.2 Elite Version (Full Release), which does effectively remove the vignetting.

Compared to my 28-75SAM, this is a good carry on lens.

Overall, for me as an amateur fotographer, this lens, give nice pictures, good enough to print on an 10x15cm format.

Pro's may go for the CZ.
reviewer#7271 date: Apr-10-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 3
overall: 3.9
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 50mm F1.7
KM DT 18-70mm
price paid:185 GBP (new)
positive:Sharp. Compact.
negative:24mm on APS-C doesn't seem wide enough these days. Flare.
comment:I think this lens is underated. From the moment I started using it on a KM5D it felt right. It's since become my favourite walk around lens on the A700 It's not quite as sharp as the 50mm F1.7 at around 50mm but it's still good and I tend to keep it on my camera most of the time and only switch to the 50mm if I need the extra stops. Flare control is not good - the shade is next to useless. At times I've found myself having to shoot one handed and shade with my other hand.

reviewer#7232 date: Apr-1-2010
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 3
distortion: 4
flare control: 2
overall: 3.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I used to own this lens
compared to:Tamron 28-75 F2.8
Minolta 28-135 F4-4.5
Minolta 35-70 F4
Minolta 35-105 F3.5-4.5 Old
Minolta 50 F1.7 RS
Sony 50 F1.4
price paid:GBP 125
positive:+ Retains good colour and AF in low light
+ Great convenience - small, lightweight, MFD.
negative:- Horrible flare control, not seen this bad on any other lens
- Images have a flat, 2d look
- Heavy vignetting on full frame, doesn't go away even when stopped down
comment:I didn't like this lens... images seemed to have a very flat, 2d look and also the flare control was very poor. Shouldn't have been any coating problems as I bought the lens brand new (low price due to Jessops sale).

For full frame, suggest either the Tamron 28-75/2.8 or Minolta 28-135mm instead.
reviewer#7153 date: Mar-25-2010
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.3
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 18-70 F3.5-5.6
Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4.5
Sony 50mm f1.4
price paid:Ł400 GBP
positive:Compact walk around lens
Suitable for APS-C or Full Frame
Solid build
Sharp
negative:Would be nice if it went wider for APS-C
comment:A great little walk around lens for APS-C or Full Frame. It is well built but reasonable light and very easy to carry around all day for a lens that will go to 105mm. I have used it in the studio and outdoors and it has always produced good results. Of course it would be nice if it were f2.8 but then it would be twice the size and cost twice as much if not more. A great upgrade from a kit lens but not all that wide. Makes up for it with a the telephoto end.
reviewer#6984 date: Mar-2-2010
sharpness: 4
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.2
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Minolta 24-85 f3.5-4.5
price paid:275 USD (New)
positive:Nice Range
Well Built
Compact/Lightweight
Quite Sharp Stopped up
Good Colors
Fast Focus
negative:Soft Wide open
Bokeh not as smooth as I'd want
comment:It's an allright lens considering my budget.
reviewer#6591 date: Dec-17-2009
sharpness: 3.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 3
flare control: 5
overall: 3.9
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:24-70 cz
price paid:380 eur
positive:cheap
nice zoom area, 24-70
negative:vignette
mf is hard
comment:i tested de lens on my a900
its not the right lens on this camera, the a900 deserves better
the lens vignette's way too much
af is good, but mf its hard to handle

its a low budget lens.
reviewer#4766 date: Jan-29-2009
sharpness: 3
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I have experience with this lens
compared to:Minolta 24-105/3.5-4.5
16-80za
28-135 F4-4.5
price paid:
missing
positive:+ Lightweight
+ Very fast AF
+ Good range
negative:- not sharp wide open
- extends on zooming
- non SSM
- bokeh
comment:I test this lens. It's practically copy of Minolta 24-105/3.5-4.5 (D). Only some external disign changes. Good travel zoom For sharpness need stop down.
reviewer#4751 date: Jan-27-2009
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 5
distortion: 4
flare control: 5
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sony 18-70
Sony 75-300
Min 70-210 Beercan
Sony 50mm f1.4
price paid:500 CDN (new)
positive:Size and weight
Build
price
FAST af!
Internal focusing
negative:colour a bit dull
comment:A great, small walk-around, great replacement to kit lens. Flare seems a non issue. Sharp throughout range (especially f8 and up). No worries with flare. Nice and strong hood. Af is very fast and the internal focus is quieter. All in all, a great lens.
reviewer#4742 date: Jan-24-2009
sharpness: 4.5
color: 4
build: 4
distortion: 4
flare control: 4
overall: 4.1
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:min 28-135
price paid:
missing
positive:light
versitile
negative:
missing
comment:Nearly as good as the 28-135 in all respects (better when it comes to flare), lighter too. A good walk-around lens.
reviewer#2930 date: Nov-16-2007
sharpness: 4.5
color: 5
build: 4
distortion: 5
flare control: 4
overall: 4.5
tested on:
  • film camera:Film camera
  • APS-C: 6MP6 MP; 10MP10 MP; 12MP12 MP; 14MP14 MP; 16MP16 MP; 20MP20 MP; 24MP24 MP
  • full frame: 12MP12 MP; 24MP24 MP; 36MP36 MP; 42MP42 MP
ownership:I own this lens
compared to:Sigma 17-70
Minolta 28-105
price paid:450 Euro (new)
positive:- Compact
- Nice range
- Really sharp close up
- Good walk around lens
- Fast focus
- Very good low light focus
negative:- Focus in direct sunlight doesn't work or is very incorrect
- Focus at 105mm at far distance becomes soft, F8 and up does help
- Zoom and focus ring a bit tight
- Not negative, but would have liked to be a constant F4
comment:I love this lens, it's sharp closeup, really sharp. At distance it's good and o.k. at 105mm, but will become soft.
I like this lens for it's compact and good built. Could be a bit better, but nothing to complain about. It's also light, so good walk around lens. The 28-105 minolta, which is older o.k., seemed a bit more plasticky. The Sony doesn't have that feel to me. I would like to give build a 4.5 but only 4 or 5 is aloud.
I trade in my Sigma 17-70 for this lens, because I used this focal length more and it seem sharper at this focal length than the Sigma. This Sigma lens was o.k. but love the Sony more!
Only negative thing is AF in direct sun light stopped completly on my A100 this weekend. But then again photo was crap any way. It also did had some lensflare, nothing to worry about, but that was something I've never seen on the Sigma.
Color is neutral, which is very good, but I prefer a bit more "minolta" color. In the end it is very color correct so 5 point.
Distortion was not noticeable to me in real life and that is important to me. I don't care for lab test sheets.

Did a quick test on the A900, but to my surprise it holds up very well. I think that all negative reviews of this lens on 25MP are out of proportion. It is a very well allround lens. Off course it is no CZ!
reviews found: 18   

rating summary

lens image
  • total reviews: 18
  • sharpness: 4.31
  • color: 4.44
  • build: 4.22
  • distortion: 4.06
  • flare control: 4.11
  • overall: 4.23

to add your review
you need to login

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer
In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+