Minolta AF 17-35 F2.8-4 D  reviews

sharpness: 3 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: Malina DZ   review date: June-18-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 17-50/2.8

price paid:

380 USD (used)

positive:

Great general use WA-zoom lens;
Minolta colors;
Light weight;
Low lateral CA;
Good print quality up to 20"x30"

negative:

Average to poor AF accuracy (back focusing at 17mm, front focusing at 35mm); MF corrections often required.
Very weak corners at 17mm F2.8-5.6
Difficult to correct in post mustache distortion. Would not use 17-20mm for architecture with straight lines.
Catches flares at all focal lengths with the hood on. Watch the lens position toward the sun with this lens.

comment:

Sharpness is rather poor compared to Tamron 17-50/2.8 this KM lens replaced but bokeh is much smoother on Sony a100. I have no regrets switching to KM17-35 since I needed a WA zoom lens for a FF body.
In spite of its poor overall rating, I still can make this lens produce desired images from F6.7-F13.
You can download DNG image files taken with a850 for personal review from here:
http://goo.gl/KCmQv

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: Milan33m   review date: May-31-13  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MAF 28-135 4.0-4.5, Tokina 19-35 3,5-4,5

price paid:

150 EUR (used)

positive:

Very wide view. Great for water flow at fountains, and indoor photos, quite sharp.

negative:

Nothing special, except these I I could not find a good tullip shader. Newly produced ones, non original, give a shades on sides.

comment:

Very nice wide angle of view. I used it for water fountains in the nightlife. Water flow was great. I used it for taking fireworks pictures and indoor photography.
I sold due to a bit short for me range it and changed for MAF 28-135 4.0-4,5 As I do more reportage pictures, where longer range is important.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: berlin steve   review date: October-14-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony kit lenes 17-70 and 18-55
Tamron 20-40

price paid:

Eur 180

positive:

D-lens
far better than kit lens
Useful range on aps-c

negative:

lens hood

comment:

I bought this to replace my Tamron 20-40.

The Tammy feels better made, but both have same size hood leading to flare in certain conditions.

Optically, the Tamron might have the edge, but for my purposes, I needed the additional 3mm on wide, so reluctantly sold the Tamron.

Distortion is so less obvious than on the kit lenses. It is a great lens for architecture and outdoor wide shots, without the feeling that the edges are bowing inward.

Although not my favorite lens, it is probably my most used walkaround lens. Shame it doesn't feel as solid as earlier Minolta glass, but optically I cannot complain.

Highly recommended.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Minolta80   review date: August-13-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

17-35mm / f3.5 G
35-105mm / f3.5-4.5

price paid:

200 EUR (new)

positive:

-weight
-center sharpness
-price
-AF Speed

negative:

-corner sharpness is bad
-performance @35mm not good

comment:

I got this one back in 2006. For the price it's really a decent lens. Good center sharpness.
However I really like the fact that it's really light weight compared to pricey lenses- of course it doesn't feel that good in your hands.
I do like it better on my film lenses as sharpness isn't such a huge deal as in digital ;)

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: arCreation   review date: July-06-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 28-75 F2.8

price paid:

372 USD (ebay-used)

positive:

-Wide Angle
-Full Frame coverage
-good colors
-Distortion- very much acceptable for the angle
-Overall sharpness

negative:

-Distortion
-Corner sharpness
-Flare

comment:

I've been using this lens for over a year now on my A850 and more recently on my A65. It performs great on the A850. The distortion is mild considering the angle provided. The colors are really good-minolta like. I usually step it down at least 2-3 stops to get better overall sharpness. F5.6 is the minimum required in my opinion. Flare is indeed an issue as expected with such a lens. Nothing too bad though.

Recommend buying it. You can great some great shots on the full frame. If you have APS-C, i wouldn't recommend this lens in particular as it loses it's wide angles. There's better lenses out there for APS-C that give the equivalent of 25mm and up

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Guy   review date: May-31-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

On APS-C
- KM 18-70
- ZA 16-80
On FF
- Sigma 24/2.8
- 28-75/2.8

price paid:

350 EUR (new)

positive:

+ cheap
+ good WA on FF
+ good IQ
+ good flare resistance

negative:

- the hood is useless

comment:

This lens is really good for the money. On FF the wide angle is remarkable. This is my second most used lens for event photography, just after the 28-75. Surprisingly it has pretty good flare resistance. I do a lot of outside shooting with sun in the frame at full wide angle and there are only a couple ghots/flares, but nothing drastic. Very pleased with the IQ this lens provides stopped down to F/5.6 - F/8, although I regulary use it at F/11 - F/16 if the sun is out.
The distortion is there, but this is expected from this lens. It's a shame that SONY did not re-badge this Tamron lens again. With an SSM or new generation SAM motor this would be a good entry level FF WA.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: February-22-12  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 17-35 F2.8-f4 EX
Sigma 17-35 f2.8-f4 EX DG

price paid:

156 GBP mint

positive:

Sharp, evev at max aperture
Superb minolta colours
Inexpensive

negative:

Distortion - 17-20.
77 mm filters.

comment:

Better than the Sigmas - sharper at max aperture and better colours.

This must be a good copy after reading the reviews below. Very sharp at max apertures across the focal length range. Razor sharp f5.6-f11

There is a fair price premium to pay to cover this range with better glass,

sharpness: 3 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 3 

user: godsakes   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:

Sigma 10-20mm
sigma 12-24mm
minolta 20mm RS

price paid:

£160 GBP

positive:

Inexpensive
Decent sharpness
Good flare resistance

negative:

Lacks character
Distortion

comment:

Got this as a FF alternative to the sigma 10-20mm in APS-C, I had expected this to comfortably outperform the sigma, it does beat the sigma at the wide end but at the long end the sigma seems win. Overall the sigma has less distortion (especially at the wide end) so I'd have to say the sigma 10-20mm is the better lens albeit costing a fair bit more (and for APS-C bodies only).

All that said this seems to be a great value option for FF users, sharp enough to keep me content and thankfully LR has a lens profile for the tamron 17-35mm which can correct the distortion on this lens offsetting it's weakest aspect.

update:

Compared to the minolta 20mm RS, the 20mm is sharper but this lens has better flare resistance, neither have great distortion control but the 20mm has the edge. Compared to the sigma 12-24mm, the sigma (surprisingly) has much better distortion control, centre sharpness is similar but this lens has better corner sharpness.

Also don't let my sharpness rating of 3 put you off, none of the wide angle lenses I've used have stellar sharpness when compared to macro lenses, for the class this lens is perfectly decent. What is perhaps a bigger issue is this lens lacks magic, it's colour/crispness characteristics never excite you.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: yannick   review date: October-20-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

325 USD (used)

positive:

Range
f 2.8 at 17mm
Colours

negative:

Big filter size
Distortion

comment:

I love the range of this lens. This Lens on FF is extremely nice! With it's aperture it is even usable inside.
I do not have the hood fir this lens, so I remarked a little bit of flare.
The Lens produces awesome colours and it's really sharp for a Zoom lens.
The build quality does not really match a High end Body such as the A850 or the 800si.
At 17mm Distortion seems really odd, I don't know if the problem is my image composition or if it's because of the Lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: milan33   review date: June-22-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MAF 70-210/4, MAF 28-135/4,0-4,5, Tokina 19-35/3,5-4,5,

price paid:

110 EUR (almost new)

positive:

Well build, nice colors, good sharpness, makes good sharp pictures in low light, good for night photography, its wide range lens,

negative:

missing Macro function, vignetting with non-original lens-shade

comment:

It's a great lens. I love it, ist much better in sharpness than Tamron or Tokina 19-35 nad Sigma 18-35. A bit difficult difficult to find original second-hand tullip lens-shade, otherwise non original is not a good choice as it make worse vignetting. Flare can be a small problem.
If you have all of these great Minolta lenses: MAF 17-35/2.8-4.0, MAF 28-135/4.0-4.5, MAF 70-210/4.0 its almost you need for amateur photogrpahy, you are winner. A bit expensive in Germany on Ebay., however worth its paid price for me.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Bob Socko   review date: June-04-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

* Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
* Sony 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6
* Minolta 20mm f/2.8
* Minolta 28mm f/2
* Sony 35mm f/1.8
* Sigma 20mm f/1.8
* Sigma 24mm f/1.8
* Sigma 30mm f/1.4

price paid:

325 USD (used)

positive:

* Wide angle zoom with full-frame coverage.
* Reasonably fast aperture with good center sharpness wide open.
* Light for its size.

negative:

* Corners can be soft at wide apertures.
* Image quality is good, but not great.
* Unless you're a full frame or film shooter, there are better options available.

comment:

Are you a full frame shooter? Do you want an ultra-wide zoom, but can't justify spending $1899 on the Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8? Seriously consider this lens. It's one of the few options available on the market and, for the price, it's a pretty good performer. If you're shooting landscapes, you'll be stepping down to f/8-f/11 anyway, so the soft corners at wide apertures are a non-issue. If you're trying to use this as a walkaround lens, your center sharpness is still pretty good wide open.

Are you an APS-C shooter? Are you perfectly happy with your current camera and don't have any serious plans to upgrade to an a850 or a900? Don't give this lens a lot of thought, you have better options available. The Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 is a great all-around performer. Compared to this lens, you'll have a faster constant aperture and a slightly longer zoom range. Other decent options include the Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 (great image quality but more expensive) and the Sony 16-105mm f/3.5-5.6 (more compact, more versatile focal range). That's not to say that this lens is worthless to an APS-C user. It's not, it's a fine lens. I just wouldn't go out of my way to get one unless you can find it for a great price because you have other, better options available.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: C-hass   review date: March-14-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

-kitlens 18-70
-kitlens 18-55
-Sigma 10-20

price paid:

250 euros

positive:

-f2.8
-price
-sharpness wide open
-FF compatibility

negative:

-f2.8 only @ 17mm

comment:

This is one of the best lenses I've ever used.
I have a beautiful copy that I bought here on dyxum. I read many people saying that in order to get decent sharpness from this lens you need to step down, well my copy is razor sharp at f2.8, and this is why I'm keeping it.
This lens was my first replacement to the crappy 18-70 kitlens, and maybe this is why I love it so much.
The colors are beautiful: the classic Minolta colors!

I never had problems with flare, but it's true that it can be seen sometimes.

At 17mm f2.8, few people might be interested in bokeh, but I've done a number of semi-macro photos with this lens, and I just love its bokeh!

Distortion is there, and sometimes it's clearly visible, but for landscapes, it was never a problem, especially when I got the Sigma 10-20 and used it most of the times at 10mm, the minolta's distortion disappears.

After buying the Sigma, I thought about selling this lens, but I end up keeping it for I consider it a classic.

It's true that this lens is not comparable to the Zeiss glass (which I never owned) but for the price I've paid, this lens delivers everything I need.

If you're looking for a kitlens replacement, this would be my number one suggestion!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: ERH   review date: February-20-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

SAL 20/2.8
SAL 24/2
SAL 35/1.4G
Tamron 28-75/2.8
Tamron 24-135/3.5-5.6

price paid:

400 USD

positive:

Very wide on Full Frame
Good sharpness stopped down
Colors
Light weight

negative:

Distortions (but what lens at 17mm don`t have it?)
Vignetting at 17mm
Sharpness wideopen

comment:

Bought it for my A850.
Used it not so often, liked it in travellings (in Alps it gives breathtaking photos).
Liked it lightweightness, colors (really saturated), but to have really sharp corners you need to stop it down to f/7.1...9 (further - diffraction).
But if you print not bigger than A4 photos - the sharpness seems to be enough from f/5.6.

I sold this lens, when bought Sony 20/2.8, 24/2 and 35/1.4G.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ibarradigital   review date: February-16-11  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

mmm no compared

price paid:

340

positive:

All

negative:

Noth

comment:

Truly one of the best wide angle I know
Much better than the sigma 12 to 24 and the sigma 15-30
Sharp, bright and super economical
Highly recommended for the alpha 850

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: petesidewalk   review date: November-24-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 28-135 F4-4.5
KM 35-105 F3.5-4.5
KM 35-105I F3.5-4.5
KM 28-75 F2.8
Sig 24-70 HSM F2.8
KM 35-70 F4
Sigma 18 F3.5

price paid:

235 USD

positive:

Inexpensive
Great for price
Sharp stopped down
Minolta Colors
Light

negative:

Watch for flare

comment:

Great lens for the price. F8-F11 can give any other lens in this range a run for it's money. Again, I like distortion in close ups.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Yugus   review date: November-03-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

$300 CAD (Used)

positive:

Cheap super wide angle lens
Fast on the wide end
Very lightweight
Somewhat sharp
Bokeh isn't bad
Very little CA

negative:

Noticeable distortion
Poor flare control
Coma is pretty bad wide open
Light falloff is noticeably hard on the wide end and doesn't go away stopped down (Full Frame)
Due to light falloff use of a thick UV filter of circular polarizer becomes more noticeable (Full Frame)

comment:

This lens is a very inexpensive super wide angle that is most likely a rebadged Tamron lens. The lens is pretty sharp in the centre of the frame on the wide end though gets pretty bad near the corners (on a full frame) stopping down to F11 will really help if you want the whole frame sharp. There is actually very little CA wide open when using this lens in well lit or high contrast areas, and the bokeh is pretty decent for a super wide angle lens. Due to the cheap plastic build this lens is very lightweight as well. As with a lot of super wide angles there is a noticeable amount of distortion, and this lens handles flare very poorly as well, the hood doesn't do much. Though my biggest issue with this lens is the amount of light falloff it has on the wide end on a full frame, it's bad because it comes on heavy and falls off hard, even stopped down you'll see just a little bit of the very corners are dark (no gradual transition just a hard dark corner). And this issue gets a lot worse when using a circular polarizer.

Besides the mentioned issues this lens preforms pretty well for its price and should be considered for anyone who wants to try going wide but doesn't wan't to drop a lot of money on a CZ 16-35mm F2.8 or Minolta 17-35mm F3.5 as both those lenses cost over 3x-4x as much as this used.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

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:

Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4

price paid:

$400 AUD

positive:

wide for FF, wide open aperture (F2.8)

negative:

Flare, Not wide enough for APS-C. 77mm filter thread is not convenient for bag storage.

comment:

This lens best used on Fullframe DSLR. The wide open aperture (F2.8) is good for a wide angle lens. It is difficult to store the lens in your bagpack as the big filter tread (77mm) and hood taking a lot of spaces. I have to spend more for the CPL and other filters due to its filter size.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: aKenneth   review date: July-23-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

2200NOK (340USD)

positive:

-Cheap
-Good wideangel range on FF
-Good center sharpness
-Good colors

negative:

-Short range on APS-C cameras
-Flare
-Corner sharpness

comment:

I love this lens. It's cheap and good, with and without it's faults. Want a wideangel lens for your Sony FF and are on a budget? Try this one, it's a fun lens.

I was about to buy the Sony 20mm when I found this lens used in mint condition. I bought the 17-35mm and got a KM 7D with grip, PS, battery, charger, Lowepro bag, CF-card, remote triggers and more for 3000NOK(462USD) + S&H.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Beer_Stalker   review date: July-09-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

£275 (used)

positive:

Cheap, light, small

negative:

Soft wide open

comment:

Fantastic lens on a FF camera. Good enough for A1 sized prints. A must for a FF photographer on a budget.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: cny3123   review date: June-30-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tokina 12-24 on crop sensor

price paid:

300 USD

positive:

Pretty sharp lens, especially considering the amount of money paid for it. Definitely love this focal length range. Build quality is ok, nothing amazing.

negative:

Flares pretty badly with the lens pointed anywhere near the sun.

comment:

Pretty much said it all in the above positives and negatives. In order for corners to get sharp, stopping down is a must. Has some pretty strong distortion along the edges, which is expected with a lens like this.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: jeep   review date: June-30-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

20mm Sony f2.8
14mm Samyang f2.8

price paid:

£230.00

positive:

This lens performs well when used at f8 - f11

negative:

None really considering price paid. Not sure the lens hood offers much flare protection so best to hold something to help when the camera is on a tripod.

comment:

Just got this as 'new' from ebay and pristine condition of lens, box and information inside points to that being true. Very smooth to use on my a900.
My main use will be for landscapes so it will mainly be used at the sweet spots. I don't find the slight softening at the extreme edges detracts from the overall performance at 17mm. For the money something of a bargain. If I want to go wider I use the Samyang 14mm which is very sharp and the distortions don't really effect landscape images if used carefully and corrected - the moderators are dragging their feet with the inclusion of this lens in fixed focal lenghts!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Janneman1967   review date: June-27-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

400 EUR (new)

positive:

negative:

comment:

It's ok. but let's leave it at that.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Mark_k   review date: June-12-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

350 usd new

positive:

Light weight, inexpensive
Fast focus

negative:

Sharpness and saturation

comment:

It was a rather surprise purchase at 350 USD. You have no complaints but you do not get anything extra from the price you paid

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Station53   review date: June-10-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-85 minolta

price paid:

$300.00 (new)

positive:

This is a great lens. Everyone seems to rave about the colours and I have to agree. I've used this on my 7D and 9000, both with great results.

Nice and wide on film, not too bad on APS/C

negative:

The hood seems a little big but that's the way it is.

comment:

I always wanted the G version but this lens works just fine. I don't regret buying it and I use it quite a bit. That being said, nothing beats my 28-135mm!

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: dominik   review date: March-29-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

other my lenses, kit lens

price paid:

about $200 (used)

positive:

light, very cheap, quite useful lens

negative:

optically could be better and lighter

comment:

Cheap and good lens. Worth those money. Great on film cameras, quite good on A900. Thanks to it I don't have to buy wide Zeiss zoom ;)

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 2 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: Romeo333   review date: March-23-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

24/1,8
24-70HSM

price paid:

200

positive:

-Wide
-Decent F/stops
-Cheap
-Sharp stopped down
-77mm filter
- Decent substitute for the CZ and G variant

negative:

-Flare
-No Focus Distance Window(Painted on)
-light, feels cheap
-Hood doesn't do much
-Vignetting
-Hunts

comment:

Its an amazing lens! This lens works amazing on the a900! When i shoot events this lens is on my a850 and the 24-70 or 70-200G is on my a900! This is a necessary evil. It does feel a bit cheap, it is very light. You must stop down in order to get sharp images! It does vignette so you must purchase a thin 77mm filter or not shoot at 17mm. Decent substitute for the G or CZ variant.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Russ   review date: February-24-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Min 35-105 f3.5-4.5

price paid:

150 GBP (new)

positive:

Colours
Sheer usability
No filter rotation

negative:

Barrel distortion

comment:

It's unlikely I'll add anything to the reviews posted before this, but here's my input; this is an excellent landscape lens because of the colours and sharpness, and a terrible architecture lens because of the barrel distortion. It's also a surprisingly good portrait lens - if you get the bottom of the frame to coincide with the subject's waist, the barrel distortion makes the subject look slimmer :-) It's light and easy to use. I've never had a problem with flare with this lens like other reviewers; I use it with the hood and a UV filter up front all the time and that may make the difference.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ylfd700   review date: February-22-10  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 DG EX

price paid:

190€(used)

positive:

focal length range
wide aperture

negative:

distorsion at border.
Sharpness wide open

comment:

I've bought it to have an similar focal length with the full frame compare to my Sigma 10-20 with the APS-C. It's for me a really nice lens, the focal length range is really adapted to landscape and city shooting. I enjoy with it.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: mattholluk   review date: November-28-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 16-105
Sony 18-70

price paid:

280 USD

positive:

Great Minolta Colours
Usable Bokeh
Solid Build Quality if a bit plastic

negative:

Lens hood is pointless
Flare is appalling without shading it in direct sunlight

comment:

This was purchased as part of a general move to Full Frame cameras in the future filling in below a Tamron 28-75.

Build quality is pretty solid but has the classic Konica Minolta plastic look and feel.

IQ is good with the vivid Minolta Colours on show and matches in better than I expected with the Tamron. Sharpest around f8 on my copy.

Flare is this lens' big problem if left to the lens hood to take care of it. Best to follow other reviewers advice and hold your hand or a piece of paper over the front when in bright daylight.

A good performer for the price.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: November-27-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 21-35
Tamron 20-40
Tokina 20=35 f3.5-4.5
Minolta 18-70
Sony 18-55

price paid:

L225

positive:

Sharpness
Colour
Weight

negative:

None for the price, after reading reviews for the 5X more expensive G version

comment:

Compared to the others, expensive, but only the Tamron comes close to it and that isnt wide enough on APS-C

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mhlvos   review date: November-05-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 24-70 f2.8
Minolta 35-70 f4
Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5

positive:

Nice range.
Full frame.
Sharp (center)

negative:

The corners are not ultra sharp

comment:

Bought it used but in mint condition. Unfortunately I can not compare it to the Sony 16-35 but I am very pleased with this ultra wide angle zoom.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jordo7   review date: October-26-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-135, 11-18.

price paid:

325

positive:

Incredibly sharp at 35mm from 5.6 on, in fact sharp 1 stop down from max. at all focal lengths. I can't imagine paying 4 times as much for the G version, just because I can't think how any lens with the same focal length could be 4 times better than this one. I haven't had any flare, but have used it as indoor lens mostly. It seems solid to me. The colors are very true.

negative:

Slight distortion at 17mm. Aperture is only 2.8 @ 17-18mm.

comment:

Most used indoor lens on my camera. Great range with 1.5x crop factor. All in all worth more than I paid.

Not bad on a99, but colors aren't as great as I remembered

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: nitrosyl   review date: September-05-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- Minolta 20mm f/2.8 RS
- Minolta 24mm f/2.8 RS
- Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG

positive:

- affordable wide-angle zoom w/ relative large aperture
- reasonable resolution
- circular aperture blades
- light weight

negative:

- flare not well controlled
- mild distortion
- too much cheap plastics

comment:

color rendition is a bit on the warm side

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: lucy58uk   review date: July-12-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5
Sony 70-300 G

price paid:

147.00 GBP

positive:

sharp

negative:

flare

comment:

I Like this lens apart from flare, Its sharp, And being able to zoom wide angle to get the right frame is a bonus,I take an
A4 card and use this to shade lens, While firing camera single handed, Its a pain but I am happy with the results,
All in all I am very happy with this lens

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: NetQwik   review date: July-04-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

17-35 APO G

price paid:

299 USD (new)

positive:

Economical
Light Weight

negative:

Ridiculous hood

comment:

I originally purchased this lens for my long-gone a100. The results were mixed and marginal. Indoors without a flash the images always were dark and had a blueish tint which had to be corrected in PP. The images tended to be soft as well. It comes off 2.8 as soon as you zoom past 17mm. At the wide end, I started using my 16/2.8 FE and just lived with the distortion. I kept it when I got the a700 but still seldom used it. When I got an a900, I replaced the 17-35D with the 17-35 APO G and WOW!!! I have to call the 17-35D a compromise. Eventually I'll probably get the 16-35 CZ for the 2.8 but for now, the expense is not justified. If you're a discerning photographer, this will not be your favorite.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: flavinho   review date: June-21-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

300 eur used

positive:

wide angle
relative cheep
sharp
build qualitty

negative:

zoom range
flare

comment:

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: kappe   review date: June-02-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

M 35-70mm F/4
M 50mm F1,7
Sigma 70-300 DG Apo Macro

price paid:

250 Eu

positive:

Warm Colors, sharpness

negative:

Flare

comment:

Sharpness is ok, better when stopped down to F5,6-F8. Build is very lightweight and solid. It can flair, the pictures I've taken with my 7D had beautifull colors.
I would recommend this lens.

sharpness: 3 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: DonSergio   review date: May-08-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- 16-80za
- 18-70
- 24-105
- 24/2.8

price paid:

300 USD (used)

positive:

+ Light weight
+ Not expensive
+ Good central sharpness on APS-C

negative:

- Too much flare
- Feel cheap
- Edges not sharp on Full Frame cameras

comment:

Good wide light-weight FF zoom, usable on APS-C.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: fute77   review date: April-28-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70 DT
Tokina AT-X 28-70/2.8

price paid:

120€

positive:

Fast AF
openning is good

negative:

Short Range

comment:

I am quite happy with that lens. I use in ordre to have a wider angle than with the 28-70.

It is far better than the KM 18-70 DT

Flare an CA can occur :(

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: brororn   review date: March-28-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 10-20/4-5,6
Sony 16-80/3,5-4,5
Minolta 24-85/3,5-4,5
Minolta 28-85/3,5-4,5

positive:

Fast, reasonable optical performance

negative:

Focusing issues at wide settings

comment:

Bought this new with my first DSLR K-M 7D. I have used it with good results, although the sharpness is good only when stopped down to F5,6-F8, but this is not usually a problem. Focusing is problematic at 17 mm setting especially with 7D. Distortion is strong at 17 mm, sometimes have to correct it in PP. Having sun in the corner of the picture produces a lot of colour spots, but I can live with it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: 4paperi   review date: March-26-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 lenskit

price paid:

240 EUR (new)

positive:

Wide for me

negative:

Big and sometimes useless lens hood.

comment:

Very affordable wide zoom. It's not so sharp at the edges, colors are quite good. Needs a different lenshood on film. Recommended at that price

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: vangio   review date: March-12-09  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

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

price paid:

220 € (new)

positive:

FF
f 2,8-4
fast AF
min focus distance
26mm on APS-C
very good "Street" Lens
price

negative:

not really very sharp
needs perfect Light
very hard to control Flare
Filters are delicate (Flare)
only 26mm on APS-C

comment:

I've bought this lens in new condition in 2006 and most of my pictures since then I've taken with this one. The colors are warm and the contrast is good. Using a Polarizer seems to be a good idea...
It's easy to handle, the weight is ok.
Fast AF with 7D and A700, but it hunts in low light.
A very good street lens, but it could be sharper.
Flare is the most negative, Filters make problems, Hood is a joke on APS-C
CA is not really a problem with this kind of lens.
I'm not really experienced using this lens with Film, but the pictures I've taken had beautifull colors.
Build seems good, solid feeling (better than 28-75mm 2,8 (D)), but MF feels cheap, not damped.
All in all - a very versatile "must have" lens for every A-Mount user because of it's range and performance – just my 2 cent...

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 4 

user: ABramley   review date: November-29-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 35mm f2 RS
CZ 24-70 2.8

price paid:

150 GBP (2nd hand)

positive:

Wide & cheap!
Rapid AF - seems pretty sure too.
Everything is 'ok' - especially for the price.
Very lightweight...

negative:

Too lightweight. A bit plasticy.
Nothing makes you think it's worth more than you paid for it!
Rotating focus ring.
Sometimes produces CA.

comment:

It's alright! Obviously distorts pretty heavily. Sharpness is ok - it lacks the 'wow' factor of some of the competition, Minolta 35/2 RS and Zeiss 24-70, but if you stop it down it seems pretty uniformly ok across most of the frame. Zeiss takes it to pieces in the corners at overlapping focal lengths. Build is very lightweight but reasonably solid. It can flair, but when it does so it's reasonably well controlled - nothing like a Siggy 20. CA can be a problem - not too bad though.

'OK!' - and at about 850GBP cheaper than a Zeiss 16-35 that'll do me just fine :)

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: ciupo35   review date: November-28-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 DT
Minolta 28/2.8
Minolta 24/2.8

price paid:

190 USD (used)

positive:

Quite wide on APS-C
sharp
filter not rotating

negative:

build not perfect
AF hunting
distortion and CA on FF

comment:

Very useful on landscapes, architecture. Also for indoor shooting.
EDIT: FF results
Works well with film camera, but on digital FF I noticed significant degradation of IQ in the edges and corners of frame. CA are more visible and barrel distortion can cause problems.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: remai   review date: October-16-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70
28-75

price paid:

250€

positive:

Build
already good at 2.8 for me

negative:

Requires a very good AF

comment:

It's the first lens I had. It was an offer with my D5D, and until I understood that my AF was sometimes not good enough for that lense, I was a bit disappointed.

But actually, I think we have to understand that this 17-35, even if from Tamron glasses, is a very good wide angle, better than its Sigma equivalent, as well as equivalent 17-35L and 17-40L from Canon, three times more expensive (take a look on phtozone tests.. :) )

Of course sharpness is not perfect, but anyway, now Unsharp mask helps to forget it. I think it's really worth its price and I'm glad of it. That lense on a A900 is theoretically a better combo than Canon 1Ds MkIII with 17-40, so let's enjoy it!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: gnatsum   review date: September-07-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 Kit
24mm 2.8 RS
28-80 D Kit

price paid:

299.99

positive:

Build
Sharpness
Colour
Bokeh
Price
Circular Aperture

negative:

Distortion
Focus ring rotates in AF
Flare

comment:

I have been waiting for this lens for a LONG time, and I finally got it. It's just what I wanted.

Sharpness: Centre sharpness is quite good at widest settings (2.8-4). Very useable for newspaper work since it will be printed at poor resolution. Stopped down, it is VERY good. Edge and border sharpness is not so hot at wide apertures and needs about f8 to be useable. Not something I'm too worried about since I would use this at f8 for landscapes anyway.

Bokeh: Great. no complaints. Circular aperture is a lifesaver!

AF speed: Fine, not too fast. I just don't like the AF ring spinning since it is so big and rubber, it gets in the way.

Build quality: VERY good for the price, the tolerances are tight and nothing wiggles and wobbles.

Flare: Mmm... not the best here... It flares quite easily so just watch out for it. The hood works great on a film body though...

Distortion: Quite fine on digital, hell of a lot better than the kit lens. On film however, things get messy at the edges... Try not to put something of importance at the edge of the frame!

The focal length is great on digital. 35mm is a great focal length on digital and film, I would prefer a 16-35, but the price is right on this lens. It's sharp, colour is WOW. distortion on digital is fine, AF speed is fast enough for me to trust it on all cameras I tested (maxxum 5, a100, a700). I would recommend this lens.

EDIT: Now that I have an a900, this lens hardly gets used, but when it does, it's awesome for extreme perspectives and makes FUN photos. Vignetting is as extreme as the photos though...

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Mark_k   review date: August-06-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 20/2.8

price paid:

370 new

positive:

Light weight, sharpness, price.

negative:

Weight,

comment:

The 2nd lens I bought with KM 7D. Unexpected image quality at this price. Highly recommended

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ropmann   review date: July-03-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 Kitlens

price paid:

158€ (used)

positive:

Sharp
Full Frame

negative:

(77mm filter needed)

comment:

Almost everything about the lens is already said. It's a nice and sharp all day lens!

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: mrggt   review date: June-27-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

L150 [new]

positive:

sharp
good colours
light

negative:

flare

comment:

nice lens that is a light with good colours and pretty good contrast. flare can be quite a problem with this lens unless your careful

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ronin   review date: May-19-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

€180 (New)

positive:

Full Frame, Sharp

negative:

Lens hood

comment:

I picked this one up as KM cleared out their stock after the closed up shop in the EU and therefor I got it for a dream price. I cant add anything new to what has already been said other than after I got this lens it didn't come off the camera for a long time.



UPDATE haven't use it for a while but it shines on the 900. rediscovers my love for this lens

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: AndrewJD   review date: May-04-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

27,000 JYN

positive:

* Light
* Good range
* Cheap

negative:

* Sharpenss on full-frame?

comment:

I have a love and hate relationship with this lens. On an APS-C camera, another 10-20mm on the long end and I would have found a perfect match, but on film I feel it leaves much to be desired.

For APS-C, the 17-35mm range is very useful. It isn't terribly wide, but getting down to 35mm and you have a very useful indoors-in-a-cramped-area portrait lens. It doesn't produce much noteworthy distortion, and the colour is great.

Stick it on a full-sized 35mm sensor / film plane, however, and it's a whole different story.

To date, I haven't been able to take a single shot with this lens that is as sharp as it should be. The first roll that came back looked as though each frame was out of focus. I took out another roll and used it for a test, zoomed in and out, stopped down to f8, wide open, in a variety of conditions. No dice. So far, I've foolisly dedicated a lot of film to trying to get better results out of it, but it has so far managed to disappoint me at every turn.

I don't like to blame equipment for poor shots, but if there is any way that I could figure out why it looks so blurry all the time then I'd love to know. It just doesn't come up to the quality of any of the other lenses I use in a similar range. Bady copy, perhaps?

If you are intending to use this on film / a full-frame camera, then I'd get my hands on it first before buying. It could by just my own stupidity thwarting me here, but caution may be a good thing.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 3 

user: blueshift   review date: February-16-08  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75 2.8
beercan

price paid:

S$420 and S$310

positive:

Considered as affordable
start from 2.8

negative:

Nil so far

comment:

I got two copies of this lens.. one of them after kept in cold (ac) place and brought to warm place, moisture always appear in the inside glass.. however the other one doesnt have that problem..

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: ja   review date: November-21-07  

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: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: lozw   review date: October-16-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70mm "kit"

price paid:

119 UKP

positive:

Sharpness
Full Frame

negative:

Filter size

comment:

Noticably sharper than the kit lens.
I got for a bargain price in a clearance sale, so doubly happy.

Looking forward to seeing a real 17mm on a FF one day...

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Phrank   review date: October-15-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

380 USD (new)

positive:

negative:

comment:

Very, very sharp throughout zoom range at f/8 or f/11.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: bobfloyd   review date: September-13-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Kit 28-100/3.5-5.6 (D)
28-75/2.8 (D)

price paid:

450 USD (new)

positive:

Great color rendition
Build quality
Minimal barrel distortion

negative:

Lens flare
Hood
Filter size
Aperture is not 2.8 constant

comment:

I really like this lens. The colors this lens gives me are just so good. In fact, when I have done a multi-lens shoot, I can usually tell at a glance which photos where done with this lens just because of the vivid, bright colors. I get better color out of this glass than any other lens I own short of my 100/2.8 Macro. I also really like the build. It feels solid on the camera with a firm zoom that does not creep on me when I hang the camera over my shoulder.

On the downside, I have to be careful of shooting angles verses my light sources due to lens flare. It has the worse lens flare of any lens I have ever owned, digital or film. The hood looks good but is basically useless and I spend a good deal of my time shading the front of the lens with my hand to cut down on the flare.

Also on the downside is that it is not a constant 2.8 aperture. I would have paid more to get that. When I need to zoom a bit I always seem to be on small side of the aperture change.

All in all, I really like this lens. I don't use it as much as I would like just because I often need more than 35mm in reach so the 28-75 spends more time on the camera but the images I get from it are excellent.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Grubeater   review date: September-13-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 20-40/2.8-3.5, KM 18-70/3.5-5.6.

price paid:

175 euro (mint)

positive:

Nice range, full frame lens, nice colors, good build.

negative:

The Tamron has a slightly better build. No fixed aperture.

comment:

This lens replaces my Tamron because it has a wider angle of view, it's a D-lens and it has warmer colors then the Tamron.
The build of the Tamron is better, but the KM is lighter.
This is my main lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: timquig   review date: September-13-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Canon 17-40mm F4L USM
KM 28-75mm F2.8
Sony 18-70mm F3.5-4.5

price paid:

$285 US

positive:

overall very sharp
build quality evident
will triple in value once FF comes out

negative:

slight softness wide open-must stop down +1

comment:

Overall..delighted with the lens and it's a terrific value right now used if you can find one. I've got the 18-70mm kit lens and it's really not bad up until 50mm or so and stopped down 2 stops. But that gets to be slow shutter speeds even with A/S. But this lens immediately shines the moment you look thru it. I've owned the equivilent lens in the Canon line for my 20D, the 17-40mm L and this is just as sharp and even better color and contrast..which is saying something as that was one of my favorite lenses on my Canons. Yes, it's a touch soft at the edges wide open, but so was my Canon. You either crop the image slightly to delete or you stop down 1-2 stops and shoot. This is typical of a quality FF lens in this zoom range regardless of maker. Only primes are going to be better. I use this for wedding work along with the 28-75mm F2.8 and I can shoot all day with just these two and get everything I need. The fact that this lens is only a 1:2 zoom range makes it very sharp overall for it's range. Once you start getting past 1:3 zoom ranges, you really are wasting alot of image quality at each end because you are going to get distortion, so they are a waste of money IMO if image quality is a concern. Stick to quality zooms with short zoom ranges and you will not go wrong. There is some flare on this lens and like all W/A lenses, you have to be careful with your light sources. But overall this is a keeper and I'll not be selling this one.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: vitor   review date: September-11-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

DT 18-70

price paid:

250€ (new)

positive:

Build, price, range

negative:

Digital:
Hood in digital too short, prone to flare
Film:
soft in the corners with fullframe, distortion

comment:

Digital:

At first I didn't like this lens much, the reason for this was that I only used the lens when shooting quick scape's without using tripod, when using the tripod and setting the len to F8 you will get some nice photos.
Its soft wide open, but if used between F8-F16 you can get pretty good sharpness on the corners and through infinity.

Film:
Love the look on film, very wide, some distortion but you can be creative with it, as I already said wide ?

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Minolta Head   review date: September-10-07  

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 3.5 Kit
Tamron 11-18mm

price paid:

120 GB Pounds (Used)

positive:

Sharpness
Build

negative:

Filter Size (77mm)
Hood Inefective

comment:

After reading a few reviews at Dyxum I decided to go for it
and buy this lens. The glass lived up to and exceeded my expectations. After using the awful Sony DT 18-70 kit lens the Minolta blew me away from the first use. Great sharpness
and colour. The large size and heavy build is useful to steady handheld shots. Flare can be a problem unless you look carefully around the view finder.

I found a little vignetting at 17mm, but generally I always keep away from the extremes at both ends of all my lenses to avoid such problems.

All in all this is a great buy and is a treasured photography possesion.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: ickle97116084   review date: August-01-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

L150

positive:

Very Sharp
Full frame compatible
Bright and Fast

negative:

Large front element so expensive for filters
Heavy and bulky

comment:

Fantastic very sharp lens. Images are sharp and have great colour. Distortion evident at 17mm.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: dcxk   review date: June-22-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 kit sigma 28mm 1.8

price paid:

289

positive:

fast and wide good for indoors

negative:

77mm filters are more expensive.

comment:

pretty good lens a lot of fun to take wide angle shots indoors with natural lighting. Seems nice and sharp better than the kit lens on the alpha.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Scoobay   review date: June-05-07  

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
Minolta 35-70 3.5

price paid:

210 EUR (used)

positive:

great wide angle on full frame
fast AF
crisp at f9

negative:

unsharp edges on full frame
Lenshood only protects physical violence

comment:

I'm very satisfacted with this lens. It might show little unsharpness in the edges attached to a full frame camera but that doesn't spoil the great effect you get with it.
You can get great landscape photos with a great sharpness overall but as a physical circumstance you won't get a great DOF at wideangel. Would be great!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: m.b.   review date: May-26-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28/2.8
24-85/3.5-4.5 RS

positive:

cheap
sharp
full frame

negative:

hood
flare

comment:

decent build, better than 24-85
decent sharpness for a zoom lens, not as sharp @35mm
low distortion from 28mm up, but considering the short range I'd expect less distortion at 17mm
lot of flare, FF hood doesn't help
light and compact for a 17-35/2.8-4 lens

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: minoltaclubuk   review date: April-24-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 18-35mm, CZ 16-80mm, Sigma prime 18mm, Minolta 20mm f2.8, Konica Minolta 11-18mm.

price paid:

150 GB pounds (new)

positive:

This lens was widely sold at very low prices, and mine cost less than any decent 17mm f4 would have been in the past.

negative:

It is not especially sharp at full aperture at 17mm, and really needs stopping down to f4-5.6 for critical work on a digital APS-C format.

comment:

The real interest in any wide-angle zoom lies at the wide angle end - you can get focal lengths from 24 to 35mm in many other zooms, and 28 to 35mm in almost any modern standard zoom. Therefore the critical range for this lens is 17-24mm, whether used on full frame or on an APS-C DSLR. I have found that while the lens itself is optically satisfactory, focusing on all three of our DSLR bodies (5D, 7D, A100) is often not precise enough at 17mm and f2.8 so the really big benefit of this lens - a fast aperture at a wide angle - is missing. On film, it's a different story, because f2.8 at a true 17mm coverage is impressive and the focusing generally seems to work better.

I am keeping our 17-35mm (D) in the hope that a full frame DSLR arrives. For what it cost me, it can be mothballed without great worries. In the meantime despite smaller working apertures either the 11-18mm or the CZ 16-80mm do a better job of replacing that old favourite, the '28mm'. It's funny how we took 28mm on full frame for granted, and now we have to buy exotic wide zooms to achieve it on digital!

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: mark victor   review date: April-20-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

17-35G 0wn; 17-35sigma used to own; 18-70/Kit own

positive:

good, nice color and some f-stop gain on wide end... sharp enough for the price I paid... good build quality tho it's still plastiky

negative:

it has no match with my 17-35G and present not much of material advantages over the kit if you do not shoot full frame.

comment:

If you are paying full retail price on this lens, you may be surprised that you do not get too much of benefits to justify the investment.

The lens is well built, providing good color and sharp ( good sharpness when stopped down and quite acceptable when wide open.) Unlike the 28-75/2.8, this 17-35 is no match to the G version counterpart and presents little significant advantage over the kit lens except FF compatability and f/2.8 at the wide end...

Overall, a good budget wide angle lens and a good choice for those who are using 28-75/2.8 or 28-70/2.8G

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 2 

user: arthedains   review date: April-19-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-70/2.8 G
Minolta 70-210/4
Minolta 50/1.7
Minolta 100/2.8 (D) Macro

price paid:

€260 (new)

positive:

Not so expensive.
Good range for cropped sensor.
Relatively sharp.
Decent color and contrast.
Full frame.
2.8 at the wide end.

negative:

Hood is a joke.
Flare a big problem.
Photos don't pop.
Distortion at wide end.

comment:

This lens is a mixed bag. It offers decent value for the money but it leaves a lot to be desired. The sharpness is good stopped down but even then doesn't come anywhere near that of the other lenses I own. The hood is both a joke and a burden to carry so I leave it at home. It doesn't help in cutting flare at all on a cropped sensor. Build is ok for the price. The range is decent for a cropped sensor but I wish it went until 50mm.

More than anything the photos this lens produces do not 'pop' and need some extra processing unlike those from say a beer can or the 100 macro. And that is what disappoints me the most. I think Minolta compromised quite a bit here in the name of cost cutting. It just doesn't have the feel or the results of a classic Minolta lens. Having said that it is my standard WA lens (mainly because of few good alternatives) and has given me some beautiful photos. So I don't see myself letting this go unless I land the ultra rare and super expensive 17-35 G or a decent and sharp copy of the Sigma 12-24.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Jay2x   review date: April-19-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70
beercan
50 1.7

price paid:

269 EURO (new)

positive:

sharpness
feel

negative:

images miss a bit of 'oompf'

comment:

Got it relatively cheap and like it a lot. It's a good lens, certainly better than the 18-70 and works nicely on film too. It's nice, really nice.

But that's it. It's not like the beercan or 50 1.7. You will not be surprised by the quality of the images, the colors, the contrast or bokeh. I'm not saying that it's bad or something, just doesn't tickle me.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 3 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: marikela   review date: April-19-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

550 EUR(new)

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: veevee   review date: April-07-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70/3,5-5,6 DT

price paid:

200 EUR (used)

positive:

sharpness
fullframe
fast AF
fast lens
construction

negative:

very big hood
77mm filter thread

comment:

Very good lens for it`s price.
Bought it, because KIT lens isn`t fullframe.
One of my walkaround lenses.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 2 

user: DaveK   review date: April-03-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

my 20 years old Minolta lenses

price paid:

220 Euro

positive:

- Good colour
- Sharp, sharp, sharp (stopped down)
- min. focus distance!

negative:

- Lost of Flare (red dots)

comment:

I realy like this lens a lot. I didn't think I'd like it this much, but I realy, realy do!

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: hellboy79   review date: April-03-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma - 18-50 F3.5-5.6 DC
minolta 28-80 f 3.5-5.6

price paid:

289 USD(new)

positive:

- fast and quiet focus
- good coverage in dynax7d and dynax7(film)
-solid no like toys

negative:

-hood...nice to see only

comment:

good lens..just love it....

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: MostlyHarmless   review date: March-30-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

MinO 20/2.8
Sigma 15/2.8 Fisheye (Canon)
Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 (Canon)

price paid:

499.95 USD (new)

positive:

Decently sharp
Good wideangle coverage on a DSLR
Fast and quiet AF

negative:

Silly hood
Big!
Variable aperture (F2.8 at 17mm only)
Plasticky build

comment:

I purchased this lens thinking it would be my most-used but too often, I left it at home. It's not an easy lens to carry around and it doesn't balance very well on my 5D. The lens is even more cumbersome to carry when it has its hood attached.

Ultimately, this lens was replaced by the 20/2.8 which does everything I need it to do in this range and has the benefit of being less than half the size.

At the very least, the Tamron version of this lens seems to be a better buy and the newest 17-50/2.8 looks to be a very compelling alternative as well (if you're ok with no FF). So in short, this lens leaves little to be desired optically but there are better choices out there.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: chrisphotog   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:

price paid:

260 USD (new)

positive:

light and fast focusing
excellent lens for events

negative:

lens hood not practical

comment:

lens great for my work as actual wedding photographer.
able to fast focus and capture every moments with ease.

Fast focusing, it's light to move around fast.
Sharpness is great and I confidently release my photos to the couples without much post editing.

I love this lens!!

Managed to get old inventory for the good price.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 2 

user: BrownJenkin   review date: March-20-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM AF 11-18 DT
KM AF 18-70 DT
Minolta AF 28-105 RS

price paid:

300 eur (new)

positive:

Great sharpness (after 4 / 6.7)
Great colors
Plastic-like, but solid build
Controlled distortion
D type
Works wonderfully on FF machine

negative:

Hood almost useless
Really bad flare control
Bulky
Heavy vignetting at 17mm

comment:

Last review, after using the lens on a Sony A900.

I'm still quite disappointed with flares, that are everywhere. The flare control of this lens is probably the worst I've ever seen. And you have to deal with flares not only when you shot in direct sunlight, but everytime you have something that could be called "light source". Hood is quite bulky and useless. The glass is really exposed to any kind of damage, so I strongly reccomend to get an UV or a skylight filter to protect it from scratches and dust.

Distortion seems quit good to me, used on a FF body. I'm also adding a point to color rating.


At 17mm on a FF body heavy vignetting in the corners, i'll add some test pictures soon.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: kug_gr   review date: March-11-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

199 EUR (new)

positive:

+ solid build
+ good sharpness and color

negative:

- quite bulky and heavy
- hood is even more bulky and doesn't easily fit in the camera bag

comment:

As far as image quality is concerned this is quite a good lens, sharp and not much CA. However, it turned out not to be very versatile with its small zoom-range. I would rather go for a 17-70 today. The filter diameter is quite large (77mm) and this causes additional cost for filters.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: hotwire   review date: February-24-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sony 18-70 DT
Sigma 12-24

price paid:

240 CAD (used)

positive:

Full frame lens
relatively fast
D lens
Better than kit a100 kit by far.

negative:

wish it went a hair longer
77mm filters cost money

comment:

Nice lens. Being 17mm, it complements the Sony 56 flash's widest supported focal length without fiddling.

Less distortion/stretching than Sigma 12-24 at overlapping focal lengths.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: bracket   review date: February-19-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

180 EUR (demo)

positive:

very sharp, reasonably bright

negative:

original hood useless

comment:

This is my wide angle lens. It is useful for wide interior shots and landscape/cityscape/architecture kind of stuff. I initially thought it is a bit soft, but I rather had a focus problem. At f/4 and focussed correctly it is very sharp. There is some barrel distortion at the wide end but that is not too surprising with such a wide lens. The original hood is very useless on cropped frame, because it is too large. But flare can be a problem without hood. I got a rubber hood from which I had to cut a bit away to make it flower shaped to avoid bignetting in the corners. With this selfmade hood it works very nice. Built is very solid. Dropped it to a wooden floor from 1.5 m (5 feet) and no damge whatsoever. Still sharp as ever.

Looking forward to use this as super-wide angle on a future FF camera...if there ever will be one.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 2 

user: mikiha   review date: February-01-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

tamron 20-40 Sp

price paid:

280$ used

positive:

very sharp stopped at F4
nice colors
light
af speedy

negative:

hood is weird not that good
feels a little plastic

comment:

good lens for the price range better than the sigma version
not a G but a bit vetter than the Tamron Di version
if you dont have another lens in that price range with that wide range - it's a must have.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: dimi_dinev   review date: January-15-07  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

detailed comparison to 28/2,8

price paid:

180€

positive:

nice sharpness, especially at 28mm
fast at 17mm
fast AF
bargain for me
very few CA

negative:

almost useless hood, I never use it
the officially announced "circular aperture" isn't circular
too high officially listed price

comment:

(Same text as in my 28/2,8 review...)
I bought the old 28/2,8 some weeks ago and tested it against my zoom KM 17-35/2,8-4 (at 28mm) on my 7D. The latter means that my results are founded on an image from a cropped sensor! I have USED both lenses on my 800si, but haven't COMPARED them in detail under full frame conditions.
Both lenses are practically new. I bought the 28mm almost unused, and it's in a very good shape for such an old model, completely clean. Generally I am very careful with my equipment, so the 17-35, which I bought in July is also in best possible shape.
Wide open, the zoom (f3,5) has a slight better performance in both upper edges, the other two edges are almost equal The 28mm (f2,8) has a very slight advantage in center performance.
Above f5,6: The center performance of the 28mm is at every f-stop just slight better than the zoom, but really a tiny advantage (a little more contrast). The zoom delivers at the contrary a visibly better edge performance at each f-stop. The zoom's CAs are visibly less.
On the whole, the zoom performs better. It can be considered sharper at every f-stop and has visibly less CAs.
I'm a little disappointed from the 28/2,8. As it's a prime lens, I had expected a better performance than my 17-35. The latter I consider as a very good and useful zoom.
Here the thread in the forum where I have published my test of both lenses: http://dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10201&PN=2

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: jaccojacco   review date: December-28-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-105mm

price paid:

140 EURO (new)

positive:

Solid

negative:

comment:

I could get this bargain through the internet (comparable to Ebay) and I am very pleased with this solid lens that provides excellent pic's. I wanted it because my 24-105 mm wasn't enough wideangle on my new 5D.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: vtube   review date: December-07-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

50/1.7, beercan, 35/2

price paid:

300Euro (new)

positive:

- good range (24-52mm 35mm equivalent) for a walk-around lens

negative:

- not so sharp
- not so fast (f/2.8 only for the first millimeters, then 3.5-4)
- plastic build

comment:

[7D] Average sharpness, need more USM in Photoshop that my other prime lenses...
Good colors, nice range for a walk-around lens, I used it a lot for my honeymoon in Cuba.
Some distortion and softness at 17mm.
Good with flash shooting indoor, has ADI.

[A850] 17 is very... wide on my new a850. Extreme corners are not perfect, even at f/13. No too bad, indeed. Range now is reduced, not a walk-around lens anymore. My 35/2 is much better.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: maxfarphoto   review date: November-22-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70 DT (kit lens)

price paid:

€ 320,00 (2nd hand)

positive:

Sharpness
Color
Weight
Build

negative:

Flare control (because of hood)

comment:

Very sharp lens and nice colors
Excellent at f5,6 - f8 - f11
Little bit soft at 17mm, great at all other lenghts
Waitinf for a FF to get as nice photo as with film camera

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: vedran   review date: November-21-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

price paid:

350 (used from KEH)

positive:

Color, sharpness great if stopped down a bit, weight-more stable, wide angle

negative:

flare, too short, distortion on 17mm

comment:

Great lens, not too expensive. Needs to be stopped down for landscapes but that wide angle is great. Also for indoor,weddings. It's weight is a plus, feels more stable than lighter lens,so less handshake (at least in my case).

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 3 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: faithlessnomad   review date: November-20-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Canon FD 20mm f2.8

price paid:

400AUD (2nd hand)

positive:

Well suited to the Sony A100 format, better than the kit lens if you're after a wide angle. I'm not happy about buying DT lenses and prefer glass suited to FF applications

negative:

Lightweight construction.

comment:

I bought this lens off ebay and cannot really say a bad thing about it. Ask me in three years time and I might be more worried by wear and tear, but since I couldn't find a 17-35mm G I'll settle for this. The 77mm filter application is well suited for me as it means I only need one polariser

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: pedrocr   review date: October-11-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

24mm f/2.8
18-70 DT

price paid:

200 EUR (used)

positive:

Very nice walkaround range on 1.5 crop. Well built and sharp. Took a little while to learn how to use it but now it works great. Got a nice shot the other day at 1sec exposure f/2.8, ISO1600 at 17mm.

negative:

The 5D seems to not be too great about auto-focusing it. Not too sharp wide open at 17mm, don't know if it's the focusing though. It flares a little even if the sun isn't in the frame, but I guess that's to be expected from such wide angles. Probably needs an APS-sized hood.

comment:

It's a nice lens although not a top performer like the 24 or 100 macro. Need to try it on the A100 since it supposedly is better on it.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: stefanDynax   review date: October-11-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Konica Minolta 28/75 2.8

price paid:

180

positive:

Colors, Sharpness, Quality construction, AF speed

negative:

Nothing

comment:

Very good lens, for quality construction, AF speed, beautifull colours, sharpness. I will use for works, very fine.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Panito   review date: October-06-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

12-24/4.5-5.6 EX DG
17-35/3.5G
24/2.8
35/2

price paid:

200€

positive:

Nice color
Very sharp in the center
Very good price

negative:

A little strong distorsion at 17mm
Not as sharp in corners at widest apertures, ok from f8-f11

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: Duur   review date: August-24-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 24/2.8

positive:

Color

negative:

Flare sensitiveness

comment:

I got it as Kit lens with the Dynax 7D.
It is the widest lens I have.

On the film 7000AF
It has a lot of wanted distortion and you can get everything on the picture. At 24mm it has a little more distortion as the 24mm.

On the 7D.
It is a very nice lens for making pictures inside smaller rooms. With it effective range of 25 to 52mm it is very usable.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jimbo   review date: August-08-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 19-35mm

price paid:

150 GBP (new)

positive:

Good value, full-frame, good handling, good allround performance, fast at wide end.

negative:

Auto-clutch focus ring would've been nice, awkward hood.

comment:

I use this mostly for landscapes, so stop down to f8 or f11 where it seems to be sharpest. I don't notice any CA, and it produces lovely colours.

Can't comment on distortion much: I wouldn't attempt to use any lens like this on architecture where it would be apparant, I'll just say it's not an issue for my purposes.

Not the sharpest wide open, but what is? I only use wide open for things like family events indoors etc... where sharpness isn't crucial. By the way AF is accurate and quick wide open.

Flare/ghosting is well controlled for a zoom. With the sun in or near the frame only a small green smudge is apparant, not bad for this type of lens.

Build quality is good, it feels substantial and weighty for a plastic lens.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: 800si   review date: July-06-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

I think this is a great wide angle lens.

negative:

Maybe a bit heavy, but I don't really care.

comment:

I just bought the lens yesterday and shot a few with the 7D, and I will g shooting with both digital & film bodies next week. I think this will be a great lens for infrared.

sharpness: 4 

color: 3 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 2 

user: harumpel   review date: July-05-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70, Sigma 24/2.8, Minolta 28/2.8, KM 28-75/2.8

positive:

good sharpness stopped down, good center sharpness even wide open, low distortions

negative:

edge sharpness needs F8.0, flare sometimes ruins the whole image, hood too small for APS-C, range

comment:

Payed 140,- Euro for it so its performance is ok for the money.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: kadebo   review date: June-25-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 28-75/2,8
Sigma 28-70/2,8 ZEN
KM 100/2,8 macro (my gauge)

positive:

sharp when stopped down

negative:

heavy/evident distortion under 28 mm
weak performance at 17 mm

comment:

Wide open soft at 17 and 35 mm, but acceptable at 28 mm.
Performance at 17 mm at all openings rather weak, but at 28 and 35 mm good when stopped down to 5,6.
Heavy distortion at 17 and 24 mm, still perceptible at 28 mm, but less than KM 28-75 and Sigma 28-70 at 28 mm.
Needs a large filter; special PVC filter cover of B&W slim 77mm does not fit firmly and falls off easily.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: tomas.lebeda   review date: June-21-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 50 / 1,4
Minolta 35-70 / 3,5-4,5
Sigma 28-70 / 2,8-4,0 UC

positive:

Sharpness
Build
Very good colors
Very good contrast

negative:

More expensive 77mm filters
Small original hood for crop factor 1,5x
Distortion at 17mm

comment:

I can recommend better hood for using at 5D or 7D with 1,5x crop factor. Try Tokina BH-776 hood. It needs just small hand made adjustment and it fits on KM 17-35 / 2,8-4,0 D very well! I have used it for one year and it is far better than original very wide hood. Look at the photos:
http://forum.fotografovani.cz/file.php?50,file=362452
http://forum.fotografovani.cz/file.php?50,file=362453
Instructions in Czech:
http://forum.fotografovani.cz/read.php?50,1559287,1574252#msg-1574252

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: Aleq   review date: June-05-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

- 28/2.0
- 18-70 kit lens

price paid:

215 EUR (new)

positive:

- Sharp when stepped down (a bit)
- Nice colors

negative:

- Range
- Flare
- Overexposures with flash (ADI, 3600HS(D))
- Terrible vignetting on 17mm on Full-frame

comment:

This lens surprised me - I wish 18-70 had 17-35 qualities... If 17-50/2.8 offer similar quality, I'll consider that. If you can live with 17-35 range on digital and get a fair price, go for it. It must be perfect lens on full-frame body (if it doesn't vignette).

Update after 4 years, A900 - mediocre performance, terrible vignetting (17mm). My standards are now higher :-)

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Tsja   review date: May-31-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 50mm 1.7
KM 28-75 2.8
KM 18-70 3.5-5.6

Olympus OM 28 3.5
Olympus OM 35 2.8
Olympus OM 50 1.8

positive:

Sharp trhoughout the zoom- and apperture range,
Build,
Weight,
Size,
relatively fast.

negative:

Just a tad too short on the long end.

comment:

== Contrast ==
Excellent contrast, on all focal lengths and all appertures


== Flare ==
Unfortunatly a little less flare resistant then the 28-75, or it is just that I take more pictures with this lens where this could be a problem. Overall reasonably flare resistant


== Sharpness ==
My copy is pretty sharp at all appertures and all focal lengths. Stopping down one stop improves image quality just a hint, but I don't hesitate to use it wide open.


== Build ==
I actually like the build, very similar to the 28-75. It extends very little while zooming. Very solid for the weight and price. I think this size and weight is ideal for a normal sized DSLR like the KM 5D. The rotating MF ring doesn't bother me at all.


== Purpose ==
I don't use it as often as I thought. It's just a little short on the long end to be a true general purpose lens (I like the range of the kitlens more and use it actually more often on holidays etc.). However, teamed with the 28-75 2.8 it makes a great duo for high quality shots, where I have the time to change lenses every couple of shots. A great landscape lens and does well at indoors and nightphotography as well.


== Price/perfomance ratio + Conlusion ==
For the price I paid, it's pretty hard to beat. I love the size, weight, perfomance and price! I just wish it was a tad longer. I'm actually looking at selling in to purchase a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5, but I'm just waiting to see what Sony rolls out. If you think you like the zoomrange it is highly recommended however!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: natamambo   review date: May-24-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

No AF wide lenses owned before, but better than my old MD mount Tokina 24mm which it replaced for landscapes.

positive:

Very sharp, excellent colour rendition for landscapes.

negative:

Need to watch for flare but careful shooting solves the problem.

comment:

I really like this lens and use it as a walk-around lens for landscapes (I don't really do architecture). I have had one of my favorite beach shots cropped to 1/3 of image (to create a panorama) and then blown it to 18"x6" and you can see every grain of sand. The whiteness of the sand and the blueness of the water are captured perfectly.

Some say it is not sharp stepped down but I never use it that way, always shooting at f8 or beyond for depth of field so I have never noticed any problem.

For landscapes, I love this lens - it was my first zoom that I considered as good as my Minolta MD primes.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Labas   review date: May-18-06  

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: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: sinee   review date: May-15-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

AF 18-70

positive:

sharp when sopped down, very good performance at 25-35mm

negative:

barrel distortion when wide open, large filter size

comment:

can be pretty sharp stopped down to f8 or f11. When traveling You will probably need carry two lenses, 35mm is not enough. Very nice colour. accurate autofocus.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: peterVL57   review date: May-10-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 28-75 f2.8 (D) + Minolta AF DT 18-70 f3.5-5,6

positive:

Good performance for a good price

negative:

Large filtersize and unpracticle large hood

comment:

This lens is from the same family as the AF 28-75 f2.8 D, witch is an excellent lens and I use it as my walk-around lens. Buildquality is fine. The performance-quality of the AF 17-35 f2.8-4 D is IMHO equally good, except pictures could be a little sharper at the lower apertures. Also handling distortion could be a little better at widest angle (nothing photoshop could not fix though), but overall I give it the same appreciation as it's bigger "brother" (the AF-28-75): This lens is also a reliable companion and highly recommended.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: addy landzaat   review date: April-22-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS
Minolta 70-210/4
Canon EF 100-300/5.6L (EOS)
Canon EF 50/1.8 (EOS)
Consumer grade EOS lenses

price paid:

Kit with Dynax 7D

positive:

Build, optical quality in general for the price

negative:

dull, lacks character

comment:

Good lens, but misses some character. I have replaced it with the 17-35/3.5, which is much better but also much more expensive.

Colors are not bad, autofocus is reasonable fast and never hunts. It does show flare and it has some purple fringing (more noticable then on all my older minolta lenses - and this is the only one that has digital coating!).

Sharpness is oké, good for a FF wide-angle zoom. Color rendering is neutral but tends to be boring. Build is good enough for most uses, just don't take it into a warzone.
I wasn't bothered by distortion, but if you look closely, you can see some.
Had some flare and a little purple fringing. But in general it copes well.
Pricewise it is a lot of bang for your buck.

Bottomline: I don't love it. It misses character, my 24-85/3.5-4.5 is more special.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: gregphotnath   review date: April-12-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

negative:

comment:

very nice lens, light, compact he is always on my D7D

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: recnahne   review date: April-12-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 2.8/20, Tokina 3.5-4.5/20-35, Sigma 2.8/24

positive:

Compact, good sharpness when stopped down, reasonable price

negative:

Flaring, moderate wide-open performance

comment:

The lens offers quite good wide-angle performance for a reasonable price. Stopping down one or two steps is a must for acceptable sharpness. A direct comparison showed that at 20 mm image quality is equal to that of the 2.8/20 when stopped down to f/11 (on the other hand, the 2.8/20 shows almost the same quality already wide-open!)
I recommend this lens as a good wide-angle zoom for almost every photographer except available light wide-angle enthusiasts.

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: terrylloydsmith   review date: March-30-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Tamron 17-50/2.8

positive:

Lightweight and nicely made.

negative:

comment:

This is a nice lens that can be used on my film 7 and 7D. Good, but not great, sharpness and color OK but my example was not as sharp as I had wanted so I sold it. Tamron 17-50/2.8 is much better.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: mavan   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:

positive:

negative:

comment:

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ph0t0man   review date: March-15-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

28-75/2.8
28/2

positive:

Decent size for large aperature wide focal length lens.

negative:

Range is a little awkward, wide enough for me, but I need more reach often.

comment:

I'm glad I picked up this lens. It gives me what I needed it for, the wide angle shots. It is pleanty wide for my needs, but I often wish I had a longer lens on my camera (this is why I use the 28-75 much more often). It is decent wide open, but not great. Stop down a bit for good performance. Haven't had much of a chance to test it yet.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 2 

flare control: 4 

user: lifephoto.it   review date: March-04-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

All optical feautures

negative:

Not negative, but the build level is not really professional

comment:

Very good lens, finally a wide angle for 7d Camera. The base for life reportage. Unfortunately to much Distortion at 17 mm.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Bernie_King   review date: March-01-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 18-70 DT

positive:

Great Details
Meters well
Color Reproduction
Range
Build Quality
SHARP

negative:

Flare (Going to try a different hood)

comment:

I was about to give up on any kind of WA photography with my 7D after experiencing the horror that is the kit lens! This lens is worth every penny of the $275.00 I paid for it (second hand). The build quality is supurb, image quality is outstanding. A definate must have if you, like me, can't afford G glass.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: thegoodhuman   review date: February-27-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 20mm 1.8

positive:

Sharp
Good contrast
Smooth manual focus ring
Really wide on film
Not to heavy

negative:

Wide filters (exp. cr.pols)

comment:

The newest lens in my line up is also one of the best all-around performers I own. The decision for me between a wide-angle zoom or a really nice wide prime was a though one I chose the zoom only because I will be using it a lot indoors where physically moving my body is an issue. I’m truly impressed with the fine detail and contrast this lens offers when slightly stopped down above 3.5 at the wide range. Great colors and accurate skin tones. Compared the Sigma 20mm the lens is lighter and the filter size is smaller.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: bbrat   review date: February-19-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

AF speed, color, contrast, size and weight, pretty sharp.

negative:

larger filters size

comment:

a very good lens for landscapes. colors and contrast very good. AF spedd is very good and a sharp lens for the most part. obviously there are wider lens available, but for the price a great value. filters and the hood are the only negatives for me.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: gm4jjj   review date: February-18-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

18-70 Kit lens, 24-85, 28-75

positive:

negative:

Quite heavy. Large filter size
Not as sharp as I would like even when stopped down.

comment:

Lenshood supplied is of almost no use on APS-C. I have revised my opinion of this lens's sharpness after comparing quite a few landscape shots between this and my 24-85. I'm not sure if it is an AF problem or just softness in general, but the detail is not there in landscapes.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Chris GB   review date: February-14-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX DC and Sigma 10-20 on 7D. Not compared to other lenses on A900.

price paid:

N/A

positive:

Good colour and contrast. Light weight and fast accurate focussing.

negative:

Soft in corners particularly at the wide end when not stopped down.

comment:

An updated review on this lens now being used on an A900. I bought it in Feb 2006 to use on an A mount FF camera some day!

On the 7D I liked the lens for its colours and range. It compared with the Sigma 18-50EX DC. IQ was similar to the Sigma 10-20, but the Sigma was the one I took with me most often as I liked the very wide field of view.

At the 17mm end the lens needs to be stopped down and basically keeps improving to around f11. Sharpness surprised me from f5.6 onward, and it will make big prints. The more you stop down, the better the CA and the further out toward the corners the sharpness will extend. 36"x24" should be OK on this lens at 17mm, subject matter permitting.

At 28mm the lens seems to suffer a little more CA in the corners than at 17mm. Image sharpness improves to f8, by f11 it is softening again and contrast seems to drop off a little too. Shot f5.6 – 8 at 28mm, this should print to 36"x24" with the right subject.

At 35mm it needs f5.6 and above to work well, corner sharpness is less good than in the mid zoom region but still acceptable for a 36" x 24" subject matter permitting.

This lens has surprised me. I expected it to not shine on a full frame camera. I never really gelled with it on the 7D, where the Sigma 10-20 took over, but from today’s results, it looks like this will be a keeper with the A900. It is fully capable of utilising the resolution of the A900 sensor and makes for a useful ultra wide with the FF sensor.

sharpness: 4.5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jhawkinsvalrico   review date: January-23-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

Lightweight and fast focus. Sharp, Good Contrast, Good Color.

negative:

Some barrel distortion on lower end (17mm). Correctable in Photoshop.

comment:

This isn't 'G" glass, but is a really good lens for the price. Mine is one of my 'walking around' lenses. Great for landscapes and street scenes. I take this lens and a long lens hiking. The long lens for wildlife and this lens for scenes.

I really like this lens and recommend it. I might try looking for a better hood as flare can be an issue (I'm just aware of it and adjust to minimise flare). Otherwise it works great on my 5D.

sharpness: 5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: pastyr   review date: January-14-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

canon 17-40f4L, ZD 14-54f2.8-3.5

positive:

sharp, contrast, colours, I dont like heavy lens so weight is positive also if u carry all day :)
fast and correct focusing !

negative:

distorsion (wide end )

comment:

I very much like this lens and for me (photography is not my profession)this lens is ideal :) , not expensive, lightweight, sharp, and contrast in best minolta manner !

highly recommanded ;)

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: pepcok   review date: January-04-06  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

nice 25.5 mm focal length when set to wide (eq35)

negative:

flare control could be better, hood is of no use for me.

comment:

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: gsaronni   review date: November-13-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Sigma 17-35 EX DG f2.8-4. Sigma 12-24 EX DG f4.5-5.6

price paid:

450€ (new)

positive:

Sharp wide open(f4-f5)
Light
Build quality.
Fast focusing
Not very expensive

negative:

Only 35mm, I would prefer 17-50.
Distorsion at WA, well corrected with PTlens (Tamron profile)
Lens hood too big for APS-C cameras

comment:

Not very wide, really I wanted to buy Tokina 12-24 or Sigma 12-24. The first one is no available for Minolta, the second one was to heavy and with the filter issue, and much expensive.

Lens hood too big, and not very useful with APS-C cameras.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 5 

user: simima   review date: October-06-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Canon 16-35/2.8 L

positive:

Sharp
Good colors
Handy range

negative:

Distortion
Build quality
Sun hood (though see below)

comment:

I start to love this lens. First I wasn't shure if it was the right one, especially as the first lenses AF was broken (could not focus nearer that 2m). The second lens is fine (it seems that KM exhibits quality problems every now and then, too bad).

The lens showed it's potential during a trip to Sardegna. Surprisingly, It barely went off the camera (o.k., I didn't have the 11-18 by then). The distortions aren't that bad in real life, except when taking buildings and other formerly rectangular objects. Can be corrected in Photoshop.

The original sun hood is a burden, basically useless. This is why - I had an old Canon 77mm sun hod, which went under my little saw... and, hocuspokus, became my 17-35/4-APS-C-sun hood. Smaller in diameter than the original, a bit longer, thus better flare control... and the bajonet works fine... ;) Thus the flare rating of 5 ... ;)

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: samir   review date: October-05-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

- relatively sharp, with nice color

negative:

comment:

I had to return first sample because AF was very inconsistent, and lens was very soft even when stopped down, the second one is OK, and I find myself using it more often then I thought I would, if only it is somewhat longer...

sharpness: 3.5 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: Kiklop   review date: October-02-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

Minolta 28-75D
Minolta 20/2.8
Sigma 12-24
Minolta 28/2
Minolta 35/2
canon 17-40L
Nikon 14-24

price paid:

450 € (new)

positive:

Really nice color balance
Fast enough
AF speed and reliability

negative:

- Distortion at 17mm pretty evident
- Lousy hood (feels very cheap and it's not suitable to 1.5 crop factor – way too short)
- not that great on 35mm
- build could be better

comment:

I like this lens. When I bought one I was a bit disappointed with the overall performance. I tried some alternatives on canon systems when I realized that we can't expect top grade performance with such wide angle lenses and at that price.
However, this lens has pretty sweet coverage on 7D, which makes it a very handy lens for street photography.
Unfortunately, there is a lot to be desired in terms of distortion control, since at 17mm the lens exhibits pretty strong barrel distortion. At 24mm and more things are pretty good.
Flare can be an issue, but considering the wide angle I think the lens is getting pretty good in this regard.
Sharpness isn't at pair with some longer lenses (comparing to primes does not have sense here), but the lens is still very capable when stopped down a bit. IN general, I consider this lens sharp enough for most tasks.
**Full frame**
Borders and corners performance and quite high distortion are significant problem with this lens on a FF camera. Central resolution is still very good (stopped down a bit) but borders are problematic even when stopped down. I rarely use it on a900 with the 16mm and 20mm lenses covering this range

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: ab012   review date: September-18-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

KM 28-75 2.8 D
KM 28 2
KM 20 2.8

positive:

Lovely colours
Fast and sharp at wide end, @ 2.8 is already very good.

negative:

Colours different from traditional Minolta lenses.
Distortion at wide end
Flare

comment:

It is fast (2.8) at wide end where I need it for indoor shots most, although it is only f4 at 35mm.

Sharpness is excellent at the wide end. @17-24mm the central sharpness is already excellent. Stopping down only helps the corners. @ the long end though results will benefit from stopping down.

I quite like the colours this lens produces on the whole - but note that it is a bit different to all my other KM lenses so side by side shots may have this show up.

Little dissappointed with the distortion at 17mm, but for its price (and afterall it is 17mm FF) it is still a good choice IMO. In fact if one compares the measured distortion numbers (eg on popphoto) this lens does MUCH better then a lot of the competition, including the $$$$ offerings from competing brands.

The only issue this lens has is that it tends to be compared with the (very crisp) 28-75 D. If one considers this lens on its own merits however it stands its ground very well.

added Oct 08: FF performance is better (sharper) than I originally expected. Although it is clear that this lens was optimized for APSC (observable by the relative decrease in quality as one exits the APSC zone esp when wide open) but stopped down it is good (the only slight question at the moment is extreme corner performance at 17mm - will report back once i get more in field experience). Be careful of light falloff at 17mm which required stopping down to f8/11 to mostly remove.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: GormGrymme   review date: July-17-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

good range
sharp
great colors
balances well with 7d weightwise

negative:

comment:

just plain great.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: former member   review date: January-08-05  

tested on film camera:

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

tested on full frame:24MP

compared to:

positive:

fast at wide end;
high quality even wide open;
relatively light; has "D" chip

negative:

Flimsy sun hood bayonet.

comment:

Useful, cost effective and high quality lens, giving the 7D access to most needed wide angle persectives (25mm equivalent on widest, which used to be considered as pretty wide indeed). Can be used as ultra super wide on 35mm.


Resolution and contrast are very good, even wide open. It is lighter and less luxurious than the "G", but not cheaply built at all. It has a D chip. Nicer look 'n feel than its Tamron branded twin.

A very effective standard zoom for the 7D. Tests mention distortion, but that is not really visible on my pictures (I do not do architecture, and I have not seen a sea horizon for months).

Be careful not to loose sun hood, as it does not exist on spare list, and hood bayonet not as secure as it should be. I lost my hood, and was lucky to find a Tamron equivalent.