Minolta AF 17-35mm F2.8-4 D A-mount lens reviews
 Phil Wood#47080 date: Apr-14-2025 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | FF Minolta AF 20-35 F3.5-4.5 Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG Sigma 12-24 F4.5-5.6 II DG HSM Sigma 21-35 F3.5-4.2 APS-C Sony DT 11-18 F4.5-5.6 D Sony DT 16-50 F2.8 SSM Sony DT 16-105 F3.5-5.6 Sony Carl Zeiss 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 DT Vario-Sonnar T* Sigma 8-16 F4.5-5.6 DC HSM Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 EX DC |
| price paid: | 125 GPB |
| positive: | Nice range, fastish, lightweight, takes lovely images. |
| negative: | Not much. Could be sharper, especially corners at the wide end and/or wide open. |
| comment: | I don't have much to compare this lens to in full-frame - which is how I use it. I see little to no point putting it on an APS-C body when I have the superb Sony DT 16-50 and Sony CZ 16-80, both of which are far better performers with a wider range. Nor is it a proper comparision between this lens and the ultra wide 12-24 Sigma zooms, both of which I have owned. The extra width is what makes the Sigmas stand out, but the range is not really as generally useful as the 17-35. The nearest comparisons I have are the Minolta 20-35 and Sigma 21-35 - neither are as good in their range as this KM and it goes wider. So the comparison is really against APC-S lenses of similar equivalent range. The obvious one is the Sony/Minolta 11-18mm zooms, with the FF equivalent range of 16-5-27mm. they even share the same hood as the KM 17-35. I also have a Sigma 10-20 (screwdrive version). IMO the KM is the better performer and obviously has the better range. The Sigma 8-16 is pretty impressive, but like the equivalent FF 12-24s the range is more specialized. Sadly I have no experience with the more obvious comparison lenses - the Minolta 17-35 G and the Sony 16-35s. Given the additional cost of these it might be some time before I get to make any of these comparisons. In terms of performance at its price, I have nothing to complain about with this lens, it is my standby wide zoom and gets plenty of use. I suspect it would continue to get plenty of use even if I had a Sony 16-35 (yes I would love to have one) just as my KM 28-75/2.8 still gets used now I have a Sony 24-70/2.8 - simply because the newer, better, lenses are also massive weighty brutes. I don't carry the 24-70 unless I know I will be using it, whereas the 28-75 is a great lightweight backup lens to have in the bag. |
; 36MP| keith_h#47079 date: Apr-13-2025 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 8-16 Sony 16-105 |
| price paid: | aud$250 |
| positive: | Most of the image quality for less price than the G. Inexpensive in its own right second hand. |
| negative: | Flare is possible but of course this is true of all wide angle lens. Its easily managed and potentially a creative element. |
| comment: | I bought this lens to round out a full frame kit. Research showed it had most of the image quality of the G without the price. I will of course buy a G at some point but right now they still command a significant premium. I've learned that the wide angle lens has a special application, to show things in place in their environment - its not really a landscape lens if you are interested in detail. While it will capture a large landscape detail will be lacking. This is true of all my wide angle lenses, not unique to this one other than maybe the 16-105. So when used as intended is great, when used where another lens would be a better choice, results are maybe a little disappointing. That's operator error not the lens. Its fine with interiors. Much is made of flare and of course it will flare if provoked but this is easy to control or even use as a creative element. I don't see this as a problem, just the nature of wide angle lenses in general. While on APS-C with the 16-105 I will go wide a lot (because you can right), on full frame I rarely use this lens. I might use 28-70 and step back instead of changing the lens. But when I do it gets the job done. But I don't use it enough to really know how to get the best from it, hence the scores. It's good enough without being exceptional in my view. |
| japp#46933 date: Apr-14-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | don't have any other lens this wide so compared to: minolta 24-50mm f4 |
| price paid: | €30 |
| positive: | -great focal length on both apsc and FF (but better for FF). -nice mfd |
| negative: | -dark corners on FF but that is what i akspected -build quality is not the best (read comment) |
| comment: | this was my first wide angle zoom, and was bought as not working. when received it indeed was not working, but once opened up and not seeing any damage i reassembled everything again, and it was working great! a few months passed and again it wasn't working, so i opened it up again and noticed that the ribbon cable to the lens contacts was broken on one side. than i did some search as to how it got broken and noticed the ribbon cable gets ticked by the zooming mechanisme when not placed perfectly in the lens (which is almost certainly impossible in the designed place) so i just cut away a piece of the support material to the lens mount and the ribbon cable would fit nicely in place. then soldered a wire from the lens contacts to the designated place and it was working nicely. (this is why i gave the lens a 2 as build quality) after all that i could now use the lens to its full potential and am quite happy with the wide angle of view without being a fisheye. one thing to keep in mind is the quite dark corners of this lens wide open but i think that is pretty nice. |
| Hubert_79#46924 date: Jan-19-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24-105 mm Minolta AF 24-85 mm (both versions) KM AF-DT 18-70 mm Minolta AF 28 mm (old) |
| price paid: | 200 € (in set w D7D) |
| positive: | -light -range -sharp when stopped down -no noticeable wignetting on APS-C -little amount of distortion |
| negative: | -soft wide open -unusable lens hood -field curvature |
| comment: | Buyed this lens together with Dynax 7D. Not bad lens, but also not great. I´ve made some nice pictures with it, but some was so-so usable. |
| NIKO#45760 date: Sep-25-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 SSM, Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 EX DC. |
| price paid: | 212 |
| positive: | Very light. On APS-C based cameras image quality is great. Lens feels good in hand. |
| negative: | Lots of plastic. In some ways it feels cheap because of it. |
| comment: | There's no doubt that this lens has quality optics. At least to me. I can't say how good or not it is on a full frame camera. However, on a APS-C based camera the optical quality is there. I think it beats the Sigma 10-20 f4-5.6 lens, but really they have quite a different range. As for the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f2.8 lens the 17-35 f2.8-4 can put up a good fight, but will still be beat in the end. It lacks the contrast the Zeiss lens has. Sharpness may be close, but not quite a match. You'll never notice these differences directly on prints. You'll have to pixel peep. In other reviews that I have read with image examples the corners in the image on a full frame camera can't match the Zeiss variant. If you're an APS-C camera shooter as I am this lens is really all you need. So save that money that you would have spent on that Zeiss lens. 😁 |
| AVLB#45750 date: Aug-29-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 20mm f2.8 Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 |
| price paid: | £170 |
| positive: | Light Good zoom range Sharp at longer focal lengths and especially between f11-f16. |
| negative: | Softish at 17-20, especially corners when wide open. |
| comment: | I must have a good copy, as all the test shots I have taken so far after only owning the lens for 24hrs, seem fine to me. I have compared it to two prime lenses, so far at both ends of the focal range. To be fair, I only tested them at f4 at the 35mm length, but did compare at 20mm at f3.2. It only operates at f2.8 below 20mm. These were real live tests and not scientific, although speeds and ISO were the same as well. Lighting conditions were dependent on the clouds! My findings were that the Sony 20mm tended to be slightly sharper wide open, but from f8 onwards, there was no difference, both at the centre and the corners. The CZJ 35mm f2.4 Flektogon is one of those lenses that has a renowned sharpness, but in my opinion, the KM did just as well at 35mm, right across the aperture range. As this will be used mainly for landscape work, I am not concerned about bokeh, although on the shots I have taken of close up subjects, I don't find it displeasing. Good close focal length if you do need it though. Both zoom and focussing rings are very smooth on my copy, but with only about a 90° turn of each, so best used for autofocus. The substantial plastic petal hood is firm on the barrel, with red dots to line up and provides good flare and lens protection. Will be keeping this lens for sure to use on the A99/A850, but don't need it for the A68, as I have a UWA lens for APSC. |
| Ebbelboiz#44438 date: Dec-14-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 16-300 f3.5-6.3 Tamron 24-70 f2.8 |
| price paid: | €150 (used) |
| positive: | - the lens is pretty sharp in the image center, even wide open - lens works well for low light situations |
| negative: | - has quite some distortion and softness in the corners, especially wide open - build quality seems a little cheap - flares are very strong and sometimes hard to remove afterwards |
| comment: | A very good lens for the price which does a pretty good job on APS-C. Sharpness in the center of the image is good, sometimes even really good. However the corners (especially the upper corners if you're shooting horizontally) can be pretty soft at times and I would imagine that that's even more of a problem with full frame cameras. If you're shooting a scenery with a sky that doesn't really matter that much since you don't notice the softness on clouds or plain backgrounds. However if you're shooting nature scenes like forests, waterfalls etc. it can be pretty annoying. |
| ValeryD#44435 date: Dec-6-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 16-35 Zeiss 24-70 Zeiss 16-80 |
| price paid: | $160 |
| positive: | Very fast and accurate AF. Not so heavy as Zeiss 16-35 |
| negative: | so far none |
| comment: | Good lens especially for money. |
| Zappa#44153 date: Oct-23-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 1 overall: 2.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony ZA 16-35 |
| price paid: | 190 € (mint) |
| positive: | Especially its price, I paid very little money and was new to buy it, with all the accessories and its box, all new. In f8 is when it gives its best quality and sharpness. |
| negative: | It has a marked vignette in the corners that is corrected in Photoshop |
| comment: | I would never sell it, ... |
| onsplekkie#26528 date: Mar-20-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | ZA 24mm f2 |
| price paid: | 150 euro 2hand |
| positive: | Delivers nice pictures full of contrast with (typical) Minolta colours. Centre sharpness wide-open |
| negative: | Weight out of balance handheld with adapter on A7s Lens front big and easliy damaged (use UV filter) Ackward sunshade (do not use it) corners sharpness sensitive to flare |
| comment: | Own this lens for 1 month. I use this lens only for 17mm purpose. For the price I paid it delivers me what I wanted; a (very) wide angle view of the world around me. f8+ makes nice sharpness across the frame (only for non-pixel-peepers!) and great for street photography. The flare is (quickly) noticable when directed into sunlight. I do not mind as the A7s still produces nice contrasty images with enough detail. Pointed straight into the sun it gives a big round red halo across the whole frame, non of my other lenses produces. If I could afford the new FE Voightlander 15mm it would be my first choice for seize/weight. But money in the pocket to travel (and take pictures) is the road I travel on for now (-; |
| CKL#20392 date: Oct-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Konica Minolta 28-85 - Tokina 19-35 |
| price paid: | part of 7d kit |
| positive: | - Sharp with APS-C |
| negative: | - Soft in corner full frame |
| comment: | When I bought the Minolta 7d in 2005 they included two lenses, the KM 17-35 and the KM 28-85. Both are rebadged Tamrons. The KM 17-35 is sharp with APS-C, however full frame it's little bit soft in the corners - 17mm, sharp at f8 - 20-30 mm, sharp at f4.5 - 35mm, sharp at f8 It's much and much better than the Tokina 19-35. Its sharper then the Minolta 20mm f2.8 prime |
| Collingsandheal#20383 date: Oct-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF20. Sigma super wide 2. Minolta AF28f2. Minolta AF35f2. Zeiss FE2,8/35. Minolta AF50. Sigma 50mm f1:4. Zeiss FE1,8/55. Sony 2.8/85 SAM. Minolta AF135. |
| price paid: | £179.00 |
| positive: | fast 17mm full frame. |
| negative: | FLARE |
| comment: | It may be f2.8 but it isn't sharp until f11. That said I made some great images with this lens. |
| Freddan_6#15256 date: May-22-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | A77 with Sigma 10-20/4-5.6. |
| price paid: | 800 SEK=95$ |
| positive: | Sharp except the extreme corners at 17mm full open. Sharpens up nicely when stopped down. Sharp in extreme corner from 21mm-35mm even full open. |
| negative: | Some distortion. Some minor coma. Colors OK but not as warm as the old Minoltas. Micro contrast is lower than modern lenses (Sigma). But that can be corrected in post processing. |
| comment: | Nice low priced lens for full frame. Not as sharp in the extreme corners, then you need to stop down to f:5.6-f:8. But for the price it is unbeatable. Colors are OK. Flare control is good. |
| backstein#11843 date: May-22-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24mm 1.8 Minolta 17-70 3.5-5.6 DT Tokina 17mm F4 (MD mount) |
| price paid: | € 200 (new) |
| positive: | +Good Range for a Wide-Angle +Low Price +Good Build Quality though the exterior is of Plastic +Light +Color +good Contrast +Focus Accuracy +Flare Control |
| negative: | -Edge Resolution -not so good wide open -steep focus gearing |
| comment: | It's not a high performance lens what concerns resolution or sharpness in the center but it's very good in the center from f5.6 and has an awesome field of view. A huge step-up from any APSc kit-lens. The Sigma 24mm 1.8 is a better performer in terms of sharpness and distortion. |
| Rusty#11593 date: Jan-8-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 10-20 Sigma 24-70/2.8 Zeiss 16-35 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Low price - Lightweight |
| negative: | - Plastic build - Soft - Flare - Useless hood |
| comment: | First things first, the lens feels like it's made of cheap plastic, about the same feel to handle as the Sony and Minolta kit lenses. The hood is built so wide it takes up a ridiculous amount of space in the camera bag, and it is so short it dosen't even stop stray light. Second, I have to admit that *for the money*, it gives very acceptable results, considering the only real alternative to this lens is the Zeiss 16-35 at almost 5-8x the price depending on the source. yes, the Zeiss is much sharper and feels much more solid and controls flare much better, but it's not 8x a better lens overall, so looking purely at the quality/price ratio, it's pretty good. Bottom line is, IMO, if you afford more than 250$, save up and get something better. OTOH, if build quality and uber-sharpness is not an issue, this lens still offers a very good bang for the buck. I have used this lens successfully on paid jobs and for personal work for about 2 years, but in the end I found myself dissatisfied with it and sold it as part of a massive trade for higher-quality glass. |
| ing.arellano#11491 date: Nov-20-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 350 |
| positive: | Cheap Colors |
| negative: | Distortion |
| comment: | Love It |
| peter3400#11466 date: Nov-10-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | vivitar 19-35, Tamron 20-35 |
| price paid: | 170 CHF (mint) |
| positive: | Cheap and light weighted Wide to Ultra wide (depending of the format) great color No detectable vignetty on APSC relatively fast AF |
| negative: | Flare and distortion |
| comment: | great lens for landscapes. super cheap in comparison to other full frame A mount compatible lenses such the 16-35 zeiss. i used on both A850 and A77 and couldn't be happier. highly recommended. |
| smallmartin#11299 date: Aug-9-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 1 flare control: 3 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 20mm f2.8 24-70 f2.8 USD |
| price paid: | 180€ (used) |
| positive: | - cheap - light - ultra wide-angle |
| negative: | - spherical focus plane (?) - poor optical quality (CA, sharpness, contrast) - distortion |
| comment: | Cheap wide angle lenses on FF always lack of optical quality. This one is no exception. However, it remain a good lens to aprehend the handling of such wide angles and finally realise it may be too much for one's use... So I finally replaced it with a 24-70 and a 20mm that will ben wide enough in my opinion... |
| Malina DZ#11200 date: Jun-18-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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 |
| Milan33m#11154 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| 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. |
| berlin steve#10592 date: Oct-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| Minolta80#10451 date: Aug-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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 ;) |
| arCreation#10360 date: Jul-6-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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 |
| Guy#10256 date: May-31-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| derekw#9962 date: Feb-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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, |
| godsakes#9902 date: Feb-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 2 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| 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. |
| yannick#9513 date: Oct-20-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| 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. |
| milan33#9169 date: Jun-22-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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. |
| Bob Socko#9082 date: Jun-4-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| 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. |
| C-hass#8788 date: Mar-14-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| 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! |
rating summary
- total reviews: 136
- sharpness: 4.26
- color: 4.58
- build: 4.13
- distortion: 3.74
- flare control: 3.60
- overall: 4.06
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login