Minolta AF 24-105mm F3.5-4.5 D A-mount lens reviews
 keith_h#47077 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: | 16-105 28-85 |
| price paid: | aud$200 |
| positive: | Compact, light, useful focal length range for APS-C, inexpensive. |
| negative: | Workmanlike image quality, not outstanding. |
| comment: | I bought this lens as a permanent companion to the A200 for the times a compact DSLR is required and in this application it's ideal. Its not got the focal length range or image quality of the 16-105 or the heft and image quality of the 28-85 but this was never the intent. Its entirely good enough for its intended use without being outstanding. And of course it was inexpensive. |
; 14MP| Hubert_79#46926 date: Jan-19-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM AF-DT 18-70 mm KM AF 17-35 mm Minolta AF 24-85 mm (RS) Minolta AF 28 mm (old) |
| price paid: | 70 € |
| positive: | -sharp and contrast throughout the range -nice color -very good build -fast AF -well controlled distortion (on APS-C) -no vignetting (on APS-C) -very good bokeh (for this category of lens) |
| negative: | -not so wide on APS-C -aberation (can be removed in editor) -not well balanced with plastic bodies like KM 5D and Sony a230 |
| comment: | My TOP lens, great for nature and landscape photography. |
| marco_palomar#45809 date: Jan-1-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | sony-zeiss fe 24-70 f/4, minolta 24-85 f/3.5/4.5, Nikon af-d 28-70 f/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | Colors, all-round focal range, light and small |
| negative: | sharpness |
| comment: | good unpretentious lens for beginners, is not sharp as other vintage or modern zoom. For acceptable sharpness it must be stopped-down. |
| aikaarska#45635 date: Jan-23-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta AF 35-105/3.5-4.5 (orginal older model) - Sony A 28-75/2.8 - Tamron 24-135 - Minolta AF 24-85/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 100 USD |
| positive: | - relatively sharp zoom, even wide open - not bad sharpness even at wide end - compact size / lightweight - nice build quality - tolerable bokeh |
| negative: | - corner sharpness (at 24mm) - minimum focusing distance could be even less |
| comment: | This lens is a really nice surprise for me! I didn’t expect much, given its age and small size. But this is real gem. Even with 42mp Sony A7RII. Also AF works pretty well with LA-EA4 adapter. |
| jongen1#44529 date: May-29-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-50 Minolta 28-135 |
| price paid: | €75 (1998) |
| positive: | Light and small Sharp at f8 entire range Great colors and almost no CA Fast AF |
| negative: | At 24mm light vignetting in the corners Manual focussing is sturdy because of screw to adapter Plastic feeling |
| comment: | I compared 3 FF lenses on A7 with LA-EA4 at 24-28-50-105mm and f4-5,6-8-11-16. Judges on color,CA, sharpness and distortion. The 24-50 sharp in the corners from f11 with nice color. The frontheavy 28-135 sharp from f8 but with CA in the wide corners and some darker coloring. The 24-105 sharp from f5,6-8 and Minolta colors. So 24-105 benefits 24 mm, lightweight, less distortion and 1 to 2 stops more light. So one (Minolta)bag contains the A7, 24-105, 70-210 beercan, 50/1,4 and 100macro |
| AVLB#44528 date: May-22-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-100 Minolta 35-105 Minolta 28-135 |
| price paid: | £60 used |
| positive: | Small Light Good usable range |
| negative: | Slightly plastic |
| comment: | As I had just purchased an A850 body, but had no lenses other than a 70-200 and 70-400 to go with it, I needed a general walkabout lens for everyday use. After using Dyxum to research some lenses, went for this newer model, as I could also use it with a flash. Probably just wear, but the lens hood does not snap tight on the lens, but still does the job(second copy was almost mint and hood is fine). Bought an aluminium wide angle screw on alternative, which also works well. At 24mm, it does suffer from vignetting slightly, but correctable in PP. Nice Minolta colours and focussing is accurate and fast enough. Feels well balanced on the A850 and A99 and small enough to use all day long. Tried it out on the SLT-68 and that also works well, but 24mm a bit too narrow for an APSC and loss of light makes it a slow lens at 5.6/7.1. The Sony 16-80 or Sigma 17-70 would be better on APSC. |
| Phil Wood#44341 date: Aug-1-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 RS Minolta - AF 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-135 F4-4.5 Sony FE 24-105mm f4 G |
| price paid: | 60 GBP |
| positive: | Great range on FF, compact, light, well built, D encoding, good IQ a couple of stops down. |
| negative: | Just not quite as good as alternatives, not quite as sharp. |
| comment: | This is a good lens that won't let you down, but even in its price range there are sound alternatives. It seems to be the ideal choice for a walkabout FF lens, a more attractive FL range than any other Minolta zoom and it is not a bad lens. From 28 to 105 it just doesn't take such nice pictures as the Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 (either of the variants I have) from 24 to 85mm it is bettered by the Minolta - AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 RS (I have not tried the original version). I also prefer the IQ of the old Minolta - AF 28-135 F4-4.5 - though that is a seriously hefty beast. The Minolta - AF 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D is much lighter, but is no match optically and is built like a toy. That said I would still consider this lens as a FF walk around choice, especially in an urban environment, the FL range really is that attractive. I am surprised that Sony never bothered to make a better FF zoom of this range (or better), if you want 24mm and 105mm in one FF zoom it's this, its Sony rebadging, or the very expensive Sigma 24-105mm F4 DG HSM Art (reportedly very good). However, on a walkabout, I am more likely to opt for an APS camera and the brilliant Sony 16-50mm F2.8 SSM (24-75mm FF equivalent). On APS the 24-105mm range is equivalent to 36-157.5mm on FF - still an interesting range, but the 28-105 is still better, I often add it to my bag as a mid-range supplement to the 16-50. These old Minolta zooms are so cheap these days that you can't really go wrong - a lens of this quality for less than 100 GBP/USD/EUR is ridiculous, if the 28-105 wasn't that little bit better I would be perfectly happy using this lens a lot more than I do. Of course, if you are a big flash user and want the D encoding this is probably the best sub 100 GBP choice. Update: 30-05-2020. I have found myself using this lens more recently, initially because I wanted the range, but I have come to like it more. It does help that the sun has been shining brightly because it does need to be stopped down for best results, but the best results are pretty good. Update: 13-03-2025 Five years on an I am back using this lens. I got quite attached to my original copy, which gradually became my FF A-mount walkabout lens of choice leaving the 24-85 and 28-105 alteratives gathering dust - then the zoom jammed. I bought a replacement (also £60) but wasn't so satisfied with it until recently, when I decided to give it another chance. Stopped down a bit it really does take nice pictures and you can't complain about its range, compact size and light weight - it's not as good as my FE 24-105mm f4 G, but it's plenty good enough for when I want to reduce the load a bit. And my APS-C alternative has changed too, the Sony DT 16-80mm f3.5-4.5 is not as good as the Sony DT 16-50mm f2.8 SSM, but it's still very good and has a great range in a small package. |
| teejay#44337 date: Jul-18-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105mm 3.5-4.5 Sony 16-80mm on aps-c |
| price paid: | 100 E |
| positive: | good range on FF lightweight and compact OK sharpness stopped down |
| negative: | vignetting at 24mm stiff zoom at tele end sharpness not great at wide open distortion |
| comment: | When I switched from aps-c to FF earlier this year, I initially got Minolta 28-105 mm as a walk-around zoom. While the 28-105 is marginally better in every aspect (except for size and weight), not having the 24 mm focal length really bothered me. I therefore acquired the 24-105 mm and I am pretty happy with it, accepting its limitations (see negatives above). The 16-80 mm for aps-c is in another league, that is one lens I regret... |
| Tarzankayaker#44150 date: Oct-21-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105, Minolta 28-135 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | -Sharp at 105mm -Small and light -Wide zoom range |
| negative: | -Heavy distortion at 24mm -Soft at 24mm wide open |
| comment: | Great lens for mid to longer zoom ranges. Wide angle is usable either by stopping down aperture, or zooming past 28mm. Sharper at the end of the zoom range than Minolta 28-135 and 28-105. Very usable and great on full frame. |
| der dickgg#42999 date: Jan-27-2018 | |
|---|---|
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 CZ 16-80mm on A77 Sigma 24-135mm |
| price paid: | € 60,- |
| positive: | Range, weight and 'Minolta' colors |
| negative: | For just € 60,- ....? You must be kidding |
| comment: | I'm so lucky I found you.... For an incredible price of only € 60,- my walk-around-lens on the A900. And even acceptable on APS-C for a lightweight citytrip with my 10-20mm. A little bit soft in the corners, but stopped down very useable. This lens is so much less heavy compared to the Sigma 24-135mm that the latter has to stay at home much often. The IQ on the A900 compared to the CZ 16-80mm on the A77 (both 24 MP and more or less same reach and interchangeable lenshood) is the same if not better for the colours. Had to clean the lens, glass and barrel, thoroughly when I got home. Maybe that's why I had to pay so little. A little gem.... so lucky I found you! |
| Chrisblobster#39953 date: Oct-10-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55mm DT kit lens |
| price paid: | NZ$379 |
| positive: | A nice all-rounder of a lens; good colour, sharpness, and compact size make it a great lens to use as a walk-around lens on my A99 |
| negative: | Would have preferred a wider aperture such as f/2.8. |
| comment: | No aspect of this lens performs *exceptionally* well for me, but it does do everything *very* well - it has become my defacto "kit lens" for general use on my A99, and while 24mm becomes a bit tight for my liking on the APS-C A57 the sharpness and colours are still there. I did pay quite a bit though from a local shop - ones on ebay are cheaper. |
| Go1#32725 date: Dec-3-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 28-75mm F2.8 D Minolta AF 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 Sony Carl Zeiss - 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 DT Vario-Sonnar T* |
| price paid: | 100 USD ( used ) |
| positive: | -compact -zoom range -fast and correct AF |
| negative: | -stiff zoom ring -sharpness starting from F4.5 -some CA at wide open |
| comment: | Nice zoom range for FF . Can also be use at the APS-C . Original minolta colors at sunlight . Size and weight better than many aps-c lenses . Building quality better than DT lenses . |
| Miranda F#30693 date: Oct-1-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 50mm f1.7 RS Minolta 24-50 f4 Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6 Minolta 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-100mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 35-105mm f4-5.6 N Sony 35mm f1.8 Sony 50mm f1.8 Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-135mm (tried, not owned) Sony 55-200mm f4-5.6 Sony 55-300mm f4.5-5.6 Soligor 60-300mm f4-5.6 Tamron 90mm f2.8 Sigma 28-200mm Tamron 28-200mm aspheric Various other wide angle and tele lenses plus MF primes & zooms. |
| price paid: | £48 |
| positive: | Very small and compact lens Good range of focal lengths on FF & APS-C Sharp enough Bokeh generally pretty good Reasonable MFD (good enough for flower close-ups) Very little CA/PF Good flare/ghosting performance Good aperture at full length. |
| negative: | Not quite as sharp as dt lenses May not be wide enough for some on APS-C Front element is close to front of lens and will need careful protection. Slightly stiff zoom control Bokeh can sometimes be less good! |
| comment: | I bought this s/h at less than half the price I've seen on e-bay, from a non-specialist on-line shop with a guarantee but no indication of condition. I got lucky! I already have a range of lenses quite wide enough for most purposes, but wanted a small walk-around lens with a longer focal length than the 18-55 and which would allow the camera to sit nicely on my chest without the usual telephoto droop. I also wanted something which would cover this focal length range for train photography on APS-C, where perspective distortion at the 18-22mm end is too upsetting and the longer end is useful for trains which aren't as close. This lens has proved an excellent choice, and I think the results are better than the quite-good 28-100 and (almost as importantly!) it's black and not silver. 100% crops on a 20Mp APS-C camera show the lens isn't quite as sharp as the Sony dt lenses listed, and a little softness may be noticeable at full tele when cropping heavily, but it's quite sharp enough for normal use, and vastly better than either of the two 28-200mm lenses I've owned. Close-up performance is okay, though not as good as the dt lenses which have a lower MFD, but flower close-ups work well enough, and if I want insects sharp I would expect to use a macro lens. Geometric distortion is quite low with just a slight amount of bowing of the horizon on wide angle pics when it is near one edge, though this doesn't seem to be any worse on film that it is on APS-C digital. Colours are nice, and the lens is pretty free from CA and PF unless you examine 100% edge/corner crops; neither this nor the Sony version benefit from in-camera jpeg corrections, unlike the dt lenses, but it stands up well against the corrected dt lenses. For those occasions where I want more length than the 18-55 I don't miss the wide end that much - I have ultra-wides I can take instead if I wish - and on film and FF digital the range is just about perfect. I don't generally do a lot of telephoto work on film but the range nicely overlaps the Minolta 75-300mm or 100-300mm. The aperture is also good - not quite constant aperture, but the almost-one-stop benefit over the usual xx-f5.6 cheaper zooms is a usefully smaller DOF on narrow-angle views and portraits plus the ability to zoom in and out in A-priority mode without losing the f4.5 setting. Best of all, though, is that the lens is pleasant to use and handle, and the bokeh is great*. Background sparkles usually produce lovely circles of uniform density and smooth edges, like the Minolta 50mm f1.7, with none of the harshness that more recent lenses (usually optimised for sharpness) so often show. One area in which some of the older lenses do suffer is veiling, flare, or ghosting from sun either in-shot or just outside. However despite the front glass element being so close to the front of the lens itself, the 24-105mm seems to suffer very little from this, being much more typical of the later well-coated Minolta and Sony lenses than early ones. My copy didn't have the lens hood, but I found a 62mm collapsible rubber one which works a treat on APS-C, though on film it needs to be collapsed at 35mm and below to avoid vignetting. However I have discovered the SH0005 lens hood fits and cheap chinese copies of this are available on e-bay. I feel that Minolta were right to produce a range of lenses which gave very good results but which were small and light. Today there are lots of bright shiny new lenses with amazing performance, but the cost of this performance (apart from the £ & $ required) is that they are so big and heavy. If you don't really need f2.8, it's nice to have a small, light lens you can rely on to produce good pictures. The cheaper plastic 35-100mm lens makes an interesting comparison; in most respects that one is worse, much less sharp and with terrible corners (see my review) but if you want a soft portrait or close-up lens with good bokeh it may be better. So, all in all, I really like this lens and it will be a regular visitor to my cameras. Note that I didn't feel the lens quite merited a '5' in several categories, but overall is much better than the total score would suggest; if I could have given it a 4.5 I would have done. *Edit: Did some more careful bokeh tests on APS-C digital and film in the 50-100mm region. In general, bokeh looks pretty good, soft and smooth; however at some combinations of focal length, focus, and distance (eg white flowers in close-up), there is a noticeable bright edge to the blur circle which can on occasion make the near-background look very busy, and curiously this was much more obvious through a film OVF than the A58's EVF. However blur circles do remain complete circles over the whole APS-C frame and well into the sides of an FF frame, with only a little squashing in the very corners at FF, and this is much better than many other FF lenses. Contrast this with the 35-105mm N (the plastic one) where the bokeh in the centre is softer and with less bright an edge, but squashes immediately you leave the centre. I guess the smaller, cheaper lens has smaller bits of glass in it. Edit 2: Recently acquired an A900 which has 100% FF coverage on the OVF, and it is now clear that the corners darken heavily at 24mm near full aperture, something which wasn't obvious on print film with the 600si. If you have a narrower coverage VF you may not notice it, but expect to crop a bit from the sides at 24mm near full aperture unless you correct it in PP. |
| Magnumúrfi#29673 date: Aug-26-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85 28-135 Zeiss 16-80 Tamron 17-50 KM 28-75 D Minolta 35-70F4 |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | Extrem good drawing! Very good color, and sharp f8 24mm focal sharp f5,6. Small 62mm filter good focusing Film cameras sharp in 3,5 Very good distorsion Very good Flare and CA |
| negative: | Very very soft in F3,5 the digatal cameras |
| comment: | This is very good lens, but soft during f8. Film cameras is no very soft. This is Film lens |
| QuietOC#29650 date: Aug-9-2016 | |
|---|---|
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: | Minolta AF 24-50 F4 Canon EF 24-85 USD Minolta AF 24-85/RS Minolta AF 24-105 D Sony FE 28-70 OSS Sony 28-75 F2.8 SAM Minolta AF 28-80 D Minolta AF 28-85 Minolta AF 28-100 D Sigma AF 28-105 F2.8-4 Canon EF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 USD II Minolta AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5/RS/Xi Minolta AF 28-135 F4-4.5 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 II Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5/New Sigma AF 28-105 F2.8-4 Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 64 USD (used) |
| positive: | Fairly compact and light Center sharpness Internal focus 62 mm filter threads |
| negative: | Build: broken encoder, stretched zoom grip Gritty focus control Purple fringing at long end Heavy focus breathing |
| comment: | "JAPAN" This lens is slightly smaller than the 24-85 F3.5-4.5 but larger than the 35-105 F3.5-4.5 New or the 24-50 F4 and 35-70 F4 zooms. Fully retracted it is basically the same size as the 18-55 fully retracted. Of course zoomed out to 105 mm it is much longer than the 18-55 fully extended. But it is still shorter when fully extended than the 24-85. It has a petal hood very similar but somewhat smaller than the SH00005 on the 16-80. The large ALC-SH112 from the 55-300 will also mount on this lens. 24-105 mm zooms are moderate compromises. This last copy is much sharper in the center than the Minolta AF 24 F2.8 and 28 F2.8 primes and the other Minolta 24-x zooms. The corners though are better on the 24-85 and the much better on the primes. The minimum focus distance is larger than the 24-85. Overall performance is better than I expected. Edit: first copy was a very used looking with original hood and caps that came in the retail packaging. Both rubber grips were dirty and the zoom grip was stretched and loose (and was noted by the seller). The seller didn't note that the focal length encoder was broken but did refund me quickly. I purchased a second copy of this lens for $90 from another eBay seller. This one looks to be in better shape, but has much worse optical performance. The visible coma wide-open indicates a decentering issue. The focus ring was also stuck at infinity until I managed to loosen it up. I purchased a third copy for $64 from another eBay seller. This one looks very good and is quite sharp over most of its range. Review now reflects this copy. |
| MarcoZ#25514 date: Mar-3-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta af 28-105 xi |
| price paid: | €75 |
| positive: | Nitidezza colore e contrasto notevoli con A850. Maneggevole, compatta sufficientemente robusta. |
| negative: | Niente da segnalare. |
| comment: | Ottica versatile, pratica e di ottima qualità. Ideale per reportage. |
| Collingsandheal#20382 date: Oct-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | 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: | £124.00 |
| positive: | Great colours. Sharp at F8. |
| negative: | Zoom action is not as smooth as it should be. Softens as you move either side of F8. |
| comment: | Cheap full frame street lens that can give great results at F8 but disappoints elsewhere. |
| michalm2#11990 date: Sep-24-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 30/1.4 Minolta 50/1.7 Sony 18-55/3.5-5.6 Sigma 55-200/4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 100EUR (used) |
| positive: | Small Well built Full frame compatible Very sharp Rubbered zooming and focus rings |
| negative: | Focus and zooming rings stretched a bit Little bit long inside on APS-C |
| comment: | It's very well built. Sharp from wide open, very sharp stepped down 1 stop. Bokeh is better from 7.1 when shooting with contrast background. Much smaller than Sony 18-135, Sony 16-105, Sigma 18-125 and similar lens. This lens is a keeper. It's in my bag all the time. Great walk-around lens. |
| Dedalus#11986 date: Sep-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | The Zeiss Fe 55 1.8 is another league. The 28-105 rs is a little better before 5.6 and at 105 |
| price paid: | 150 euro |
| positive: | Small, compact, sharp from 24 to 85 from f 5.6, very useful range on ff, good colors |
| negative: | Not sharp at all at 105 (also f8) and on intere range under 5.6; this is more significant when the focus is far, from 20 meters to infinity. At 24mm heavy distortion and heavy vignetting (can be corrected by software) |
| comment: | Maybe my copy is a lemon, but it seems never sharp at 105. I use it with the A7r and the le-a4 adapter. Autofocus is normally fast. Maybe the 36 mpix sensor exceed the lens qualities. I spoke with the importer of Konica - minolta in Italy and i Told me that this lens ha problems with sony software; over 70mm is not able to find the focus. So is Sharp also At 105, but the real issue is focus. Maybe the sony version is better. |
| ordinal#11943 date: Aug-9-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105 (2nd version w/o macro switch) Minolta 70-210 "Beercan" Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 28/2.8 |
| price paid: | 100 UKP |
| positive: | Dead sharp (except wide open at 24mm, and even then only corners/edges are soft). Lovely colours. Great focal range for street photography and photojournalism (on full frame). Well built, feels sturdy. Relatively compact. |
| negative: | Wide open at 24mm, vignettes a bit and corners are soft (up to about f5.6). Zoom ring is a bit stiff and not very precise, though that may be my copy. |
| comment: | Maybe I have an unusually good copy of this lens, but my experiences of it on film and full frame (A900) are superb. I've used it for shooting marches and demonstrations and it's performed brilliantly. It is always dead sharp over most of the frame, only vignetting a bit and having soft edges/corners up to about f5.6 at 24mm, and even then the pictures are usable - sometimes a bit of vignetting is dramatic. Some minor CA but nothing significant, and colours are lovely. The quality is as good as my primes, and it is _much_ better than my Minolta 35-105 which is horrible at anything below f8. If I have any complaints it's that the zoom ring is a bit stiff on mine - I don't know whether this is a general issue. Not a problem in practice; I usually use it at either 24 or 105 anyway, and it's not _that_ bad if I need intermediate lengths. Given the quality, great range of focal length and also its relatively small size, this is my standard lens on the A900 now. |
| GlassEye#11858 date: Jun-6-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-50 f/2.8 Minolta 24mm f/2.8 Tamron 90mm macro Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 Sony 50mm f1.8 SAM |
| price paid: | 280 USD used |
| positive: | Mostly sharp (see comments). Good range for day to day use. Feels good in hand and on camera, small size makes it a great 'walk around' lens. Reasonable maximum aperture. |
| negative: | Old design. Not as contrasty or 'snappy' as more modern designs. 24mm is a bit long for some things. Not as sharp zoomed out to 105mm. |
| comment: | I like this lens! It is compact and comfortable to carry and use. It seems fairly sharp open and by f/5.6 it sharpens up real well. Zoomed all the way to 105mm things get a bit soft at all apertures. If not for this I would have rated it a 4.5 for sharpness. Generally, any deficiencies can be corrected in post. Sharpen a bit, add some contrast, and the images are very good. The build is fine. The only problem I've had ist the zoom ring. It became so loose that I had to make a replacement from a leather strip. There is a bit of mass to this, but comfortably so. The zoom and focus rings are smooth throughout the range. Auto focus is quick and accurate. A keeper! |
| mob81#11493 date: Nov-21-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp stopped down Light Focuses fast Compact |
| negative: | For what it is, NONE |
| comment: | I bought this lens to keep on my Dynax 7 as travel buddy :) and it was best choice to do so. It's very light and sharp lens (Stopped down), It's good (not great) wide open too. It focuses fast and range of the zoom is great for Full frame or 35mm SLRs. I tried it with Slide film, Negative and B&W and result were great. I used it the most last summer and ran through over 20 rolls all came as expected. No regret. If you are looking for travel lens, I don't think you'll be disappointed with it |
| Blame#11371 date: Oct-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. |
| price paid: | £45 in car boot sale |
| positive: | Tiny lens that always finds room in the camera bag. Matches the tamron for sharpness for all focal lengths at f/8. Decent bokeh for a zoom and better than the tamron. |
| negative: | Vignettes badly wide open and not perfect even at f/8. Worse with filters. Corners are not competitively sharp under f/5.6. If you are after the classical Minolta colors you will hate it. A little more CA than the tamron but still decent enough to be ignored or corrected. |
| comment: | Don't think of this as a cheap lens. It originally sold for good money (bar meltdowns) and is capable of excellent results. A modern lens and thus decent flare control and contrast but without the classic Minolta colors. Not a good single lens solution because it is just not fast enough for poor light. Excellent as part of a kit of lenses and reserved for sunny days when it easily justifies its modest size, weight and market price with an image quality that is every bit as good as the other options for a standard zoom. Don't add more than one thin filter. One of the few options for getting as wide as 24mm in a standard zoom. |
| petemcarthur#11348 date: Sep-24-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | £80 |
| positive: | Excellent zoom range on film / ff Compact |
| negative: | Extremely soft wide open Distortion at 24mm |
| comment: | This is my first Minolta lens and it's a good lens as long as you are aware of it's limitations. Particularly at it's widest setting it is so soft as to be unusable. Wide open at 24mm I can't even print at 6x4. It's still unacceptable at f4.5 and only becomes useable at f5.6. The tele end is not as bad but this is a lens you want to keep stopped down. Perhaps my copy is really bad. Having said that it's a good walk about lens covering most situations well. |
| brian33#11334 date: Sep-10-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 2 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | All primes at those focal lengths; CZ16-80 (comparable focal length on aps-c) |
| price paid: | 240 EUR (old) |
| positive: | Very small and light |
| negative: | Significant vignetting Significant distortion at most focal lengths Very soft wide open Corners never really do get sharp, even when stopped down |
| comment: | The lens is worth maybe 100 euros so I way overpaid for it. I guess I was a little naive: I thought, cool, look at how small and light that thing is! But it's just a dog of a lens. It really takes the a99 and some heavy handed post-processing to make up for its flaws. Even when it sharpens up stopped down the images never really pop and as I mention the corners never really get sharp. Not that corners are the most important thing in the world but they count sometimes for some photos and this lens is so soft in the corners they can't even be salvaged by savvy post-processing. The colors are nice though, I'll give it that. I would almost say: perhaps this lens would be OK on film but then the distortion is horrible and that's one thing you can't fix so easily on film. I know that that would drive me nuts, I like for nice, straight lines in my photos and this lens won't give you a straight line. |
| whisperer#11253 date: Jul-16-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28mm 2.0 Tamron 28-75 2.8 Sony 50mm 1.7 Minolta 85mm 1.4 G Sony 70-300 G |
| price paid: | 120GBP (used) |
| positive: | Central sharpness on all apertures after closing 1 f.stop Very versatile range on FF Minolta color Light and compact |
| negative: | Corner sharpness Vignetting Color fringing wide open |
| comment: | The lens is not bad if you know how to use it. It's cheap (2nd hand), small, light, great zoom range. Center is sharp at f4.5 (24mm) or f8 (120mm). When stopped down (f8-f11) the corners will sharpen and vignetting almost disappear. In fact I think this lens is very sharp at these apertures. Problem with stopping down, any dust on the sensor (or even semi translucent surface of the A99) will be visible. I personally like the colors. They seem very much the same as the 28mm 2.0 and the 70-300mm G, which are regarded as having great "minolta" colors. Usually my question is whether to take the Tamron 28-75 2.8 or Minoltas 24-105 + 50mm 1.7. The Minoltas will have better colors, better zoom range, better bokeh (50mm 1.7) and in total will cost less than the Tamron. |
| Milan33m#11158 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 28-15, MAF 28-135 4.0-4.5, MAF 35-105 |
| price paid: | 110 EUR (used) |
| positive: | 24mm at the begining, f.3.5, lighty |
| negative: | Not sharp enough for me. |
| comment: | Wide angle of view. I used it for daily taking pictures and indoor photography. Much better and sharper was MAF 28-105 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. |
| Remko#11135 date: May-23-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-50AF f/4, 28-85AF f/3.5-4.5, 24AF f/2.8, 28AF f/2.8, 50AF f/1.4, 28-105xi f/3.5-4.5, 28-135AF f/4-4.5, Tamron 18-200 f/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | € 100 |
| positive: | - nice range - D (ADI) when using flash - great for reportage/event photography |
| negative: | rubber zoom ring tends to loosen |
| comment: | Love the range on both full frame (film) and digital. Gets most use for reportage/event photography. Also great for weddings! |
| olanuxer#10475 date: Aug-29-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 4 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta APO 100-300 mm |
| price paid: | 1.9 USD |
| positive: | Very sharp Good colour and contrast Nice build and weight Range Nice hood |
| negative: | Too much vignetting Zoom ring hard to rotate purple flare soft when wide open |
| comment: | I like this lenses, i bought this because i want to collect all minolta lens. |
| derekw#10189 date: May-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105RS Minolta 35=105 (original) |
| price paid: | 115 GBP mint |
| positive: | Very sharp Good colour and contrast Nice build and weight Range Effective hood Little distortion |
| negative: | PF beyond 80mm upto f8 Flimsy hood |
| comment: | Second copy of this lens (see review below) This copy is very good without ever reaching the sharpness levels of the two lenses above, but worth its place for the extra range. Very sharp 24-70. Capable of producing beautiful images but PF needs to be managed at larger apertures above 80mm. Recommended if you find a good sample. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 110
- sharpness: 4.25
- color: 4.51
- build: 4.12
- distortion: 4.15
- flare control: 4.24
- overall: 4.25
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login