Minolta AF 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 RS A-mount lens review by addy landzaat
|addy landzaat#1119 date: Aug-25-2006|
flare control: 5
|ownership:||I own this lens|
|compared to:||KM 17-35/2.8-4|
Sony CZ 24-70/2.8
|price paid:||€100,- used A-grade|
|positive:||Light and compact|
|negative:||none for the price, it ain't a G-lens|
little more wide would be nice
|comment:||I like this lens more and more , it is light, compact, good quality.|
This is a very good lens for the price and a bargain. The build is plastic but it is well put together. It looks like it can handle everything except a war-zone. By comparison the 17-35/2.8-4 feels less well put together.
The colors are neutral yet vibrant. Pictures are clear and have a feel of openess to them. It is a totaly different lens from the 70-210/4, but equally capable.
I didn't see distortion and flare.
Its range is very usefull both on film and on APS-C (35-135 35mm eq.) as a walk around. It is a lightweight. It is f4 from 28 till 70, that makes it just one stop slower then the M 28-70/2.8 and it weights much less.
I think this is underrated in the market - it is a bargain. It is the cheapest more or less usable lens that delivers good quality pictures.
Edit: Several years on there are much more lenses available and I've used it some on full frame as well. Time to add some remarks on use on full frame as well.
On full frame the corners are so-so. As a package the lens is good enough. I use the 28-70G and CZ 24-70/2.8 as mine main normal lenses on full frame aand those are better. However if you use it around f/5.6 it still is a good lens. I thow it in my bag as a back-up lens these days and when my 24-70/2.8 broke on a trip to Kenia the 24-85 did a good job. If your pressed for money or if you want something lighter then an f/2.8 lens this is one you should consider.