Minolta AF 28-100mm F3.5-5.6 D A-mount lens reviews
reviews found: 21
 AVLB#46900 date: Nov-13-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-105 D 35-105 Mki |
| price paid: | £30 |
| positive: | Nothing, except cheap |
| negative: | Cheap build; plastic mount. Lacks sharpness at any f-stop. |
| comment: | Probably the worst lens I have owned, except for the 18-70 DT lens. How could Minolta put their name on this as a FF lens. Even stopped down to f11, this lens never gets sharp at any focal length. I don't believe it is my copy, as I had an 28-80 at one time and that was awful too. Minolta really let themselves go in the early 2000s and hence their downfall. The 24-105 is head and shoulders above this lens and that is presumably why Sony carried on making that one and not the 28-100. This lens will be going to the local charity shop. They may get £5 for it. |
; 36MP| Zeeke#27587 date: May-25-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 35-105 old Minolta 24-85 RS Minolta 28-105 RS Minolta 28-135 Minolta 35-80 II Sony 28-75 |
| price paid: | 30 euro |
| positive: | Light Very sharp att 28mm Nice range |
| negative: | Cheap feel(it is cheap) |
| comment: | This isn't a bad lens but it seems impossible to find a perfect copy they all have one soft border att the wide end or otherwise the tele end are soft and hazy.....the best copy I tried shows that it has potential...... |
| QuietOC#20417 date: Nov-7-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-105 Sony DT 18-55 SAM I/II Sony DT 18-70 Sony DT 18-135 SAM Sony DT 18-200 Minolta AF 24-50 F4 Minolta AF 24-85 Minolta AF 28-80 D Minolta AF 28-105 Minolta AF 28-105 RS Minolta AF 28-135 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 II Minolta AF 35-105 Original Minolta AF 35-105 New Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 19 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and Light Decent sharpness Rather flat focus plane Mostly parfocal Minimal CA Nice wide rubber zoom grip |
| negative: | Weak AF gearing Stiff, noisy zoom action Moderate zoom/focus shifts Moderate focus breathing Narrow, hard, plastic focus ring gets blocked by hood |
| comment: | The first silver copy came with a broken Maxxum 50 camera. The plastic AF teeth at infinity were either already damaged or quickly destroyed by the A58 (a teleconverters may have been involved.) I purchased the second copy separately for a bit more, but it came with the hood and caps and worked well. A third black copy came with a Maxxum 70 camera. The two working copies are optically better than the lens with the stripped gearing. Both of those still seem to be slightly decentered. The design is very similar to the Minolta/Sony DT 18-70 kit zoom and the earlier II series kit zooms. Like the earlier II kits zooms the lens is most contracted at 50 mm. F4 from 30 to 35 mm F4.5 to 40 mm F5 to 50 mm The 18-100 D performs similarly but slightly better than the smaller 28-80 D. Optical performance on the wide end is very good. Like the other kit zooms it gets softer over its telephoto range. It has similar barrel distortion as the 28-105 at the wide end and very slightly less pincushion at the long end. Its 100 mm end has a slightly narrower field of view than the 105 mm end of the 28-105 at close distances. Overall a very decent full frame kit lens that is let down by a poor build and often mediocre telephoto performance. Practicality just as good as the older, larger 28-105 F3.5-4.5. Test chart comparison on an A65 with the 28-105 F3.5-4.5, 28-135 F4-4.5, and others. |
| michalm2#16316 date: Jul-16-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 Sony 18-135 Minolta 24-105 Sigma 30/1.4 |
| price paid: | 25 EUR (like new) |
| positive: | focal range? weight |
| negative: | image quality colors |
| comment: | I bought this lens when I started shooting. I wanted to have wider focal range. But I found it totally useless. It has very bad image quality. Image lacks details. Some of my shots looked like scanned from printed photos. I was happy I sold it fast enough. |
| Miranda F#11784 date: Apr-22-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55mm DT SAM II Sony 55-200mm DT SAM Sony 55-300mm DT SAM Minolta & Sony 50mm primes Tamron 28-200mm Aspheric Tamron & Sigma 28-200mm Aspheric Minolta 75-300mm Minolta 28-80 Minolta 35-70 f4. Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5 Tamron 90mm f2.8 Etc. |
| price paid: | 49UKP with Dynax 4 |
| positive: | Lightweight modern mc 8-contact lens that's full-frame compatible. Wide enough zoom range for convenience without stressing optics. Smaller and much lighter than 28-105mm About 1 stop faster than 18-55mm kit lens Good walkaround lens, especially on FF Good colours. Close focussing than most older Minolta zooms Sharper than you'd expect. Actually very sharp! Cheap and easily available on ebay |
| negative: | Flare and veiling not quite as well controlled as later Sony (but not that much worse, either) Not really wide enough on crop-sensor. Quite plastic if that bothers you. Silver is a bit uncool unless you're into retro :-) Corners poor at full aperture. |
| comment: | Quite a good walk-around lens on a film SLR, though on a crop-sensor SLT 28mm isn't really very wide. On many lenses of the film era flare control and veiling are not up to modern standards, but this silver one (which is one of the last Minolta designs) seems better than most, and gives quite acceptable results if reasonable care is taken over lighting - certainly a huge amount better than the Tamron 28-200 Aspheric and better than the Sigma. The Minolta IQ is sharp. By which I mean that 100% crops still look okay on a 1024px monitor, and back-to-back tests against the kit 18-55mm lens at 2x clear-image zoom show the Min to be slightly better in resolution with no obvious CA or contrast loss, and corners are only slightly less sharp than centre at f8. It is sharper than the Sigma everywhere and at 200mm the Sigma is no better than the Minolta 28-100mm with 2x digital zoom. The 28-100D is also a little faster in aperture at all focal lengths; but if you fancy a change it is worth the money s/h, and of course it is usable on FF - if you still like to use film occasionally it is a good choice for that unless you're taking professional slides and have some good prime lenses, in which case you won't be interested! The standard lens hood offers more physical protection than optical benefit, just as with the 18-55, but interestingly, the lens hood for this lens has the same fit as the ALC SH-108 hood from the Sony 18-55 DT and the Minolta 75-300mm so you can use one of those if you're taking views into a bright sky. On a crop-sensor camera the much larger 75-300mm hood keeps sun and sky light away well and doesn't vignette (though it does, naturally, on FF). Edit: Upped the sharpness rating, after tests. The more I use this lens the more I get to like it. It is actually quite sharp at 100mm and rather better all-round than some of the older Minolta lenses I've tried. The 28-100 range is also quite useful; I find the focal range ideal for trains, where perspective distortion is unacceptable wider than 28mm, and where I want to get several shots of an approaching train without swapping lenses It's my lens of choice on the Dynax 4, 5, and 60 for its range, low weight, and good balance; The Sony 55-200mm is a lot sharper over the overlapped range, especially at the long end where so many super-zooms/hyper-zooms seem to suffer; therefore I still prefer to use the Sony 18-55 and 55-200mm lenses when I have time to swap, but when I don't, the 28-100D is my first choice. I bought a second copy - this time in black with the Dynax 60 and it is a lovely lens though on film the slow aperture is an issue on dull days. However, the corners can be pretty bad at full aperture, soft and distorted, and at the wide end they don't really get right until f11. This may be serious or irrelevant according to the picture you're taking. As a comparison, the Minolta 24-105mm has corners which are heaps better even at full aperture. |
| ithinkso#11188 date: Jun-9-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 minolta 28-80 3.5-56 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | light and compact excellent with film |
| negative: | nothing at all |
| comment: | This lens came as a kit with the minolta dynax 5 I bought for my partner, which she uses mostly for monochrome (It was new at the time - I can't recall how much it cost but's it's still going strong - touch wood!!). She has some excellent enlargements from this lens. I've also used it with colour film on my Dynax 7 and I'm pretty impressed. Of course I was curious to see how it performed on the A77. I spent a day using it in good sunlight, handheld and with the camera set to JPEG and with the camera's distortion and vignetting correction on. I guess this is the way to get the best from a kit lens. Others with more technical knowledge than mine can check it out with tripods and RAW if they feel like it! Clearly this lens was designed in the film era with film i mind. It won't satisfy any pixel peepers. It's much harder to handhold and get good sharp images on digital, but when it works it is pretty good. I like the colour rendition. I suspect you'd have to spend a whole lot more money to get better results than you can achieve with this lens, given the price you're likely to pay for it today. Edit/update: I didn't get my Sony A850 with this lens in mind. However, since it's available to use I checked it out. Vignetting is very prominent at 28mm/f3.5, still noticeable at f5.6 but gone by f8. It's pretty sharp at 100mm/f5.6. Minolta colours look good. The combination is considerably lighter than the A77/VC/16-50mm f2.8 and might get another run out for less demanding applications, like say, a family party. |
| Cloneranger#8163 date: Oct-31-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 28-135mm min Big beercan Sig 24-135mm Min 50mm 2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap light weight fast AF OK bokeh |
| negative: | Flat at times |
| comment: | I found this lens much better that the Sony 18-70mm kit lens, with good results indoors with or without a flash. The color is good but gets washed out in bright light. I've had better results in the shade or indoors. I've had worse lenses that have been rated a lot higher in this forum. One really good thing is that if it gets broken it's no big deal! I got this lens at a flea market with a couple other lenses for next to nothing. I'm keeping it and using it. Would I recommend it? Yes, I would! 2/5/11: I recently tried to use this lens while shooting outside in the snow on a cloudy day. About 1/8th of the pictures were washed out and unusable, 1/4 were barely acceptable, and 1/2 were acceptable, and the other 1/8 were good. Not very good odds! But, in defense, I did say earlier that the lens was horrible in bright light and there is not much brighter conditions than new snow. 2/20/11 I fixed all but 3 photos in PS and they came out very well, clear, sharp, and good color. |
| Lukas07#7058 date: Mar-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85 DT Sony 18-55 |
| price paid: | 300 RMB |
| positive: | cheap,light,so...even when it gets trouble,you heart may not get trouble... easy to control,slight distortion |
| negative: | Not a good len in my mind...I only own this len for 1 month,and I sold it |
| comment: | Not a good choice...I don't recommend... ONLY advance...cheap,meybe good for a new guy~ |
| koprivakopriva#6452 date: Nov-24-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-200, Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | -Decent range |
| negative: | -Not a good lens -Poor build, sharpness, contrast, and not particularly fast either |
| comment: | I bought my a200 off craigslist and the guy I bought it from threw this in with it. I sold it for whatever I could get for it (it wasn't much) Sharpness was noticeably lacking, and colors were underwhelming at best. |
| MichelvA#4501 date: Dec-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Konica Minolta A200 / 28-200 Konica Minolta 18-70 f/3.5-5.6 Minolta 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 RS Minolta 17-35 f/3.5 G Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G |
| price paid: | € 30 (used) |
| positive: | Usable range Cheap Lightweight Full frame Fast enough focus |
| negative: | Stop down from f/5.6 Medium to low build quality Slight flattening of image 28mm too long on APS-C |
| comment: | Bought this lens before i had an SLR (March 2008) in case i'd found a body without lens - so for testing. The lens is similar to the 18-70 kitlens, little longer range. It is very slightly softer than the kitlens up to f/5.6. The sharpness rating i gave (according to Guidelines) is from f/5.6. Bigger apertures gives a softer image. For starters not a bad lens but there is no magic. In some situations not bad at all, sometimes you have to look twice in comparisons with the mentioned lenses - especially if you shoot outdoors with enough light. Once i had the body i bought the 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 which gives better sharpness, colors and build. Compared to better lenses, flattens the image, very slightly dull colors, but you have to see photo's next to eachother to notice. Still way better than photo's made with a bridge camera like the Konica Minolta A200. Mind you this is a full frame lens, but i don't think many 850/900 owners will need it! For APS-C there are many better alternatives like Sony 16-80, 16-105, 18-55 SAM. |
| borjomi#4366 date: Nov-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85 new Sony 18-70 kit |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Good colors Cheap Light weight |
| negative: | Plastic Bad bokeh Soft at wide open |
| comment: | Very good picture quality for "free" kit lens for film at f/8. |
| tomiZG#4222 date: Oct-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210 f4 Minolta 35-80 Cosina 19-35 Sigma 24 2,8 Sigma 28-80 Sigma 70-210 Sigma 400 5,6 |
| price paid: | 49 € |
| positive: | range price weight colors and bokeh - still minolta! ADI for flash |
| negative: | bit soft wide open bit soft at long end plastic all in all |
| comment: | Got it for 49 Euro, read the reviews afterwards, then got sad to have paid too much and that I got only a cheap old kit lens. On the contrary - I must admit, I am absolutely happy with it. Got a copy in mint condition, as new. The sharpness is OK, the colors and bokeh are absolutely Minolta! As someone else said, this lens does not deserve the bashing. It is completely fine for a walkaround - travel lens, light, good range, decent pictures produced. |
| uranio15#3481 date: Apr-19-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta - AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 RS Minolta - AF 35-80 F4-5.6 II Sony - AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | Kit of Camera |
| positive: | Cheap Light weight "D" |
| negative: | Cheap feel Plastic mount |
| comment: | This lens came with my Dynax 60 Date. I think it is great lens for the price. Now you can pay for it around from 25 to 35 EUR on Ebay. |
| whitecat#3433 date: Apr-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 90 USD (new) |
| positive: | Inexpensive. Quite sharp when stopped down. |
| negative: | Soft at f/5.6, especially at 100mm, but that is to be expected. |
| comment: | It would be silly to compare this lens with the CZ or equivalent. It is an inexpensive lens, ideal for someone on a budget, or for someone trying his/her hand at photography, and doesn't want to blow $500 on a lens. I have made 12x18's using this lens at the wide end stopped down to at least f8, so I am not going to bash it. It is very usable at the tele end too when stopped down a little. |
| Happy Hour#3368 date: Mar-17-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $30.00 |
| positive: | Light good carry around lens Sharp enough for a everyday lens |
| negative: | Not much for a kit lens or how cheap you can buy them Color |
| comment: | I can't believe how much this lens has been bashed here! I think it's a great lens for the price.I bought this lens to resell and ended up loving it. If I'm at home, this lens is on my camera!It couldn't be a better walk around lens. It's light weight,it takes sharp clean and clear pictures. Yes I would not take this lens to anything important(like a wedding) But I have some great shots from around the house with it and at the zoo also. I walked around with this lens on all day and didn't feel it on my neck. most of my lenses are very heavy and you know there there after a few minutes around your neck. Again if you don't have enough $ to buy a great lens this is a good starter lens and if it werent for it being silver (it looks a little goofy on a black body) I would never sell this lens. Not a bad lens to take to a kids outing (if it was smashed it wouldn't make a difference) It's cheap! |
| Morven#1824 date: Feb-12-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 2 overall: 2.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm f/1.7 Lenses on other systems I've tried. |
| price paid: | Came with camera. |
| positive: | Came effectively free with the camera. Better than a body cap. Has, at least, some tele reach for a kit lens. Light. |
| negative: | Poor match to an APS-C sensor. Severe barrel distortion at wide end. Prone to flare. (Lack of) build quality. |
| comment: | It's not the worst lens in the world, but it's not good either. At least with the 7D's crop factor, we're just getting the center quality, not edges - but even then, barrel distortion at the 28mm end is more than it should be, flare is a problem, the supplied hood is more use as an extension of the focus ring than for any light-shielding properties, and the inner barrel wobbles. On the plus side, it weighs nothing, came effectively for free, and gives some nice telephoto reach for a kit lens. |
| polossatik#1174 date: Sep-6-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta "Beercan" 70-210 f4 minolta 35-70 f4 Tamron 28-200 f3.8-5.6 XR Di |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | cheap cheap cheap or free |
| negative: | crappy lens in every way. Might be good to put on a old (analog) body and give it to your kids to play around with |
| comment: | problem is that anyone who knows at least one bit about minolta will ask you money to accept this lens.... |
| Tsukiyomi#787 date: May-15-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-210/4 Minolta 18-70/3.5-5.6(D) Minolta 35-70/4 Minolta 50/1.7 Sigma 90/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Inexpensive, light |
| negative: | Cheaply built, missing details, distortions |
| comment: | Sharpness okay compared to other inexpensive lenses (at least stopped down), but details are always missing. Barrel distortion. Since a kit costs as much as a camera body alone, it´s extremely good value for money - you get it for free. But you´ll soon find yourself looking for better lenses. |
| vedran#597 date: Mar-20-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | cheap,light weight |
| negative: | not enough wide, plastic feel |
| comment: | Got it as a kit lens,ok for the start but quickly i wanted to sell the lens. it's not enugh wide, great for punk concerts as Arny wrote. manual focus ring too small but in combination with hood it's great because you can manual focus by turning the hood . |
| PhotoTraveler#167 date: Oct-24-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 100-300 APO D, |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap, makes for a good first lens if all your looking for is something cheap to show up at your door with the camera. |
| negative: | Its a cheap lens, plastic mount, only goes 28 on the wide which kills you on a crop camera |
| comment: | Well, I got this with my camera since I had no AF lenses. So it was cheap and would get me going. Also there is a real problem for lenses in this range. Also anything else gets more expensive which isn't very appealing for ones first lens especially if your spending 1100 bucks on the camera at the same time. Its range is a problem. The 100 end is fine, but 28 is just not wide enough on a 1.5 crop camera. So you will be wanting a wider lens. Its also a very cheaply built lens as one would expect for the price. It has a plastic mount, and weights nothing. But in the end its not bad if your just looking for a starter lens, or need a beater lens. |
| arny#31 date: Dec-23-2004 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | my nephews Lego toys, the Lego won in the fun department. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | got it free when I bought a dynax 60 for my wife |
| negative: | cheap plastic feel. Manualfocus ring is really to small. I only use this lens to shoot punkconcerts, it doesn't matter if the lens is broken by stagedivers. |
| comment: | crap! |
reviews found: 21
rating summary
- total reviews: 21
- sharpness: 3.60
- color: 4.14
- build: 2.86
- distortion: 3.81
- flare control: 3.48
- overall: 3.58
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login