Minolta AF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 RS A-mount lens reviews
 claude#44451 date: Jan-3-2020 | |
|---|---|
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 AF 28-135 4/4.5 |
| price paid: | 70 euros |
| positive: | Piqué et contraste Couleurs chaudes et douces Légèreté pour un 28-105 Distance minimale de mise au point mise au point véloce (meilleure sur la version RS) Bague de mise au point fluide et précise 28-105 : Une plage d'utilisation très polyvalente |
| negative: | Rien en particulier Pas particulièrement lumineux, et construction plastique (génération 90' et non 80'), si on devait faire un reproche |
| comment: | Ce qui pour moi caractérise et résume cet objectif, c'est son homogénéité ! Sans exceller nulle part, il est franchement bon partout. Du coup, pas besoin de transpirer pour parfaire l'image en post production si on souhaite accentuer l'équilibre des tons, le contraste, le piqué. Tout cela est déjà présent quand on déclenche. C'est le compagnon idéal. J'en possède deux versions : RS et non RS. mon exemplaire RS affiche un piqué supérieur aux extrémités : 28mm et 105mm. Peut-être moins parce que c'est une version RS, que le fait que je suis tombé sur un bon exemplaire. Sur l'autre exemplaire, la bague de zoom a pris du jeu, ce qui rend son maniement désagréable et nuit au coulissement du fût. C'est pourquoi j'ai acheté un deuxième exemplaire qui lui, ne présente pas (encore) ce défaut. Pour moi cet objectif est une valeur sûre, un très bon standard. |
; 20MP| sarapata1#41966 date: Nov-27-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50mm (on APS-C) |
| price paid: | 80 EUR used |
| positive: | great value useful range plentiful sharp at f5.6 at all focal lengths usable from wide open compactness |
| negative: | distortion |
| comment: | used on A7 + LA-EA4 it does show quite a lot of distortion, which is clearly visible in architecture pictures (at both wide end (barrel) as well as from 50mm to 105mm (pincushion)) sharp for a zoom lens (= prime lenses I own, are obviously sharper) |
| Collingsandheal#38867 date: May-23-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 24-70mm f2.8. Minolta and Sony ( I have owned both ) 24-105mm. Konica / Minolta 28-70mm f2.8. and all the other Sony / Minolta kit lenses that I have owned. That's just about all of them. |
| price paid: | £81.00 used |
| positive: | Small, light and sharp. Great colours and good contrast. |
| negative: | The hood is rather lightweight. |
| comment: | I needed to pick up a small zoom lens to go on the a99Mk2 for traveling with. I found this mint example in the Netherlands. For what it is, this lens is simply brilliant on the a99Mk2. I genuinely thought the resolution would let the camera down but it doesn't. Funny, I have owned all the others over the years but somehow managed to sidestep the 28-105. Thoroughly recommended general purpose lens. Sharp, contrasty, works wide open, though not very wide, and operates smoothly, which other variants don't. |
| QuietOC#16276 date: Jun-19-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24-50 F4 Canon EF 24-85 USM 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 USM II Minolta AF 28-105 & Xi Minolta AF 28-135 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 II Minolta AF 35-105 & New Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 54 USD (used) |
| positive: | Smooth zoom and focus controls Fast internal focus Mid-range performance Flat focus plane |
| negative: | Barrel distortion at the wide end Lateral CA Somewhat noisy focus control |
| comment: | This lens was $320 when released in 1994--$100 cheaper than the 24-85 which was released a year earlier and slightly more than the 28-85 RS. This definitely looks and feels like a premium lens, though the rounded 90's styling is dated. This lens is larger than the 24-50, 24-85 and 24-105 zooms but smaller than the 28-85, 28-135, and original 35-105 zooms. "JAPAN" I purchased a fourth excellent copy with original hood from a large eBay seller. The third clean copy came without caps or hood and claimed to be untested, which probably meant tested and found poor. My second copy was purchased 2 years after the first copy. This fourth copy is much sharper than the previous copies. The 28-105 RS has the same optics as the non-RS and Xi versions. The non-RS also has curved aperture blades, but those on RS version do seem to form a slightly smoother aperture shape. It has more contrast than the 28-135. Overall it performs similarly to the 24-85, 24-105, and 100-300 APO zooms. The 24-85 lens focuses closer than the 28-105 lens despite both being listed with a 500 mm MFD. The original AF series 28-135 and 35-105 zooms might be more reliable for sharpness. It has less distortion at 35 mm than the DT 35 SAM but more distortion than the 24-85. It doesn't seem to have mechanical issues like the later clutched focus lenses. Flat back plastic hood looks and feels cheaper than shinier black plastic hood on the non-RS version. The hood is deeper than the similar 24-85 hood, but both use the same 3-lobed bayonet mount and are mechanically interchangeable. |
| Sknippen100#12099 date: Jan-22-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-50mm f2.8 35-105 mm beercan 18-55 mm kit lens |
| price paid: | 70 euro |
| positive: | Nice Handling, Cheap, Fast autofocus, colors, good build. |
| negative: | 28mm a bit too limited on apsc, not as sharp as 16-50 f2.8 |
| comment: | Very good and cheap lens. Screw drive autofocus works very fast, a lot faster then the 35-105 beercan version. Nice color rendition and good IQ. Sharpness is good but loses a bit sharpness at 105mm. Reasonably good wide open. |
| Murman#12090 date: Jan-12-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135mm Minolta 35-105mm (original) Tamron 28-105mm (179D) |
| price paid: | $46.00 US |
| positive: | Acceptable sharpness wide open. Tack sharp stopped down 1 or 2 stops. Built well. Beats all of the comparison lenses for MFD. |
| negative: | None that I can think of. |
| comment: | The first time that I used this lens I was taking some snaps of my granddaughter baking cookies. Just for fun I shot an orchid sitting on the window sill. When I looked at the images I was amazed at the sharpness and resolution. One of those WOW moments. The colors are well saturated. More natural than the older Minolta glass. Contrast is excellent. This has replaced the 28-135 as my walk around lens. Much lighter. |
| JeanChristophe#12029 date: Nov-10-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 28-135mm |
| price paid: | 60€ |
| positive: | - Modern construction. - Good general all purpose lens. - Portrait, and colours. |
| negative: | Not too much, a little bit heavy. |
| comment: | I believed this lens was only for general purpose photography : landscape, some portraits, ... In fact, I made a mistake : the lens is excellent for portrait !! Try It ! A "must have". |
| Dedalus#11987 date: Sep-19-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 55 1.8 is another league. The 24-105 d is smaller and more compact; and maybe a little bit sharper from 28 to 85 when stopped down. But the 28-105 is sharper at full opening and at 105 (all openings). |
| price paid: | 99 euro |
| positive: | Sharp (but very far from razor sharp) on the all range when stopped down. Useful range on ff, good color |
| negative: | Not sharp under f 5.6 from 28 to 105mm. A little bit heavy. |
| comment: | i think this is lens is strongly overrated in this forum. Maybe the 36 mpix ff of my Sony A7R is too domanding for it. I use it with the le-a4 |
| neilt3#11178 date: Jun-3-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | min 24-85 (both versions) min 24-105 the other min 28-XXX zooms KM 28-75 f/2.8 16-80 zeiss and most other Minolta zooms within it's range , original series and later. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | very well built no zoom creep close focus range colour and bokeh |
| negative: | hard to find Very minor barrel distortion at wide end on full frame. |
| comment: | I bought this lens a good few years ago to use with my film cameras and was always happy with it. When I got the a100 I found it not quite wide enough and changed over to the 16-80 zeiss via the 24-XXX zooms. Since getting an a900 last year , after working my way though my lens collection , this is back to being my walk about zoom lens again. It feels very well balanced on the camera , a good build quality and feel.no zoom creep etc. Range wise , 28mm on film/full frame is wide enough for general use without adding any noticeable distortion ,likewise 105mm is a good reach for most use . Close focusing is good at this range too with nice bokeh at the long end. Colour and contrast is nice and rich , typical of the early Minolta lenses , rendering the images very much to my liking. Sharpness is good throughout the range and is useable wide open. I find it of more use in low light than my KM 28-75 f/2.8 and early Sigma 28-70 f/2.8. Both these lenses need stopping down a bit to the point where I can just use the 28-105 wide open and get better image quality . Overall , if you can get the RS version , I would recommend you get one . Best used on full frame or film , but has it's uses on apsc . There are two other lenses of this range , the original one with the smooth focus ring , and the xi one . Compared to them it is a bit better than the previous one with better brokeh , and much better all round than the xi one. Edit ; very slight barrel distortion at wide end I have only just noticed ( on full frame ). Nothing really to note , but it might be an issue for some users . Up till now , nothing I have used it for has shown this up . I would give it a 4.5 if able to . |
| kranang#10575 date: Oct-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tam 24-135,Tam 28-75,Min 24-85 Min 28-135 |
| price paid: | 99 US |
| positive: | Sharpness, colours. Price! Solid build. No zoom creep. |
| negative: | Maybe not wide enough.Rare?Some flare wide open. |
| comment: | My best walk-around as to colours.Use it on my 850. Sharpness on par with 28-135.Better than the 3 others wide open. |
| Prabu#10212 date: May-16-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70 G 70-210 beercan 16-80 zeiss |
| price paid: | 190 (used) |
| positive: | zoom range colors |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | this is a beautiful lens. very nice color reproduction. decent size and weight. Compared to the 70-210 beercan and the 28-70 f2.8 G lens, this lens is not as sharp...but it is almost as sharp. this is my walk around lens and this is a much better value than the 16-80 zeiss lens. you miss out on the wide angle, but you get this lens for 1/4 or 1/3 the price of the zeiss glass, and optically they are similar, though the zeiss has a slightly better saturation and contrast |
| matts#10163 date: May-1-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MIN 35-105 original MIN 35-70 F4 Min 35-105 N Many KM & Sony kit lenses |
| price paid: | 50 AU ebay |
| positive: | Colour, sharpness, flare control, build quality, |
| negative: | Not wide enough on APS. |
| comment: | Truely love this lens, I have only had it for a month and it has replaced 35-105 as my favourite lens. The colors arnt as good or the macro but every thing else is better than the small beer cans + out way -. The zoom action is silky smooth, the best lense I have had so far (never owned a G or Ziess). AF is quick and acurate. I was very lucky to get this lens as I have not seen any on the bay for 6 months, all the previous reviews are correct. |
| Bahudda#10112 date: Apr-12-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-50mm f4.0 35-70mm f4.0 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 Original 28-70mm f3.8 Tokina 24-70mm f2.8 SSM ZA |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Range Color (is pastle like) Bokeh (at the long end) |
| negative: | Very neutral drawing style |
| comment: | I bought this lens and the 24-50mm f4.0. Remarkably, the color from both lenses are all but identical. Between them the 24-50 has the most charm. There are lenses that are on the fringe of the 35mm f1.4 G in terms of character/drawing style and both of these lenses are that. But! The 24-50 has more character more umph! The 28-105 gives plain vanilla images. I know I cannot explain it but I was expecting something akin to the 28-135 in drawing style and this lens does not deliver. I may have gotten a bad sample? Update (on A850): After much consideration and further review I have changed my opinion of this lens. I am glad I bought this lens. See lens samples for the reason why. 2nd Update (on A99): Both this and the 24-50mm have charmed their way into my heart. The 28-105 has turned out to be among my most satisfying lenses. It just works! In some ways I like better than the 24-70 ZA. I recommend this lens to any fortunate enough to find one (at a good price of course)! |
| seeky#10106 date: Apr-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 Sony DT 16-50 f/2.8 SSM Sony DT 35 f/1.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | +sharpness +bokeh +colors +fast AF +build +f/4.5 at long end +hardly any zoom creep |
| negative: | -veiling flare -ghosting flare -MFD |
| comment: | I bought this lens to get more tele, and to use it on my Dynax 7. I like the bokeh it gives, especcially when using it on the tele end. Colors are also beautiful. The lens has screw-driven AF, and is really fast focusing across the range. Build is better compared to all low-end Sony lenses. MFD can be annoying sometimes, but is normal for this type of lens. The major annoyance is with the abundance of flare with bright light sources in and just out of the frame. Compared to my other lenses (center sharpness): -@28mm: Little bit soft wide open, good stopped down, never sharper then 16-50 @ f/2.8, comparable to 18-55. -@35mm: Good sharpness wide open, never sharper then 16-50 @ f/2.8; as good as 18-55 up to f/4.5. -@50mm: Very sharp wide open, better than 18-55 stopped down two stops. -@105mm: Little bit soft wide open, but sharp one stop down. Two stops down and corners are good. As you can see, it is a little bit mixed across the range. And don't try to compare this lens to the 35mm f/1.8: @1.8 center sharpness is better than the 28-105 @ f/11!! (But the latter isn't a prime...) Overall, it is a good lens, considering the range. What I noticed however, is that modern zoom lenses are just very good, especially the 16-50 f2.8. But for the reasonable price tag it delivers good overall performance, and Sony doesn't have a lens like this with a good range and relatively wide apertures. |
| pureaxis#10001 date: Mar-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Carl Zeiss - 16-80 Minolta - AF 35 F2 RS Minolta - AF 28 F2 RS |
| price paid: | 140 USD (Mint) |
| positive: | -Sharp! -Usable on APSC -Very nice colors -62mm filter (same as CZ1680) -Nice heavy build -Fast AF |
| negative: | -slight zoom creep -sort of rare |
| comment: | Just wide enough for APSC since 28mm (42mm cropped) is my ideal street photography length. Did a unscientific test between this lens and the CZ16-80 and found the Zeiss being slightly sharper (esp. when stopped down), but the minolta outperforming it at several focal lengths. Zeiss is probably more consistent overall. However I did not like the color rendering of the Zeiss that much. A steal for the price although the RS can be hard to find. |
| lifeispixels#9884 date: Feb-4-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105mm lens |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Very sharp from maximum apertures, great Minolta colors! |
| negative: | a bit heavier and chunkier compared to Minolta 24-105 lens, despite shorter range. The RS version is quite hard to find. |
| comment: | First impression. I was very surprised this lens weighs more in my hand compared to Minolta 24-105mm lens despite its shorter range. And it's bigger in comparison to 24-105 too. That could mean bigger pieces of glasses and solid gears used inside this lens compared to 24-105mm. Picture quality also agrees with that. I compared images taken with 28-105RS and 24-105mm and the 28-105RS outshines, especially in colors. Pictures taken with 28-105RS tend to be more alive and have more dimensions with beautiful colors. The 24-105 lens isn't bad, actually very good in its class, but 28-105RS renders more pleasing images and is more true to Minolta heritage rendition. Sharpness is surprisingly great from corner to corner especially with APSC sensor on my Sony A55. If I do not need that extra 4mm wide range of 24-105, I'd take 28-105 RS with me. The only problem is the 28-105 RS is heavier and chunkier that doesn't balance well with a light A55 body. See my photos with Minolta 28-105 f3.5-4.5 RS and Minolta 24-105 f3.5-4.5 on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| gqc#9697 date: Dec-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 24-105 3.5-4.5. tamron 24-135. sony 18-70. |
| price paid: | 200.00 USD (new) |
| positive: | Very good wide open. Light weight. |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | This is my walk about lens. I had sony 24-104, tamron 24-135, and tamron 17-50 f2.8, and decided to keep minolta 28-105. Tamron 17-50 is a great lens but reach did not do it for me. Tamron 24-135 great reach but slower. Sony 24-105 even though I got it in a great price ($250.00) and is my favorite focal length, did not convince me. |
| paso144#9395 date: Sep-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135 35-105bc |
| price paid: | 50 F/1.7 + 10 euro |
| positive: | Colours Size & weight Build Bokeh MFD |
| negative: | Sharpness wide open |
| comment: | I'm constantly looking for an improvement in my line up and since the 28-135, which is my daily walk around lens has some draw-backs like the MFD and weight I decided to try the next best thing in the price range (seeing the reviews). Found this one at a second hand store and traded it against a 50mm and some cash so I could try it in my hollidays. This lens is quite sharp although not on the same level wide open as the 28-135. Stopping down to F/8 brings the two on the same excellent sharpnes levels. The round blades give it a noticably better bokeh then the 28-135. Colours are great and typical Minolta. Far better then it's succesor the 24-105 which I found to produce flat and hard images. Build is very good (I would have given it a 4.5 but it got the benefit of the doubt since this is not available). Zoom and focus rings move very accurate and are nicely damped. Weight and size were actually very good on my A700. So compared to the 28-135 it's a trade off between sharpness wide open and size/weight and MFD. In the end I sold it since I tended to grab my 28-135 more often when it came down to those critical shots. I will look further for a suitable 'in door'zoom and might give the 28-70G a try when I find it for an acceptable price. |
| gfman25#9344 date: Aug-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70/f4 Moinolta 50/1.7 Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | 40 USD (I am lucky!) |
| positive: | Fast AF Nice color Good building Sharp |
| negative: | Have to have hood. |
| comment: | Good lense for everyday! |
| derekw#9109 date: Jun-8-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105 Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 |
| price paid: | 79 GBP |
| positive: | Sharpness, even at max aperture Minolta Colours Good build |
| negative: | Slight distortion at the wide end |
| comment: | Very good walkround lens, especially on full frame. Not too heavy. Good alternative to 28-135 |
| Doublejayz#8994 date: May-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-80 f4-5.6 Sony DT18-55 f3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 139 USD (Used) |
| positive: | Sharp still 4.5 at long end Build Range & Sharp |
| negative: | Not wide enough but I don't care |
| comment: | This is my new kit len to replace Sony 18-55 on my A500 I use this with Minolta 100-200 f4.5 so now I cover a range from 28 to 200 with a constant aperture at 4.5 plus it looks all sharp across the range for me :) One thing is - at wide end it causes more distortion than 28 f2.8 24-105 is a little wider but I don't like how it looks so I stick with this one *add some comment |
| PeteMag#8884 date: Apr-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135mm 28-80mm 100mm f2 Tamron 28-75 f2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | colour sharp cheap non rotating front element bokeh good for zoom |
| negative: | mine has some zoom creep kit lens build feel |
| comment: | This is a good lens, I purchased it to replace my 28-135mm that I am selling to fund another project. First impressions are that this will be close to the performance of the 28-135. It has the good minolta colour that produce vibrant photographs, has a circular aperture which can come in handy for portraits etc. Not sure about the build quality, but I actually have no problems with plastic lenses. There's noticablly more flare compared to the 28-75 Tamron I own, but the 28-135mm is no better. Sharp wide open (without being razor sharp). |
| reddy#8441 date: Dec-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
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 24-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 35-70 F3.5-4.5 Sigma - 18-200 F3.5-6.3 DC Sony - AF DT 16-105mm F3.5-5.6 Sony - AF DT 18-200 F3.5-6.3 |
| price paid: | 175 USD ( USED ) |
| positive: | Sharp. At tele end is still 4.5 that is very respectable. Range 28-105 very useful for traveling. Does not rotate that gives attaching CPL filters a breeze Focusing much much quiter than sonys sam models. Zoom does not creep. Nice minolta colors. |
| negative: | Flare only with certain filters. Focus not as fast as Sigma HSM nor Sony SSM. 28mm might not be wide enough on C sensors |
| comment: | Is a very comfortable walk about or traveling lens. Not too heavy and F3.5-4.5 pretty fast lens. Pretty sharp at all focal length. But 28mm is not too wide when couple with APS C sensors but just take a few steps back and we will still get the picture. On my full frame A900 28 is not a problem. Lens did flare when I attached a cheap filter. Tried with a hoya super thin and is much much better. Hey even the much expensive CZ 24-70 flares. This RS version do produce much better boken due to the round blades as compared to the non RS version. Focusing is pretty fast and silent much much better than the sony sam models. Love the color it produces. Is the clasic minolta color. |
| petesidewalk#8295 date: Nov-24-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-135 F4-4.5 KM 35-105 F3.5-4.5 KM 35-105I F3.5-4.5 KM 28-75 F2.8 Sig 24-70 HSM F2.8 KM 35-70 F4 |
| price paid: | 110 USD |
| positive: | Sharp Compact Great colors Bokeh Solid build Circular aperture Size Fast AF Close focus |
| negative: | Hard to find cheaply Not as wide on crop frame |
| comment: | I bought this lens as my 24-70 2.8 is huge. I bought this after looking for a reasonably priced copy for some while. They get over 225 on auction sites regularly now. This one doesn't dissapoint. It has sharp capabilities, Minolta colors, nice bokeh and light weight. I find it on my A900 and Maxxum 9 regularly. Great lens. |
| MarsX#7976 date: Sep-16-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | AF 24-85/3,5-4,5 RS AF 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | 150$ |
| positive: | very sharp great colors bokeh filter doesn't rotate cheap |
| negative: | wobbles not D not very wide lens hood heavy |
| comment: | I use this ob on my travels. Great zoom for outdoors. Fast even in low light. Better than my 24-85/3,5-4,5 RS copy. A must buy! |
| ckone#7361 date: Apr-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70 f/2.8 G 28-70 f/2.8 EX DG Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 EX DG HSM Sigma 24-105 f/4-4.5 28-135 f/4-4.5 |
| price paid: | 119€ |
| positive: | build quality, useful zoom range, balancing with Alpha 9 lighter than 28-135 better build than 24-105 |
| negative: | distorsion noticable @ 28-35mm, 24-105 distorsion better @ 24-35 range lower in light |
| comment: | This one is now my outdoor zoom whilst having the G as my lowlight / indoor lens; was not happy with plastic build quality of the 24-105, skipping the wonderful build 28-135, where my hand ergonomy doesn't fit with the focusing ring I'm now very happy with my compromise; have to be careful with distorsion on ghe wide end, but if you know the critical range, you can live with it; my advise: take the RS, if you like Bokeh |
| plokko#7342 date: Apr-24-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70(kit) 35-70/3.5-4.5 100-200/4.5 sigma 60/2.8 macro sigma 70-300 apo macro |
| price paid: | 50€(like new) |
| positive: | internal focusing good zoom range well build sharp also full open cheap! fast af |
| negative: | not a D lens like 24-105(not so critical)but ADI works like a D |
| comment: | A GREAT lens,a must buy for a sterter to medium kit or if you want a lens for all the situations. It has great sharpness and colors even at TA and with it's 3.5-4.6 it's a great lens in dark situations for a cheap lens. GREAT construction:internal focusing (no filter rotation)and great grips,it has also a closeup(0.5m)that's useful in a lot of situation for example portraits. Great boken for a zoom and fast af. Can be found used at great prices on the net. |
| MacMichael#6981 date: Mar-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta af 50 f1,7 RS Minolta af 135 f2,8 Minolta af 35-105 N Minolta af 70-210 (beercan) Sony SAL 1870 Sony SAL 75300 |
| price paid: | 120 € |
| positive: | + size + range + colours + sharpness + design + fast af |
| negative: | none so far |
| comment: | Lovely lens. Sharp as hell. Wounderful colours. Looks perfekt on my a200. |
| ckone#6976 date: Feb-28-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24-50 4.0 Sig 24-70 EX DG HSM Min 24-105 3.5-4.5 Min 28-70 2.8G Min 35-105 Sig 28-70 EX DG 2.8 |
| price paid: | 120 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Build quality Colours |
| negative: | Not important ones |
| comment: | In General: I really like the lens a lot, for the primary purpose as a travl lens when shooting outdoors. As you can see in the comparative lenses, I am a low light photographer and most likely I use primes; when going abroad I really want a zoom and a low light prime and then I am happy. First lens in my journey was a 24-50 which is fun, great and sometimes I miss it, as 24-50 was a nice coverage, BUT: I missed the longer zoom part; then I jumped onto three versions of the 24-105, where I finally didn't like the distorsion in the corners with all of them, the first disappointed me with build quiality, the second with flare issues and creep noise. Then I decided to try out the legendary 28-135 in two versions, where I always found the weight toooooooo heavy; also I was not a real fan of the focus ring position, as I usually have a finger at that position. Then I started looking over the Minolta fence, first tried a Sigma 28-70 EX DG, not once, four times and all rolls of film inicated focus point issues; I didn't like the Tamron feel in my hand but there was the new Sigma HSM 24-70; I tried that and AGAIN - focus seems to be an issue; asking the dealer, what the heck is wrong with Sigma, he said, knowing that curiosity he usually orders 4 Sigmas to have one pleasing for the customer; I went back, not willing to pay 1600 EUR for a Zeiss and got a 28-70 G from a fellow dyxum member from Norway and I am really really happy; having great sharpness with great colours I have a lens I use very often, but I don't want to take it to a vacation, where I go to Mauritius - Sand you know; therefore I looked around and found a RS version of the 28-105 which pleases me really well, not brilliant in contrast but still very good, very good sharpness results in the corners; the tulip hood prevents sufficiently the flare so this becomes my travel lens; on the wide end I have the 16 and the 20 primes, and then I'm all set. Lovely feeling in the hand, much more solid than the 24-105; I would always recommend the 28-105 if you have a 20 prime for the low end and need it. This is a keeper - definitively. |
| 9000AF#5997 date: Sep-7-2009 | |
|---|---|
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 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 250 USD (new 1997) |
| positive: | + solid build quality + sharp stopped down, slightly soft at the long end + distortion well controlled + fast AF + compact |
| negative: | - not very wide for APS-C |
| comment: | I bought this lens in 1997 with my 600si and have used it on the A200 after selling the kit lens. I thought I would sell it after getting the 28-75mm, but kept it for the extra range and slightly smaller size in addition to the 28-75. I take this if I only want to carry 1 lens. I still use it on the A700. Compared to this the 24-105 feels cheap and does not produce better results. I sold the 24-105. I love the colors and the solid feel of this lens. Update: After selling this lens I picked up another one recently. It feels very good on the A55 and delivers the same IQ as my first example. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 45
- sharpness: 4.54
- color: 4.76
- build: 4.80
- distortion: 4.40
- flare control: 4.27
- overall: 4.55
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login