Minolta AF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 A-mount lens reviews
Harry#45571 date: Aug-23-2020 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta AF 35-105 mm Sony Zeiss 16-80mm |
price paid: | 50 € |
positive: | I tested this old lens on my Sony 7II while on vacation and was very positively surprised. Especially about the sharpness. |
negative: | The mechanics are a bit too stiff. |
comment: | For the low price, this lens is an extremely good alternative. And as long as the optics are okay and the mechanics work, I will probably continue to use this lens. In terms of optical quality, I couldn't find any notable difference to the Zeiss reference lens. So: For little money you get a lot of performance and quality with this lens. |
Nortam#44472 date: Mar-5-2020 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 28mm f2.8 Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 100mm f2.8 Macro Minolta 70-210mm f4.5-5.6 II Minolta 75-300mm f4.5-5.6 D |
price paid: | €100 |
positive: | Nice walk-around lens with full-frame Sharp at 28mm to about 50mm, from f3.5. Corner sharpness fine. Good IQ in most situations. |
negative: | Soft in long end. Some barrel distortion. |
comment: | This is a good lens - with some limits. It is quite soft in long end, but not as soft as the 75-300mm. It has good colors, but not in the same liga as the 28mm, the 50mm and the 100mm. Sharp in wide end. |
Phil Wood#44261 date: Apr-22-2019 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 24-85, 24-105, 28-85, 28-100, 28-105xi, 28-135, 35-70 f4, 35-105 (Mks 1 & 2) & many more FF kit lenses. |
price paid: | 40 GBP |
positive: | Sharpness, range (FF) |
negative: | Weight, not quite wide as I would really like. |
comment: | This is my pick of the huge selection of lower cost Minolta walk around (wide to short tele) lenses for FF, sharper than most, reasonable MFD (1:4.6 macro), good focal length range. The 24-85/105 lenses give the width I would prefer, but they (particularly the 105) just don't give the IQ that this lens provides. The 28-105xi is also excellent, but it is xi, which I quite like for its quirkiness, but the straightforward lens is easier to use; I assume they have the same optics. The 28-100 may once have been a sensible alternative for those on a very tight budget, but the 28-105 is so cheap these days that the plastic kit lenses no longer make any real sense unless weight is the overriding criteria for selection. The old 28-135 'secret handshake' lens is great and has a wider range, but is a seriously hefty beast. The equally aged 35-105 Mk1 is highly rated and deservedly so, but the extra 7mm of width is a huge advantage, the later 35-105 Mk2 is no match. Another from the 1985 crop is the 28-85, which is my least favourite zoom from that era. The old 35-70 f4 is a great little lens - if that is the range that you want go for it, but I am happy to accept the extra weight and bulk for the much wider range of the 28-105. To me the real choice is between the very heavy 28-135 (for its range), the old 35-105 (for its marginally better IQ), the 24-85 (for its width - 24 to 28 is a big difference) and this 28-105 which is a bit of a compromise, but provides (IMO) the best mix of IQ and range. I have no experience of the significantly more expensive 24/28-70mm 'pro' lenses from Sony/Minolta - whilst I would hope these merit the extra cash (f2.8 certainly should offer an improvement) none match the range of the 28-105. If you have a FF body and don't have and can't afford a nice f2.8 kit lens then this is one that is well worth considering. If you have an APS-C body then the range is far less attractive - though it remains a very nice lens for short tele/portraiture work. UPDATE: After writing this review I realised that I hadn't used the lens on APS beyond a few shots to check that it worked - so I took it on a couple of walks coupled to my A77. I have to say that I found myself far happier with the zoom range than I had expected - perhaps because I have just spent a month shooting only with 50 & 135mm primes! Apart from lack of width the only real downside is DOF - a 4.5 minimum aperture at 105mm is not ideal for portrait work. IQ is seriously good - this is one of the few old Minolta zooms in my extensive collection that will be getting a lot of use (FF and APS). |
Cliff#28615 date: Jun-30-2016 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 35-105mm Minolta 24-105mm Sigma 28-135mm Tamron 35-135mm Tokina 28-70mm Minolta 50mm |
price paid: | $40 |
positive: | Sharp, Minolta color, weight, range, fairly quiet focus |
negative: | flare |
comment: | Got this lens for a specific niche, a medium size outdoor horse ring, and it has worked perfectly. 35mm was too long on the short end, and 70mm was too short on the long end. The Minolta 24-105mm was a little disappointing in the sharp department and the Sigma colors, while very nice, did not match the old warm Minolta on shots I already have. 28/35-135mm and 70-210/300mm worked well in larger rings. This lens is gorgeously sharp and the colors beautifully saturated classic Minolta. Bokeh is very nice and makes the horses pop against the background. This lens is as sharp as the 50mm and original 35-105mm. You have to be a little careful with flare on all the old glass, and this is no exception. The screw drive focus is quieter than some so it has worked acceptably for video. Balances well on A7ii with LA-EA4. This lens was the solution for this task, and is overall so nice with a useful range that it is spending more time on the camera outdoors. Don't think there's a deal that comes close to old A mount glass these days. It's so cheap you can have the right lens for everything you do. As FF becomes more affordable this stuff falls right back into the focal length niches it was originally designed for. |
Meltac#15268 date: Jun-10-2015 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Sony DT 18-135 3.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 16-50 2.8 SSM Sony CZ 16-80 3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 35-105 Macro Minolta xi 28-200 |
price paid: | € 50.00 (used) |
positive: | + Sharpness wide open (except long end) + Speed (ie. wide aperture) + Focal length coverage on APS-C + Relatively fast and reliable AF + Solid build + MFD + Value for money |
negative: | - Quite big and heavy for the focal length and speed - Soft at long end |
comment: | I like this lens. It's pretty sharp wide open at the short end and in medium range focal lengths, although at least my sample gets quite soft towards the long end. However one other user stated here that the long end would need AF micro adjustment, so it's possible that the percepted softness actually is just the result of a slightly off-focussed image. I've bought the 28-105 as a replacement for my 35-105 macro whose MFD is inacceptably long for me, at least that's the case on APS-C where I haven't been able to shot portrait due to this limitation. This works much better now with the 28-105's MFD of around 50 cm. The focal length coverage is very good for my purpose but might be not short/wide enough for most APS-C users as well as some full frame users. I will sell my Sony 18-135 which has just a little more coverage but is also less speedy than the Minolta. Aperture width is great for portrait where I don't need F2.8 or even wider. This is true especially on APS-C where you benefit from the less wide starting focal length giving you a wider aperture at a given focal length compared to most decicated APS-C lenses (such as the CZ 16-80 3.5-4.5 for example). Build is solid but on the heavy side, also is size - considering that this is not some super-zoom, nor a F2.8-type zoom lens. It's still acceptable for me, considering the excellent optics, but might not be for users with a more light-weight equipment attitude. Autofocus works well, much better than the one of my xi 28-200, and is fairly fast and reliable, although I had a couple of miss-focussed images. All-in-all a superb walk-around lens for the price, even on APS-C, however apparently a little hard to find. |
QuietOC#15264 date: Jun-4-2015 | |
---|---|
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: | 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: | 40 USD (used) |
positive: | Smooth zoom and focus controls Internal focus Flat focus plane |
negative: | Size and weight Barrel distortion at the wide end Only F4 up to 50 mm Small hood for APS-C use Center softness |
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. My first excellent clean copy came from Japan for $73. "JAPAN" It has more distortion at 28 mm than the Minolta 28 mm primes lens but less distortion at 35 mm than the DT 35 SAM. It has a little more distortion than the 24-85 at the same focal lengths. Both versions of the 28-105 have curved aperture blades, but those on RS version do seem to form a slightly smoother shape. The plastic hood is shinier and smoother than the one included on the newer 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. It is somewhat soft at 105 mm, but it does work with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters. Even AF works with the 2x. It seems to work reasonably well with extension tubes for macro. Without the tubes it is fairly useless for close-up photography. The 24-85 lenses focus closer than the 28-105 despite both being listed with a 500 mm MFD. At close focus the internal focus design acts like a shorter length lens than those with external focus extension. The 105 mm setting on the 28-105 is close to a 90 mm setting on the 35-105. The 105 mm end does have more reach than the newer DT 16-105 lens. Between the 16-105, 28-105, and 35-105 each have their own advantages. The DT 16-105 has full lens compensation support and seems to auto focus most accurately. But while it is the sharp in the center of the frame it falls off the quickest with the extreme corners being horrible. It actually performs quite well on the wide end which of course is much wider than the others. The price however is also much higher for lower image quality through most of the range. The 28-105 is the most consistently sharp across the frame especially at the wide end, but suffers from CA away from the center of the frame at the long end. The 35-105 gives up close focusing except at 105 mm in macro mode for excellent sharpness, but the focal range is mainly short telephoto on APS-C cameras. While I have used this as an everyday lens on the A58. It hasn't gotten much use recently since the 16-105 is good enough and adds the useful wide 16-28 range. |
Mr Ed#11948 date: Aug-15-2014 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Beer can, tokina 28-70, tokina 80-200, Minolta primes 24, 50mm, 75-300 mm Minolta cheapo zoom, oddball Russian Mir 1b 37mm, classic takumar 50mm f1.4, Minolta 500 mirror. |
price paid: | 140cdn in 1997 |
positive: | Excellent walk around lens, nice classic build. |
negative: | Slightly long on APS bodies, a little heavy compared to modern mostly plastic lenses. |
comment: | The first used lens I bought for 35mm film in 97, paid about 140 CDN then as it was pretty new, I still have this lens and its one of my 2 walking around do all kits (along with a tokina 20-35). Compact with enough range for most usage. Doesn't quite go wide enough on APS frame cameras hence the 20-35 as backup. Not that easy to find used for some reason. Definitely better than the kit lens it replaced. |
dinadan#11870 date: Jun-18-2014 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta AF 35-100 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF 35-200 xi F4.5-5.6 Sony 24-105 F3.5-4.5 |
price paid: | 80 Euro mint |
positive: | + sharp + colors + short MFD + very useful zoom range + nice hood + compact and lightweight |
negative: | - none for the price |
comment: | The best of my "classic" zoom lenses so far. I bought it as a "walk around" lens for my A99. It has a nice zoom range on full frame. For the price i paid unbeatable. See my pictures at the "forum sample images" section. Update: now i use this lens on my A7II with LA-EA4 adaptor. It is so compact that it is well balanced even with the adaptor. No need to buy the overpriced 24-70 f4 Zeiss. |
WWLIT#11865 date: Jun-11-2014 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Sal1855 Minolta 28-105 xi Tamron 18-200 Sal50f18 |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | Sharpness Solid build Nice tulip shaped hood Minolta colour |
negative: | missing |
comment: | I hav another version which is the xi version, comparing the xi and this, this is way better than the xi although I like to play with the xi motor. It is sharper than what I expect. Nice minolta colour. Design of this lens is indeed stylish too, no cheap plastic feeling. It looks nice nice with its tulip shaped lens hood and a distance scale. It's ideal for portrait shooting. I will recommend this lens to anyone who ask me about it. |
macronut#11753 date: Apr-2-2014 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 28-135mm 4-4.5 Minolta 28-85mm 3.5-4.5 |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | A good value at its current price of $70-$120. Solid feel. Not all plastic. Effective tulip hood instead of Minolta's usual crap. Nice focal range on FF. |
negative: | Zoom is abit stiff and lacks that precision feel. No ADI. 62mm filter is an oddball size, meaning no hoods or filters I own will fit. Not ideal indoors on cropped sensor camera. 24mm would have been nice. |
comment: | This lens is easily worth the price and is great for casual events, such as outdoor family gatherings. It performs well on my A300. If critical sharpness is necessary, I would look elsewhere. But you should already know not to expect razor sharpness out of a budget lens. When compared to the Minolta 'Secret Handshake' lens, it is not as sharp. However, I do find sharpness to be more than acceptable for your average hobbyist that does not buy high-end glass. Flare and ghosting are well controlled, but can be induced if you try to do so. Seeing as people do not typically shoot into the sun very often, it is not a problem. This lens is well built, but not great. The zoom ring is not as smooth as I prefer. There is a certain uneven, inconsistent feeling to the tension. The body finish seems abit prone to scratches. Those are really the only things worth mentioning. Nothing in the build should stop you from buying this lens. Barrel wobble will be present on heavily used copies. My advice is to seek a nice copy, as they are easy enough to find. What this lens really needs is to start at 24mm, like the D version does. Nitpicking is really all I can do against this lens though. I use it a fair amount, and I have other options. It is what it is. A cheap lens that does solid work. Makes a good zoo lens, according to my wife. And that makes me happy because she is not carrying my expensive glass. I definitely recommend this lens, and you can find it for under $100. And keep in mind that at that price, it is easy to resell. The Minolta 24-85 may be better for some people. They are very similar in performance. You decide what end you prefer to have the extra range. I do greatly prefer this lens to the original 28-85mm. You get a far better hood and longer reaching zoom. |
Benzman#11362 date: Oct-2-2013 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | 18-55 standard nex lens, and Minolta 24-105 D |
price paid: | $110 used |
positive: | great lens for the price, nice vibrant Minolta colors, pretty sharp for a lens in it's class and definitely nice build and I think it's better and sharper than 24-105 or I just happen to have a better copy |
negative: | focus speed could of be alittle faster at sometimes otherwise none |
comment: | I love this lens I use it all the time, I always have this lens on my a99 50% of the time until I receive my cz24-70t*, im actually very surprised that a this prize the lens quality is nearly perfect and so excellent, the only reason I bought cz24-70 is for special occasions ;) |
Milan33m#11159 date: May-31-2013 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
compared to: | MAF 24-105, MAF 28-135 4.0-4,5, MAF 35-105 |
price paid: | 130 EUR (used) |
positive: | Good sharp lens, F.3.5, Tullip lens shader, much shaper and better than MAF 24-15 lens. |
negative: | a bit heavy compared to MAF 24-105, rare and hard to find |
comment: | I have had the few similar lenses MAF 24-105, MAF 28-105 and MAF 28-105 RS. The best and most sharper was MAF 28-105. However I wanted t ohave a bit more telephoto, so I sold all of them and changed into MAF 28-135, almost fixed focal. |
Guy#11108 date: May-11-2013 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8 Sigma 28-70/2.8 Sigma 28-105/3.8-5.6 UC-III |
price paid: | 40 EUR |
positive: | + good range + small weight + nice build |
negative: | - IQ |
comment: | I like this lens on FF, but the IQ is not there. Sadly, wide open the lens can only be used for web sized images or small prints. For cropping or anything larger it needs stopping down by about 1-2 stops. Maybe I have a lemon, but I really am not all that impressed as I hoped I would be. |
derekw#10970 date: Mar-11-2013 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 24-85 original Minolta 35-105 original Minolta 28-105 RS Minolta 28-135 |
price paid: | 25 GBP |
positive: | Very sharp even wide open Minolta colours Good range Inexpensive |
negative: | Needs hood |
comment: | The ratings don't lie and there is nothing to add to the reviews below. This is a very, very good lens and IMHO better value than the 28-135 |
cev#10734 date: Nov-28-2012 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 35-105 Minolta 50mm 1.7 |
price paid: | 120.00 |
positive: | Sharp decent range well built |
negative: | range short for APS-C |
comment: | Received this from Ebay and was not impressed at first. Resolution compared to the 35-105 is a bit less sharp but most shots stopped down can even rival that lens. It has a bit more range too. Colors are excellent and it responds well to an alpha A35. No discernible CA or flare at least by eye. This is the last of the well built Minolta era and it shows for a 1994 lens. I'll continue to include this lens on most of my photo shoots. |
JimmyMelbourne#10365 date: Jul-7-2012 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | MN 35 - 70 F4 MN 70 - 210 F4 Sony 18 - 250 |
price paid: | 120 AUS |
positive: | Sharp Nice range on APS-C Great for portraits Minolta Colur |
negative: | missing |
comment: | I took this lens for a run today and am very impressed with the versatility, great colour, sharp wide open, decent zoom range. I will never sell this lens. I do not have any faults. I know it is not so wide, but knew that when i bought it and wanted it for touring and portraits, and it excels at this. |
AlexSwitch#9931 date: Feb-14-2012 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | missing |
price paid: | 150 Euro |
positive: | Good color, pretty sharp, fast AF, nice bokeh |
negative: | Heavy, 28mm on APS-C is not a wide angle focal, AF hangs in poor light conditions |
comment: | This lens is a good ( very good considering the price I've paid ) walk around piece of glass. Sharp with good color and contrast, this Minolta lens is build like a panzer, and the heavy weight reflects this fact. |
dechan81#9722 date: Dec-28-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | minolta 24-50rs minolta 35-70/4 minolta 35-105(beercan ver) minolta 50/1.7 sigma 75-200/3.8 |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | internal focus sharp wide open nice bokeh close focus |
negative: | heavy.. slow af @105mm on digital |
comment: | my favorite lens realy sharp for a zoom lens..nice bokeh but a little heavy when i use with my km 7d,modern design nice handling event heavy,slow af @105mm on digital but no problem in film cameras.. |
Johnc#9278 date: Jul-29-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 35-105 Tamron 17-50 2.8 |
price paid: | 120 USD |
positive: | Well built sharp colour price |
negative: | Heavy a bit wider would be better |
comment: | I was looking for a FF wider lens than the 35-105 and whilst not that much wider, I am exceedingly happy with this lens. It is built like a tank, image quality is sharp and clear. Distortion and flaring is minimal. A hidden gem and now my walk around lens. Love it! |
nicols#8951 date: Apr-19-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | missing |
price paid: | 149 GBP (used) |
positive: | Rock solid build quality. Sharp stopped down. Good IQ overall |
negative: | On an aps c, 28 is not really wide enough for this to be a general purpose lens for my use. A little zoom creep. |
comment: | A really nice old lens, built like a tank but with modern style. Great image quality, pictures can be very sharp in the right conditions. On my a55, the 28mm end isn't particularly wide so have now switched to the sony 18-250mm superzoom for convenience. However, this is a good lens that can be a great step up from a kit zoom. Note, that when your carrying this around, i have noticed a little zoom creep. |
famatta127#8703 date: Feb-26-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | tamron 17-50mm 2.8f minolta 35-105mm old sony 35mm 1.8 sam |
price paid: | $100 |
positive: | pretty sharp at f4.5 and razor sharp at 8 great Minolta color light compared to Minolta 35-105 old |
negative: | none yet |
comment: | I have the macro option lens and find its a great piece of glass. Light, smooth and somewhat compact. The color of the Minny 35-105 seems a bit deeper but it beats out the Tamron for the 3D effect. I also own the Sony SAM 35mm 1.8 which is a great lens but the color isn't as nice as this one...Its got me thinking I may not need the 35-105 any more update. Sold this. After using the 35-105 Minny more I sold the 28-105...not as sharp. |
HKWA444#8688 date: Feb-22-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Sony 18-70 kit Tamron A16 KM 35-70 |
price paid: | 80USD |
positive: | Good price Sharpness Well Built Solid |
negative: | Heavy Not wide enough |
comment: | A very good walk around lens. 85% on my camera. Love the color & contrast of this lens |
CLICKPIC#8656 date: Feb-14-2011 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 28-85 Minolta 70-210 4.5- Minolta 70-210 Beercan Minolta 75-300 |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | Love this lens! Great color. very sharp. well built. |
negative: | Slight zoom creep. common issue with zooms though. Nothing else. |
comment: | Great lens. Always good IQ. Great color and sharpness. If it was a constant 2.8 it would be perfect. for the money it can't be beat. Kinda rare. If you can find it, get it. |
Velectron#8447 date: Dec-25-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | 35-105mm F3.4-4.5 RS 70-210mm F3.4-4.5 Beercan 50mm F1.7 Tamron 28-200 XR Aspherical |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | Surprisingly good sharpness wide open at all focal lengths, build, non-rotating front element |
negative: | bokeh, a bit heavy, hood seems fragile, zoom creep |
comment: | I was rather surprised at the sharpness of this lens wide open at all focal lengths. Had expected it to be softer but no....its very sharp! The DOF seems to be quite generous too, so sometimes it may be difficult to get a good bokeh. The lens looks pretty well-built, and weighs quite a fair bit, perhaps an indication of good quality glass and parts? I don't see any CA or flares with this lens, even without the hood. My copy had zoom creep so it tends to extend by itself while walking, but otherwise, this is a great walk-around lens! Not quite wide enough for APS-C but still manageable. |
ghmcs#8017 date: Sep-23-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Sony 16-105 (APSC only) Minolta 28-135 (APSC+full frame) Tamron 28-75 (APSC+full frame) |
price paid: | $120USD (used) |
positive: | very useful range on full frame, sharp,reasonable cost, and small/light enough to carry everywhere |
negative: | none for the price |
comment: | I was pleasantly surprised at the performance of this lens; I think it is under rated on this site. I was looking for an everyday replacement for the much larger, heavier Minolta 28-135 and I think I've found it. APSC - given it's focal range I don't know why you'd use it with an APSC sensor, but IQ is every bit as good as the Sony 16-105 and this lens is 1 stop faster. FILM - at 100mm and longer you can't beat the real telephoto lenses but, considering this lens below 100mm, it is an excellent performer. Slightly better than the Minolta 28-135 and just as good as the Tamron 28-75. In fact, better sharpness than the Tamron at the edges of the frame. Color and exposure are what we like, and expect, from Minolta. Sure, it's not f/2.8 and it's not 24mm but pair this with the Minolta 20mm prime and the Minolta 100-200mm telephoto and you've got a low cost, high performing solution for full frame. UPDATE for full frame digital - I was curious if performance on film would carry over to full frame digital, and it does. No micro focus adjustment needed up to 70mm; a small negative adjustment would help the long end. |
Zeeke#7967 date: Sep-13-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta af 35-70mm f4 Minolta af 35-105mm(old) Minolta af 28-135mm Minolta af 24-85mm RS Minolta af 24-105mm |
price paid: | missing |
positive: | Light Sharp wide open Fast focus Non-rotating front element price |
negative: | None given the price of these lenses |
comment: | I think this is the best compromise for the 850(I've tried all the Minolta old`s),with a great range and fast af.The lens has ok center sharpness wide open at 105mm, which provides fine portraits.The colors and contrast isn't up to the "Beercan" Minoltas. |
F-man#7807 date: Aug-11-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | 18-70 Kit Lens |
price paid: | USD 100 |
positive: | Pretty Sharp Wide open. Cheap. Nice Colour & bokeh |
negative: | Zoom Creep. Lens Hood prone to crack. Not wide enough for APS-C |
comment: | Nice walkaround lens, especially for FF |
derekw#7414 date: May-7-2010 | |
---|---|
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 F3.5-4.5 N |
price paid: | L25 GBP |
positive: | Sharpness Colour Weight and build Inexpensive |
negative: | None for the price |
comment: | Great walkaround lens |
jmmmerwill#7214 date: Mar-31-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 24-85 3.5-4.5 |
price paid: | 60 EUR used |
positive: | sharp - even wide open nice colors and saturation |
negative: | zoom creep |
comment: | My favorite walk-around-lens, even after I bought a Minolta 24-85 3.5-4.5 and compared both. The 24-85 is a nice standard zoom lens when stopped down to at least f5.6/f8. Wide open the 24-85 is too soft! The 28-105 is much better for portaits and street pics wide open. I would recommend the 28-105 to everyone who is looking for a walk-around-lens from standard focal lenght to short tele and the opportunity of shooting wide open. Unfortunately the focal lenght is not wide enough. You shoud be aware of this lack and should enjoy this really nice lens. For me it's a keeper. The 24-85 might be sold again. |
derekw#7088 date: Mar-14-2010 | |
---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
ownership: | I own this lens |
compared to: | Minolta 24-85 RS Minolta 28-85 |
price paid: | Ł30 GBP |
positive: | Exsellen all round lens Sharp Great Minolta colour |
negative: | Nothing serious |
comment: | Quality lens at a reasonable price |
rating summary
- total reviews: 46
- sharpness: 4.54
- color: 4.74
- build: 4.59
- distortion: 4.35
- flare control: 4.24
- overall: 4.49
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login