Minolta AF 28-135mm F4-4.5 A-mount lens reviews
 keith_h#46901 date: Nov-18-2022 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70 G 80-200 2.8 HS G 28-85 70-210 |
| price paid: | $200 usd |
| positive: | Image quality, ff range. |
| negative: | It's heavy, no question. |
| comment: | It takes the most beautiful images and has a range of focal lengths making it a useful walkaround lens. But its heavy and there's the tradeoff. My copy suffers terribly from CA in certain conditions but this is easily managed with software. I've marked distortion 3 for this reason. It sort of sits in the beercan category for me, capable for sure but not compelling. Any of the other lenses mentioned would be a better pick in many situations. But when you can take only one lens for a photowalk, then this is the one. Definitely worth having a good copy on hand. |
; 36MP| japp#45723 date: Jun-15-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 28-100 |
| price paid: | € 5 |
| positive: | great zoom range nice and sharp can make some intresting flares |
| negative: | to much flares at some times |
| comment: | this lens is (if the second to front lens elements ar not lose) my favourite lens i own even tho i bought it with some scratches and a dented filter treath. the range is simply amazing and the colors it produces are always perfect. The only thing i could wish but can't ever happen with this range is a faster F number it some times is a bit on the low end but to be real that is where primes come in. as i said in the beginning abouth the second to front lens groep was in my lens a bit loose, i had reset the focus for infinity until it could not go furter. i could not figer out and was almost buying an other 28-135 but i wanted to try one more time to repair and saw that the secondles groep was a bit loose. i thought that is strange so turned it on, and to my releaf i solved it! so if you ever have a problem with infinity focus first check if the second lens group is turned all the way on if it is you can check the lens repair guide from Pete Ganzel. |
| AVLB#45578 date: Sep-5-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105 D Minolta 28-85 MkI Minolta 35-105 MkI Sony 85mm Pentacon 135mm f2.8 MF |
| price paid: | £130 |
| positive: | Great range on FF Solid build Sharp |
| negative: | No Lens hood |
| comment: | This is probably my favourite lens for FF A850. It is not heavy by any means compared to the 70-400 (about half the weight). I could quite easily carry this around all day. Takes brilliant portrait shots and also wide enough to do landscapes. Flare control is solved by adding a screw-in hood, wide angle variety, which really makes the front of the lens look big as it flares out from 72mm to 95mm! Supposedly the "secret handshake" lens of Japan, but these rumours are years old. If it was, then the recipients must have been really happy to get one. Well worth what I paid for it and as a walkabout lens it is fine and just gives that extra reach when you want it. When I compared it to the older Pentacon, it certainly was able to hold its own against that as well. Compared to the 35-105, I would go as far as to say I prefer the bigger and wider lens. IQ is just as good as that lens in my opinion. |
| NIKO#44546 date: Jul-7-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 24-105 AF f3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-85 AF f3.5-4.5 Macro Konica Minolta 28-75 AF f2.8 Minolta 70-210 AF f4 Macro Sigma 100-300 f4 |
| price paid: | $103 |
| positive: | The build of the lens is excellent to say the least. Heavy and surely made with plenty of metal and glass. It focuses fast and doesn't seem to hesitate at all in good lighting. Focus accuracy seems to be pretty good in good lighting. |
| negative: | Contrast is good, but obviously not as good as todays modern glass. Minimum focus distance is not that great; nearly 5 ft. Can hesitate during AF if lighting isn't ideal. |
| comment: | It focuses fast and accuracy seems to be on target most of the time. Less than stellar lighting can cause the lens to hesitate mildly when auto focusing. Sharpness seems to be pretty good, but no match to the KM AF 28-75 f2.8. I tested this lens on an A77MII and an A700. The same result. Contrast doesn't match modern glass, but it is still pretty good. Nothing that can't be helped with some Photoshop. When directly compared to the Sony 24-105 f3.5-4.5 lens the 24-105 I feel is the better lens overall. Though, there might be 1 or 2 trade offs the 28-135 really is not a match optically. One of those trade offs is control over purple fringing is better on the 28-135 f4-4.5. The cosmetics of the sample I just acquired is Excellent+++. I've never seen this lens in such good condition in person. A beautiful gem as cosmetics go. All in all, I don't see why this lens is so legendary. Other than its build, range and its somewhat rarity it's not that phenomenal. Still, it's a good lens if you know how to use it. As a side note, I had a version of this lens prior to the one I'm reviewing now. It didn't perform all that well whatsoever. After closer inspection I found that it suffered from internal haze on the inner elements. Obviously, this was messing with its optical quality. Back it went to the seller. |
| skm.sa100#44541 date: Jun-30-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 1 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70/2.8 16-50/2.8 16-105/ 17-50/2.8 etc. |
| price paid: | USD130 |
| positive: | Price. Range. Minolta colors. |
| negative: | Flare. Flare. Flare. I'd have preferred 24mm instead of 28mm. Some CA. |
| comment: | A marvelous little lens that works really well on even modern FF cameras. I use it a a good bit on my A99. It's a good performer during noon on a sunny day! No washed out tones/colors. I totally like this lens for that. What I really don't like is the flare. It's truly horrible. Some of the worst I've seen of any lens. It doesn't come with an inbuilt hood and 3rd party hoods aren't that great, either. A rubber collapsible hood might be useful given the wide zoom range. There's some amount of CA/fringing wide open and close to wide open but it's a known issue for lenses from that era. Don't point it directly at the sun in the frame. You will regret it. |
| Sönke Henning#44488 date: Mar-29-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35/2 Sony 50/1.4 Minolta 85/1.4 GD |
| price paid: | 75Euros 15 years ago |
| positive: | Sharpness beyond f5.6. Best focal lenghts are between 40 and 100mm. 72mm filter (for me), matches: 20/2.8, 85/1.4, 200/2.8. |
| negative: | Minimum focus distance. Flare can get really bad. Heavy. |
| comment: | For sharpness, see pictures: There's never been a hood for this lens, probably because the enormous zoom ratio would make it useless anyways. A polarizer helps sometimes. Mounted to the a900, extreme corners at 28mm never got sharp, overall sharpness at 135mm was visibly lower than between 40 and 100mm, but still good. The a99ii lifted this lens onto a new level. Sharpness is great, only flare can be a real nuisance. 1,5m focus distance makes it an outdoor lens for travel, landscapes, architecture. If you can live with the shortcomings mentioned, this gem can give you very pleasing results. |
| claude#44450 date: Jan-3-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 28-105 3.5/4.5 RS |
| price paid: | 90 euros |
| positive: | Belle qualité de fabrication. Bague de mise au point très douce et précise. Bague de mise au point à la base de l'objectif côté boitier, et non à l'extrémité de l'objectif. Beau piqué dès la pleine ouverture et dès 28mm. Beau contraste. |
| negative: | il est lourd. énorme vignetage à pleine ouverture, surtout sur full frame. Mise au point à l'infini : l'arrière plan semble flou au delà de 90mm. Reflets, flare, aberrations chromatiques sensiblement présents. Distance minimale de mise au point. Sur cet objectif comme sur d'autres de cette génération, on est à 1,5m ! |
| comment: | Je voulais tester cet objectif qui alimente les discutions et les controverses. Certains ne tarissent pas de louanges alors que d'autres lui taillent une veste ! J'ai trouvé un exemplaire en excellent état cosmétique et pour un prix que j'estime raisonnable. Mon exemplaire dispose d'un filtre anti UV et anti reflets. Indispensable à mon avis car les verres ne sont pas exemplaires sur ce point. Le bon : Couleurs, contraste, piqué à pleine ouverture et à 28mm... Tout y est. La bague de mise au point, contrairement aux autres zooms de la gamme, est située contre le boitier... Génial ! C'est tellement plus agréable de la chercher au plus près du bout des doigt, plutôt qu'en bout d'objectif. La bague est fluide, précise et tombe parfaitement sous la main. D'une seule main, on tient le boîtier et on fait la mise au point avec l'index. J'ai vu que cette particularité a déplu à certains utilisateurs. Je fais partie du camp adverse. Le moins bon : L'objectif est lourd, mais je le savais en l'achetant. Cela n'a donc pas été une surprise. A pleine ouverture, le vignetage est très présent et difficile à supprimer en post production tellement il est fort. Le flare et les abberations chromatiques sont assez prononcés. Mise au point à l'infini : l'arrière plan est flou au delà de 90mm de tirage. Même en fermant à f8 ou f11, l'arrière plan reste flou. En utilisant le focus peaking, on voit bien qu'en cas de mise au point sur l'infini, la netteté ne décolle pas du plan intermédiaire pour couvrir le dernier plan. C'est le cas même quand on passe par l'hyperfocale. Soit l'arrière plan est flou, soit il manque très cruellement de contraste et de piqué, mais le problème est bien présent ! J'ai tenté d'effectuer un micro réglage de l'autofocus (option disponible sur alpha 99), ce qui a un peu amélioré la situation. Du coup, je ne sais pas si ce défaut est propre à mon exemplaire ou s'il est propre à l'objectif en général. Pour conclure, je suis à moitié conquis. Je pense qu'il faut éviter d'utiliser cet objectif pour des photos de paysage et des photos panoramiques, c'est à dire quand on veut une profondeur de champ maximale et un arrière plan qui ne soit pas totalement inconsistant. Sinon, pour une utilisation photo de rue, portrait, dans la plage 28mm - 90mm et dès la pleine ouverture, c'est pas mal du tout (piqué, contraste, couleurs) ! Pour le vignettage, les reflets, les aberrations chromatiques, il faut faire attention à la prise de vue et quand c'est possible, rattraper certains défaut en post production. Je me demande si le minolta AF 28-105 3.5/4.5 RS n'est pas une meilleure alternative... En effet, s'il n'a pas à rougir sur le piqué et le contraste, il gère bien mieux les défauts de lentille évoqués. Il faut dire que cet objectif est plus récent (façon de parler). C'est toujours le problème quand on teste un objectif : Peut-il y avoir des différences de qualité optique d'un exemplaire à l'autre, pour un même modèle d'objectif ? Pour répondre, il faudrait avoir plusieurs exemplaires sous la main. |
| Phil Wood#44380 date: Oct-9-2019 | |
|---|---|
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 - AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D Minolta - AF 28-80 F4-5.6 Minolta - AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 II Minolta - AF 28-80 F3.5-5.6 D Minolta - AF 28-80 xi F4-5.6 Minolta - AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-85 F3.5-4.5 RS Minolta - AF 28-100 F3.5-5.6 D Minolta - AF 28-105 xi F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 Minolta - AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5 RS |
| price paid: | 70 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp, colour |
| negative: | Heavy, could go wider, 1980s ghosting/flare. No hood mount, no matching hood - have to use screw in hood. |
| comment: | This lens shows just how well Minolta made lenses when they introduced AF to the 35mm world. However, the overriding impression is its weight, it hardly seems possible for a lens of its size could weigh so much. Its range made it the nearest thing to a hyperzoom in its day (though Sigma soon produced a 28-200 for the A mount) and it remains the only single Sony/Minolta lens that covers this useful range in FF A mount. Image quality is impressive, sharp with lovely colour, but it does suffer from flare and ghosting issues typical of older lenses. AF is quick and precise, but not silent - I love the reassuring clunk of it snapping into focus, but videographers be warned! In comparison with my collection of Minolta wide to tele zooms (see list above) it is close to the best in terms of IQ. I prefer the extra width of a 24mm but the IQ of the 24-105 is just not as good - though I will still use it in preference to the 28-135 if I am expecting to be carrying the camera for an extended period - the 28-135 is really heavy. The 28-80s and 28-100 are not in the same class. The 24-85 is a good lens, better than the 24-105 and more compact, the 28-105 (both versions) are probably the nearest in IQ, better at times. One use I have for a lens of this sort of range is as a back up to primes, something to carry in the pocket or pack 'just in case' - I never think to use the 28-135 in this manner, I tend to go for 24-85 unless I am carrying a 20 or 24mm prime, in which case I might opt for the slightly better IQ and extra length of a 28-105. It is, of course, better suited to FF use, but it's not a bad range on APS (42-202.5mm equiv) - as long as you don't need to go wide, or have that covered with another lens. |
| ganchoo#44369 date: Sep-8-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105 f3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 70-210 f4 Sony FE 28-70 f3. 5-5.6 OSS Minolta 50mm f1. 4 Mnolta 50mm f1. 7 Sony 85mm f2. 8 Sigma 18-35 f3. 5-5.6 Aspherical Minolta 28 f2. 8 Tamron 17-50 f2. 8 Minolta 135 f2. 8 Sigma 50 f2. 8 DG Macro |
| price paid: | £80 |
| positive: | Range from 28-135, sharp, rear focus ring, good af speed, well build. |
| negative: | Heavy and bulky lens, prone to flare, 72mm, no hood with the lens. |
| comment: | Happy with the range of the lens buy it is heavy like Minolta 70-210 f4 and there is no hood. I feel better with smaller lenses like 35-70 f4 which is with good sharpness but much lighter. Minolta 35-105 is the sharpest from my zooms but with eritating and noisy AF. Also, the Minolta 28-135 is prone to flare especially at the wide end. The best results I had betwin 35-100 mm. If you can stabilise the lens and do not goo over ISO 800 you will get clear and amaizing pictures. If you need one lens to go with you take this one and use it mainly day time. Night time use a tripod or monopod. |
| dyxum787#44335 date: Jul-17-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-125 mm 3.5-5.6 Tokina 24-200 mm 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 150 |
| positive: | Color Build like a tank Very Sharp F4 F 4, 4,5 :) Macro switch |
| negative: | flare without Lens Hood. High focus distance. |
| comment: | If MFD is not your issue this is a very nice lens with a good focal range for outdoor photography. Be aware not to point too much in direction of sun or bright lights. Build quality is excellent. Given the price paid I am very happy with this lens. Corner sharpness is good from F5.6 at 28-50mm and from F8 at 70-135mm. Center sharpness is excellent at all apertures and focal lengths. print stickers | sticker printing | printing services | business printing |
| Jack-Eden#44264 date: Apr-26-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss Pancolar 1.8/50 Zeiss Tessar 2.8/50 Pentacon 2.8/135 Tokina 2.8/11-16 Sony 2.8/16-50 Sony DT 1.8/35 Sony DT 3.5-6.3/18-200 Minolta 1.4/50 Minolta 1.7/50 Minolta Macro 2.8/50 Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta Beercan 28-135 Minolta 28-85 3.5-4.5 Minolta 70-210, 3.5-4.5 Minolta 100-300, 4.5-5.6 APO Minolta 100-400, 4.5-6.6 APO |
| price paid: | 120 Euro |
| positive: | Very sharp, great colors, |
| negative: | heavy |
| comment: | One of my best lenses. Like to use as like macro, landscape and portrait lens |
| awa54#44070 date: May-30-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-105 f3.5-4.5 (both) Min 35-70 f4 Min 24-85 f3.5-4.5 Min 28 f2.8 Min 35 f1.4 Min 50 f1.4 Min 85 f1.4 Min 135 f2.8 |
| price paid: | $70 USD |
| positive: | wide zoom range built solid and then some excellent color as expected I like the rear position focus ring bokeh is quite decent for a high element count zoom less linear distortion than most other wide range zooms excellent "macro" quality |
| negative: | IF is negated by front element rotating with zoom contrast reduction is common with bright scenes no factory hood, and no practical way to mount one without vignetting in FF use Some C/A visible in high contrast areas and at edges of frame |
| comment: | ***I am revising my numbers and overall opinion of this lens based on a second copy I acquired... Sharpness, contrast and flare are noticeably better with my second copy, pushing it up into the ranks of the best original Minolta zooms. Maybe not *quite* as sharp as the original 35-105, but better range and linear distortion by a wide margin. I can now say that if you get a "good" copy of this lens it's an excellent value and well worth using for FF or APS walk-around when you only want to bring one lens. I also created a 3D printed adapter for attaching a metal hood to the lens, which helps with the flare issues a bit (still not a complete fix though, but if you want to try it, see lens forum for a link to the print file). http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/adapter-to-fit-a-lens-shade-on-af-28135mm-f44-5_topic132658.html Used with your back to the sun and in scenes that don't have extreme contrast transitions, this lens delivers appealing results (very similar in sharpness to the 35-70 f4 [note, in FF the 35-70 f4 is a much lower resolution optic than the 28-135]). However all of the primes clearly beat it out in every parameter at their respective focal lengths, with the exception of the 28 f2.8 which has a narrower margin of superiority and the 135 f2.8 which has much more potential to show PF. Compared to the 35-105s the original version is sharper than the 28-135, has better contrast and doesn't flare as badly (by a solid margin on all counts), however it has *much* worse linear distortion (esp. on FF) and the macro quality is no better. The RS version has similar or slightly lower performance in sharpness, but might have better contrast and definitely suffers far less from flare. The close focus "macro" of the 35-135 RS is easier to use, but it doesn't give as sharp a result as the 28-135 does. The 24-85 has much worse distortion at the long end and sharpness is similar, but it has better contrast and flare resistance as well as being smaller when retracted and *much* lighter. I think that at least for my uses and with the copy of the lens I own (very clean and in excellent mechanical condition), this lens is a bit of an under-performer when compared to the best Minolta AF zooms, but when used in favorable light it gives very decent results and offers an extremely useful range (both APS and FF) when you only want to bring one lens along (albeit one that's heavier than any other two lenses mentioned, with the exception of the 35 and 85 f1.4s and the original 35-105). All-in all I think that as a one-lens solution, using a 35-70 f4 and being willing to walk around to get the shot is easier and delivers as good or better images for most situations. I'm definitely keeping it, but it will get limited use as it offers competent but unexceptional performance, with significant shortcomings. At a the prices this lens used to command I think the buyer was getting a bad deal and the "secret handshake" and a wink, was being given between successful sellers... but in today's market of much reduced A-mount pricing it's worth buying a copy. |
| Phred#30698 date: Oct-13-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-105,35-70,28-80,16-80,18-55,55-200 |
| price paid: | $379😵2006 |
| positive: | Capable of unique images, nice wide to tele range,Minolta Magic image quality(color+contrast)legendary HandShake allure.Bokeh can be superb. |
| negative: | Legend is somewhat myth. Min focus 1.5m, Focus falls off about half way thru the range. Still sharp, just not tack sharp.Adjustment of camera's micro focus is a MUST.Ridiculously heavy compared to modern comparables.Focus mechanism prone to failure. Hunts like crazy in low light. Zero IQ, tough to learn it’s quirks. |
| comment: | I've enjoyed this lens, it's fun, finicky, can be frustrating. I can't overstate the importance of matching your camera body's micro focus to this lens. My copy went to the shop on the sellers tab because the focus mechanism failed.(common for this lens) Once repaired and dialed into the camera, it’s still rarely used. A poor choice for reliabile captures but can render unique results.Don't pay what I did, there out there much cheaper these days. |
| Magnumúrfi#29681 date: Aug-30-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85 24-105 35-70F4 CZ16-80 Tamron 17-50 Sony 18-35 |
| price paid: | 260 |
| positive: | Color Build like a tank Very Sharp F4 F 4, 4,5 :) Macro switch |
| negative: | Minimal Focal lenght FLARE CONTROL .... OOOO MY GOOD |
| comment: | Absolut perfekt color! Very Sharp F4. Amazon sharp in 5,6! No too long. My favorite standart zoom! No light Fall on fullframe The corner is very sharp |
| jwasturias#29629 date: Jul-16-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta APO 100-300 Tokina 100-300 f5.0 (m42) Tamron 70-300 LD (Quite bad at long focal lengths) Pentax smc m f135 f3.5 Chinon 135 f2.8 m42 Pentax SMC M 50mm f1.7 Pentax SMC K 28mm f3.5 Nikon AIS 50mm f1.4 Nikon Micro 105mm f4 Canon FD85mm F1.2L Sigma 30mm f2.8 E-mount# Carl Zeiss Sonnar 180mm f2.8 Sony DT 18-55 kit lens |
| price paid: | 150 |
| positive: | Nice solid metal feel. Sharpness after closing half a stop even in corners (APS) Great "standard to tele" action zoom on APS format Fairly quick Autofocus (Compared to most screw driven AF) |
| negative: | Light loss through all these lens elements with older coatings. At least 0.5 stop light loss compared to minolta APO 100-300 and other lenses. It is effectively a f4.5-f5.0 lens regarding light transmission. Minimum focus distance 1.5 metres (excluding the wide angle macro function) Flare at certain angles, but almost nil on APS format with a 72mm screw in aftermarket lens-hood for 4 euros. Weight, it is heavy. (But I actually like it for what I use it for around the house for making pictures of animals (horses, cats, dog). The weight helps to stabilise against minor movements! A bit of CA in very high contrast areas, but not too much to be worried about. I have various vintage primes that show more or similar levels of CA (Pentax smc 135mm f3,5, and the famous Carl zeiss sonnar 180 f2.8 and Canon FD 85mm f1.2L. the latter needs to stop down to f2.8 to avoid purple fringing in high contrast areas). Also, the max focal length of 135mm is exaggerated. (compared to 4 other 135 lenses). I suggest it is 130mm max. Same with 105mm position. I have to select more than 110 mm to equal the nikon 105 micro lens at infinity. |
| comment: | Note: I tried two different ones and both had the problem of back focus!! i did some more research and One guy tried 4 copies and the results were the same but the problem is that each may need a slight correction for focus (see artaphot.ch). On my LE-A4 adapter I have to micro-adjust the focus with -2 and on my Minolta apo 100-300 -3! the difference is clear. (softness disappears and micro-contrasts increases a lot when using open aperture). In order to find out if this is a problem with your copy try to manually focus in live view with zoomed in mode. (not peaking, because it is not accurate enough). If it is sharper than a picture taken using AF, a micro-af adjustment is needed. Not all cameras can do this though. Despite the negatives regarding it being a dark lens for the same f stop and being heavy, I still like it a lot simply because of the results. It also focuses quickly due to the rear element focus. I use it on the NEX7 with the LE-A4 adapter and the autofocus speed is a revelation compared to its' native contrast detecting AF. Continuous autofocus and tracking works very well if you select wide area AF (15 focus points spread fairly centrally). I also have the Minolta AP 100-300 and withing the overlapping range they are very close and almost the same in colour reproduction (The Apo does need to be stopped down at least half a stop, f6.3 is an enormous difference compared to wide open). Compared to the kit lens (dt 18-55) the lens is of similar sharpness in the centre and definitely sharper in the corners. I like the equivalent zoom range of 42mm-200mm for horse riding events. I use it mainly in aperture priority at f6.3 since this slight stopping down improves the corners quite a bit. |
| granada82#26570 date: Apr-28-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-125 mm 3.5-5.6 Tokina 24-200 mm 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 150 |
| positive: | good focal range in full format, super sharp, durable construction. |
| negative: | flare without Lens Hood. High focus distance. |
| comment: | It is difficult to note something that has not been said of this lens. I've used in various APSC Cameras full format, and it still seems great. I managed external Lens Hood 75 mm and placed over the lens, avoid reflections. The screw-type, all made in 28 mm produces vignetting. If the 1.5 meter approach is not a problem. It is a good option if the lens is 30 years old |
| KrzychuWu#26539 date: Mar-29-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-75/2.8 Sony 18-55/3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 180 usd |
| positive: | Great focal lenghts looks good macro mode |
| negative: | manual focus ring minimal focus distance |
| comment: | It's nothing special, I dunno where come all that buzz with this lens. It's sharp, but that's this weird oldschool digital sharpness that nowadays looks just meh. The AF system is fast but not acurate at all so it usually goes from one side to another, it's just not made for small corrections, that are very desirable when you use AF. And manual focusing in this lens is just a horror. The focus ring is small and it's placed in the beginning of the lens, near the mount - so using it is almost impossible cuz it's hard to balance your camera when you hold it this way. Also with full open aperture it's not sharp on the edges. I only love those focal lenghts which on full frame camera are very useful. It's even pretty dark for 4.5, yeah that lens was big disapointment. |
| WestCoastCannuck#16308 date: Jul-16-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF35-105 (older version) |
| price paid: | 150 CAN |
| positive: | Excellent range for a standard zoom. Very sharp across the range. |
| negative: | Flare. Slow focus. MFD too long. |
| comment: | Truly an amazing lens if you get a good copy. I have owned 2. The first was a dud and I wondered what all the fuss was about. Looked fine... but soft images. I took a chance and bought another that came up locally. (after testing first) I am so glad I bought it. It is a great lens. Its a beast - quite heavy, but sharp all across the range with great colours. Bokeh not bad. Highly recommended. (better to try first, or buy from a trusted source to ensure getting a good copy) For the record, I believe the issues are age related and not "sample variation". This is an extremely complicated lens - there is much to go wrong with it over time. (30 years!!) |
| QuietOC#16277 date: Jun-19-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 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 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 II Minolta AF 35-105 & New Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 Minolta MD 50-135 F3.5 |
| price paid: | 68 USD (used) |
| positive: | Repairability Smooth, long throw focus control Minimal CA stopped down Flat focus plane at the long end Low amount of focus breathing (negative) Decent wide semi-macro |
| negative: | Weight, Length, Diameter Axial CA/Soft center Long minimum focus distance which increases with focal length Focus shift with zoom Only F4 up to 40 mm Zoom action inconsistent Small/hard rear focus ring 72 mm filter size No provision for a hood |
| comment: | Far from being a secret this was the most expensive AF zoom lens when Minolta released them in 1985. The suggested retail price was $526. The dealer cost was $300 in quantity--six times the cost of the AF 50 1.7 and exactly twice the price of the 70-210 f/4. And it is still no secret, since it remains the most expensive original Minolta AF zoom on the used market today. It was the most modern of those zooms with fast internal focus. The first copy I purchased had some minor damage including a cracked focus scale window. I returned this lens for a refund. The second copy I purchased had a small piece of metal lodged in the zoom mechanism preventing it from zooming out fully. I was able to disassemble the lens and remove this obstruction. This copy looked excellent. I bought a third copy with a bad zoom mechanism that I repaired, and a fourth copy that had some junk inside the front lens elements that was easily cleaned. After picking up a LA-EA4, I purchased the fifth copy without caps. This one had a loose screw from one of the inner lens groups stuck in the mechanism. I repaired it after picking up the LA-EA5 and A7RIV. Testing outdoors yield some back focus tendency, but very good overall sharpness. The lens is also rather varifocal, but it has very little focus breathing especially compared to the other original AF zooms. The rendering is nice though the bokeh isn't terribly smooth. It has similar amounts of barrel distortion at the short end and pincushion distortion at the long end as the 28-105. It has less CA/purple fringing than the 28-105 when stopped down. Wide-open highlights become a bit purplish, otherwise the colors seem very accurate. The smaller 1990's Minolta AF 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 is easier to use and has better resistance to flare and glare. The 28-135 is awkward to use on a smaller bodies. It focuses quickly on the LA-EA5/A7RIV. It will also autofocus in macro area if the electronic switch is disabled. I bought a circular metal hood with a 95mm lens caps that fits nicely and doesn't vignette. Test chart comparison on an A65 with the 24-85, 28-105, Carl Zeiss 16-80 and Sony DT 18-135 SAM. |
| overeema#12147 date: Feb-23-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony Zeiss Vario Sonnar DT 16-80 F3.5-4.5 Sony G 70-300 SSM F4.5-5.6 Minolta AF 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 N Minolta AF 100mm F2 Tamron Di II 60 F2 Macro |
| price paid: | € 100 (used) |
| positive: | Excellent center sharpness at whole focal range at all apertures. Excellent bright Minolta colors. Only little barrel or cushion distortion given the focal range. Focusing speed on A350 is excellent. Sturdy. [Update 2021:] Despite absence of zoomlock only limited zoomcreep. |
| negative: | Macro switch disables auto-focus. No hood. Significant ghosting and flare. Bokeh dependent on focal length setting: not good at 28 mm, much better at 135 mm. No ADI function. Relatively heavy. |
| comment: | If MFD is not your issue this is a very nice lens with a good focal range for outdoor photography. Be aware not to point too much in direction of sun or bright lights. Build quality is excellent. Given the price paid I am very happy with this lens. Corner sharpness is good from F5.6 at 28-50mm and from F8 at 70-135mm. Center sharpness is excellent at all apertures and focal lengths. |
| Feudalac#12065 date: Dec-22-2014 | |
|---|---|
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 35-105 f3.5-4.5 Sigma 28-105 f2.8-4 Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 Minolta 50 f1.7 Beercan |
| price paid: | 100 € (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Color Range |
| negative: | Back focus on 28mm Minimum focus distance |
| comment: | Just got this lens and I am very pleased with fast AF and IQ in general. It is heavy and minimum focus distance is too big, but other than that, it is great lens! Worth all the money and doesn't matter that it is old almost as I am. Sharpness is great on all f values and only difference that can be noticed are corners when shoting wide. With f 4-6.3 corners are soft, but with f 7 or higher, softness dissapear. Since center is OK always, I don't mind. What is a little problem, and I don't know if it is general case or just a issue with my copy, is that on 28mm it suffers of back focus. I need to zoom in, focus, lock focus and zoom out, than shot. This way everything is perfect. But focusing when wide, always result with back focus. The same happens with my Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 and happens both on DSLR and SLT. |
| szezya#12025 date: Nov-7-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 300 $ USD |
| positive: | Очень удобные фокусные. Один из лучших тревел-объективов. Отличные цвета. На длинном конце - хороший портретник. Сборка великолепна. Есть МАКРО режим. |
| negative: | Невозможно использовать бленду на Полном кадре. Боится засветки. Полярик не эффективен. Тяжелый. |
| comment: | Кто не боится тяжелых объективов в путешествии - смело берите Старикана. Настоящее качество Минолта за приемлемые деньги.Лучшая резкость у этого объектива в районе F7 |
| Rusty#11595 date: Jan-8-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | MinO 24-50/4 MinO 35-70/4 MinO 50/1.7 and 50/2.8 Macro MinO 135/2.8 Sigma 24-70/2.8 |
| price paid: | 300 (used) |
| positive: | - Sharp, sharp sharp ! - Solid Build - Useful range |
| negative: | - Heavy - Large - Impractical MFD - No OEM hood - Prone to PF and flare - AF 'clacks' (especially when it hits the hard stops at the ends of the range) |
| comment: | Very nice lens to use, like other lenses from the original Maxum lineup from the mid-80's, the zoom action is very smooth, the lens is overall very well build and balances very well on a FF body, especially with a VG attached. Under the right conditions, IQ is simply fantastic. Unfortunately it is very prone to flare, and the fact that Minolta never supplied a hood for it isn't very impressive. The click-clacking sound of the AF is more of an annoyance than a true negative point, but it is still very noticeable. The uber-long MFD makes it an impractical lens to use as a walk-around, even with the macro mode switch option (which is only at 28mm and is still a PITA to use). Bottom line, a very nice lens, I am happy that I had the chance to own one for a little while, but the combination of downsides made be sell it, opting for a Sigma 24-70/2.8 to replace is as a walkaround zoom, which is about as big and heavy, but is much less prone to flare, and has a MFD that I don't have to work around every other shot. |
| dbrummag#11201 date: Jun-18-2013 | |
|---|---|
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 100-300mm APO Minolta 35-105mm |
| price paid: | 200USD |
| positive: | Amazing Color |
| negative: | Small Aperture Dark |
| comment: | I was surprised at how dark this lens is in use. I didn't really need this lens I have lots of Minolta glass in this range (35-70, 50mm, 35-105mm) but I just could't resist. The colors of this lens are the best I have seen. I did a comparison between this lens and my Minolta 100-300mm APO lens using the same settings, shooting stopped down to f/6.3, this lens gets the edge for sharpness and color but the image was darker than using the Minolta 100-300mm APO lens at the same aperture setting. Comparisons to the Minolta 35-105mm were also close, I would still give this lens a small advantage. When I bought my 35-105mm I paid $80 for it, copies in that condition are going for $150+ (Im talking about a year ago)... at that time this lens would have been $350+ and I am seeing great copies like the one I picked up go for around $250. I would say that sounds about right. If I was buying over again or looking to build a bag, I would go with the 35-105mm and then use the difference toward a 100-300mm APO. Then you have the range covered from 35mm-300mm with glass that is almost G quality in two smallish, light lens that are easy to carry around. |
| GeirJ#11171 date: Jun-1-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 28-75mm F2.8 Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Build quality Focal length range |
| negative: | Weight Focusing distance |
| comment: | I bought my lens on Ebay because I had read about its magical qualities. My lens was in very good condition with no excessive signs of wear. It may be that my lens was not a very good one, but it never impressed me much. It's not that it was unsharp, but it was not impressive in any way. I got a secondhand CZ 24-70mm and sold the Minolta at a loss. I have never really wanted to get another one. |
| Freddan_6#11170 date: Jun-1-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-135 3.5-5.6 SAM |
| price paid: | 130€ |
| positive: | Full frame, sharp stopped down |
| negative: | Long MFD, flare, CA, sharpness, weight, macro in the short end, busy bokeh. |
| comment: | I made a test at maximum open f-stop (same apreture) This lens is definitely less sharp in the center than Sony DT 18-135. @28 f:4 @35 f:4.5 @50 f:5 @70 f:5.6 @100 f:5.6 @135 f:5.6 This lens has less contrast, more CA, less sharp, more prone to flare, much worse MFD. Comparing to the other reviews I think I god a bad copy even though it looks good on inspection (no dirt inside, looks like it is only little used). Update: But if I stop down 2 stops to f:8 it really shines. Then it is on par with the DT 18-135. For FF it is not tack sharp even in the middle wide open. But the same sharpness applies all over the frame. If stopped down to F8 it sharpens up. Some CA can bee seen. For long reach for FF it has few competitors. The super zooms are not as sharp, no other sharp zoom has this reach. |
| Milan33m#11160 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 28-105 3.5-4.5, and RS version MAF 35-105 3,5-4,5, MAF 24-105 3,5-4,5 |
| price paid: | 140 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Very useful, almost fixed focal. Very good Macro function, almost SuperMacro. Walkaway daily lens |
| negative: | A bit heavy. No lens shade dedicated. Quite long minimum distance of focusing (Min.1,2-1,5m) |
| comment: | One of the best lenses I have. My everyday lens, almost everytime on body (A350, A77). Very useful, almost fixed focal. Good for using with external flashes. Very good Macro function, almost SuperMacro.I had 3 examples of it, and the ones I have is the best ones, so I keep it. Long range lens. A bit heavy, but worth of every picture. |
| Titticec#11040 date: Apr-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 120 |
| positive: | colori e nitidezza unici |
| negative: | pesante e poco controllo flare |
| comment: | veramente un obiettivo particolare,forse perchè ha delle affinità con leica!i nuovi zeiss sono più plastici,più leggeri, hanno una tridimensionalità maggiore e un più buono controllo del flare ma ora che ho provato quest'obiettivo non voglio più toglierlo dalla fotocamera!!è come avere un mattone attaccato davanti, ma i colori, la nitidezza e il fascino che ha ne fanno un oggetto speciale!!da provare assolutamente!! |
| TimarIuveo#10874 date: Jan-26-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm 1.7 Minolta 70-210mm 3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-70mm 4.0 Sigma 28mm 1.8 |
| price paid: | 285€ Mint |
| positive: | Versatile Range even on APSC Colors, Sharpness and Contrast Bokeh and F4-4.5 Good autofocus |
| negative: | MFD Nothing else. |
| comment: | Hard to find in good Condition. There is really no alternative to this lens which is why it's a very nice lens for travel and portraits. |
| halloj151#10858 date: Jan-17-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 35-105/3,5-4,5 Original 24-85/3,5-4,5 35-70/4 |
| price paid: | 150 Euro (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Colors Bokeh |
| negative: | Flare No lens shade Heavy!! A bit fragile with big, unprotected front element. |
| comment: | This has been my favorite lens since I bought it 5 or 6 years ago. Loved it on my 7D and love it even more on my a850! It has its limitations with flare and does not like to be directed straight into the sun and the MFD can be annoying but use it with awareness of its limitations and you will be greatly rewarded! Ill keep this lens as long as Im still with Sony. I have resently bought the 35-105 Original version and this gives very similar image quality. The range of the 28-135 is more useful though so for this reason the 28-135 will probably be my most used lens further on also. But as a travelling lens or on days when I want a little less weight to carry, the 35-105 might be used instead. When I want to be sure of quality though, the 28-135 will rule (together with my 85/1.4). |
rating summary
- total reviews: 203
- sharpness: 4.63
- color: 4.83
- build: 4.80
- distortion: 4.40
- flare control: 3.44
- overall: 4.42
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login