Minolta AF 28-70mm F2.8 G A-mount lens reviews
 Phil Wood#46923 date: Jan-19-2023 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | All other Minolta zooms covering 28-70. Sony CZ 24-70/2.8 Mk I |
| price paid: | 100 GBP |
| positive: | The best IQ from any zoom Minolta ever made covering this range Focus hold button f2.8 |
| negative: | MFD is too long Slow AF Weight |
| comment: | Some lenses are hopeless at AF, hunting and rarely finding; some, like the beercan, snap into focus; some get there so quick you barely register it; this one glides serenely into focus, it gets there, but it's not a lens for action photography. Once in focus the results are remarkably good, some softness in the corners at f2.8 but, all in all, as good as the Sony 24-70 - it really is very good. The minimum focus distance is a bit of a joke; sometimes I like to hold something in shot as a scale object - not with this lens, my arms just aren't long enough. Macro - forget it. As many note, it is not a light lens (though not as heavy as the Sony), carry it around all day and you'll notice this! |
; 61MP| keith_h#45784 date: Nov-7-2021 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-84, 28-135 |
| price paid: | usd $300 |
| positive: | Build, image quality and colour. Reeks of quality. |
| negative: | Lens hood is an ornament only. Otherwise none on A99. |
| comment: | Bought to be used exclusively for FF. Makes no sense on APS-C. Colour and image quality is what you might expect from a top shelf lens. It's a joy in use as well, nicely made and wonderfully tactile. Delivers sensational detail. Superb for low light photography. No issues with focus on the A99. |
| petesidewalk#44316 date: Jun-11-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 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 Sigma 18 F3.5 |
| price paid: | Traded NEX |
| positive: | Sharp Beautiful colors Build |
| negative: | Flare Shallow Hood |
| comment: | Gorgeous results. Much more sharp than the Tamron 27-75 2.8 at shorter lengths. The only thing that I don't like about the image quality is the very slightly smeared corners at 28mm shot wide open, particularly on the A900, not so much on my A99 and A99II. |
| Ultimo#44314 date: Jun-10-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | nothing special |
| price paid: | 300€ (used, fair) |
| positive: | I think it´s quiet sharp in general, softer corners, stop down to 5.6 for better results. |
| negative: | Build quality is not good enough for decades. The finish gets worn off sooner or later. "Schneideritis" possible. The focus rubber ring can blow up too much. Really big and heavy. |
| comment: | What makes me really astonished are the colors. Or whatever it is. The results are so beautiful. Something warm and clean, realistic at the same time. Of course the pictures have to be adjusted to enfold their potential. Vignetting is just a little. Can not say anything about distortion without a lens profile for my A7RII + LEEA4. I think it´s worth every cent and I´d love to buy a fine A+++ grade copy someday. |
| derekw#27610 date: Jun-15-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105 RS Minolta 24-85 Original Minolta 28-135 Minolta 35-105 |
| price paid: | 400 GBP used (2012) |
| positive: | Nice IQ Colours Awesome build |
| negative: | Soft at larger apertures Flare Expensive for what it delivers |
| comment: | Good, but expensive. Even amongst the older Minolta lenses there are better options |
| pipesmoker#27604 date: Jun-12-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MINOLTA 28-135 MINOLTA 24-85 3.5-4.5 RS TOKINA 28-70 AT-X Pro 2.6-2.8 |
| price paid: | 260,-€ mint |
| positive: | sharp wide open amazing over all IQ well balanced on A900 good size and weight for a lens of this class |
| negative: | flare, flare, flare |
| comment: | Back in the early 90th I had the chance to borrow this lens for some days and I fall in love to it the first time but as a student on university at these days it was simply out of range for me. Later on I got the Minolta 28- 135 and the Tokina AT-X Pro 28-70 2.6-2.8 and was quite happy with but never really forgot about the „G“. As usually it pays off to be patient. For some years I was looking to get a good copy for a reasonable price, so I couldn't resist when I had the chance to get a mint one for a bargain. I was putting some intention on to compare the 28-70 2.8 G to the lenses listed above. Comparing at least my copies for the sharpness, for ergonomics and for over- all IQ, the Minolta 28-70 2.8 G is clearly the winner. By my experience with this lens I think most of the complains from other people about sharpness are mostly coming rather from flare ore wrong focus. In fact, the lens is not a easy one to handle at all. I never had an other one that is so prone to flare. On the other hand, putting up some intention to avoid flare, this lens can produce incredible pictures. It loves flash and studio light. For me it is an amazing lens but it is challenging my skills every time. |
| photoBear#13227 date: Apr-13-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | cz16-80, minolta 28-80, tamron 70-200 2.8 |
| price paid: | $650 au |
| positive: | Built as well as any lens I've ever held, sharpness, colours, easy to manual focus, well weighted and relatively smooth focus & zoom ring, constant 2.8, smooth bokeh. The 28-70 2.8 G 'look' |
| negative: | flare & ghosting, mimimum focus distance, slow focus, sharpness at 70mm & 2.8. |
| comment: | I bought this lens to go with an a900 & I've absolutely fallen in love with it. I'm sure that something like the cz24-70 2.8 or even the new Tamron 24-70 2.8 would be sharper & focus much faster there is just something intangibly nice about the images I get out of the 'G' There are flaws such as flare control, and it's a bit soft at 2.8 and the focusing is slow, very slow. But there is something intangible about it that I just like the results I get. |
| Kaishi#12030 date: Nov-10-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | (APS-C) Sony SEL1650PZ 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS power zoom (E-mount) (APS-C) Sony SAL1870 DT 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 (2000s kit lens) (FF) Minolta AF 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 (1980s standard zoom) (FF) Minolta AF 28-135mm f/4-4.5 (secret handshake) (FF) Minolta AF 50mm f/1.4 |
| price paid: | 450 USD (BGN) |
| positive: | -Sharp, even at f/2.8, even better at f/4 or f/5.6 -Fast aperture, and very similar exposures at all focal lengths. -Accepts a lens hood (instantly better than secret handshake). -Minimal distortion for an older zoom lens. -Very little chromatic aberration. -Fantastic for portraits, even in low light. Usable indoors! -Aesthetically matches the A900 (IMO) |
| negative: | -Heavy, huge, a bit of a burden to carry. -Useless range on APS-C, don't bother trying it. -Focus is slow by modern standards. -Lens hood is stubby and won't help too much. -HORRIBLE minimum focus distance, 1:11 Macro (but this is a design limitation, and you should know it before you buy). -Sans "D" function, so ADI flash isn't going to work. |
| comment: | I bought this to replace my secret handshake when shooting indoors. It is incredible and I instantly fell in love with it. Hands down my favorite lens for candid portraits. If only a hybrid of this lens and the secret handshake existed. I find myself wanting a little more reach, a little faster focus, but without giving up any aperture. |
| knwg#12010 date: Oct-26-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50ZA 1.4 24-70CZ 85G 1.4 |
| price paid: | 500USD |
| positive: | Minolta Color Good bokeh Internal zoom |
| negative: | Hood is useless MFD could be better |
| comment: | the lens is sharp wide open from 28-45mm. low contrast from 50-70mm, but the detail is good. when comparing this lens to 2470CZ, the zeiss is clearly a winner overall, but i love the color and bokeh from 2870G. Great lens for it's age |
| peter3400#11800 date: May-1-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-70 2.8 ZA 24-70 2.8 EX DG HSM |
| price paid: | 500 CHF |
| positive: | Great colors with outstanding bokeh |
| negative: | nothing much knowing that it is at least 15 years older to the compared lenses |
| comment: | A legendary lens ... newer glasses outperform it in speed, sharpness and contrast. Nevertheless, this one will remain a G(iant) through time |
| Ovas#11724 date: Mar-14-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MINOLTA AF 28-85mm f3.5-4.5 I find them equal in sharpness, but contrast is better on 28-70 lens. |
| price paid: | used $ 600 |
| positive: | The MINOLTA colors and contrast shines with this lens. Gives very good picktures at all apertures. Nice bookee. Quick autofocus - never hunts. |
| negative: | Heavy! Best with the sun from behind. (sharper when stopped down to f4) |
| comment: | I don't use this on APS-C cameras. IT is very heavy to log around, though it is made as a tank for proffessionals and it will last for centuries...... |
| 9000AF#11532 date: Dec-8-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Minolta 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 AT-X |
| price paid: | USD450 used |
| positive: | + looks pretty, same texture as the A99 + already sharp at f/2.8, getting better from there + internal zoom and focus + colors and contrast are great + smooth bokeh + focus-hold button + 72mm filter thread like many Minolta/Sony lenses |
| negative: | - standard hood is worthless, I recommend a knock-off Canon EW78-BII (from their 28-135mm) - AF is slow but pretty reliable, no real problem with the A99 - MFD could be shorter |
| comment: | This is a solid lens with a personality of its own. Build / handling: Feels very balanced and comfortable on the larger bodies. I like the fact that it does not extend when zooming. Built to last and very attractive design. AF is OK with the newer bodies, flare resistance is not bad in my example, no issue with a deep petal hood (see above). IQ: Solid portrait and event lens, f/2.8 is usable across the range with my example when you nail the focus, f/3.2-3.5 is a bit more robust. This lens has a certain quality that is hard to explain, I like the portraits I'm getting from it. Great fast standard zoom lens for FF. |
| bennygsr#11468 date: Nov-11-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-105, 28-13 |
| price paid: | Aus$800. 5 years ago |
| positive: | Built like a tank, and internal zoom. APerture, Minolta colours are wonderful |
| negative: | Min focus distance as everybody says- sharpness at 70mm not ideal (at wide open) but good between 28-50. The painting of numbers to indicate focal length has worn awawy (minor gripe!) |
| comment: | It's a lovely lens and the build and quality are great. Sharpness however at 70mm at 2.8-3.5 is not perfect. |
| milan33#11446 date: Nov-7-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 28-135 4.0-4.5, MAF 28-75 2.8, SAL 18-55, |
| price paid: | 500 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Very good color rendition, quite sharp from f.28, very sharp on f.5.6 and further, wonderful image creation also with remarkable 3D effects, well build, create very good pictures quality, G lens quality, flare in mine is not a problem. Goods for portraits and flash use. Mine example is not noisy working. Good working on A77 and A350. |
| negative: | A bit heavy, strange and useless original lens hood, no Macro. Very rarely and difficult to find on Ebay, expensive. None more. |
| comment: | Great lens, the best lens I have, and first G in my bag. Every photographer wish, if it could be found, don't think too long, take and try. |
| andrairawan#11343 date: Sep-16-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minol 24-105 Minol 50 1.7 Beercan Cz 24-70 |
| price paid: | 600 USD |
| positive: | Minolta G magic,color redention is very smooth, sharpness ok, 3d effect better than cz |
| negative: | Flare is horrible, but when I used 16-50 hood, flare is under control Noisy & slow AF |
| comment: | Legendary lens from minolta, nice to have |
| alphaein#11291 date: Aug-4-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 1650 D 2.8 2470 2.8 Zeiss 2870 D 2.8 Minolta |
| price paid: | 600 (Mint) |
| positive: | Magical images, Sweet Bokeh, built like a tank, internal zoom, classic minolta design, Constant Appeture across zoom |
| negative: | Worst Flare in a lens ever! MFD is horrid! at 85cm! no SSM, loud focus |
| comment: | I bought this lens reading and hearing of its ledgendary status, had always wanted a 24-70 or 28-70 range for FF, and its been a juggle deciding between the Zeiss and the G lens. The Zeiss 2470 is sharp n contrasty but the distortion on 24mm and the bokeh was rather un-artistic. and its colour render were a bit sterile and cold to my eyes. its awesome MFD and T* coating beats the G any day. however does not have the G magic! Enter the 2870G, the more i use it the more I can see how it is a very Artistic lens. Bokeh screams beauty. I have two copies of the 2870G, since its 2nd hand and 20 yr old (made in 1993), d optics on both have some haze, I suspect it is causing the flare to get worst. but on favourable lighitng, it is as good as gold. A really good lens if u don't need speed, and have the time to really get artistic with focus and bokeh, take the time to compose before shooting. for wedding photographers, I would recomand the Zeiss if u want run and gun, but if u shoot pre weddings and have the time to direct and compose, this may be the better choice! and u can use Flare to your full artistic advantage! Its super bad MFD means u can't shoot subjects close up (for me a good close up for this sort of lens is 50cm or less), if you love to shoot things close, forget this lens, but if you can deal with it, for me, I force myself to include an interesting foreground object mid ground and background, u will be rewarded with beautifully creamy foreground, sharp midground and silky smooth background. work around its weakness, this lens forces you to think on your feet! Did lots of experiment on the Flare to understand its flare characteristics, what most ppl say is true, the provided lens Hood is an absolute joke, was planing to buy a 3rd party hood like from canon or nikons 2870 petal hood. both seems like good options but need serious modifications to the attachment, I happen to have the 1650 2.8 lens hood (ACL-SH117), and it did not fit at first, but with a bit of fiddling, it fit perfectly. no modifications need! and it looks professional and beautiful. tested out that hood, and it does do a fairly decent job. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/topic40247_post1199589.html#1199589 If you are buing a copy of this lens, PLS make sure u check the optics! most likely it has haze and u will have to return it to seller or fix it. it has 16 elements in 11 groups, if the haze happen to be in the group it may be impossible to fix it. I notice its most prone to hazing on the first few frontal elements, so use a torch light to check before buying. This is a great minolta hallmark lens if you can find a mint copy. I had the 28-70D 2.8 minolta for 1.5 years before selling it, it was horrid at 2.8, vs the G, G is way better, and considered mildly sharp in good lighing. both lens are sharp at f4, but the G out class it by miles for Image Quality, on colours, and bokeh and rendering. the only good thing about the 2870D is its weight and faster focus, but if you are serious about photography and paid for your work, the 2870G will inspire confidence in your hands and your clients and most assuardly offer better results. you get what you pay for. for the price its not 4 times better, but it sure is priceless when you get that perfect shot. |
| JakobProgsch#11227 date: Jun-30-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 70-200 G SSM Minolta 17-35/3.5 G Minolta 24/2.8 Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 50/2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Solid build very consistent image quality stopped down |
| negative: | slightly disappointing wide open prone to flaring ridiculous hood |
| comment: | No doubt a good lens. But of all the Gs and other higher end Minolta lenses I own and used, this is the one that impressed me the least. At max aperture it is not on par with the other G zooms or primes. Stopped down to f/4 it is a very nice performer but it isn't really exceptional either in my eyes. I often find myself taking only the 50mm macro to fill the gap between the 17-35 and whatever tele lens I'm taking instead of the bulky 28-70. |
| sirinacs#10542 date: Sep-25-2012 | |
|---|---|
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 28-75 f2.8 D Minolta 35 f2 Minolta 85 f1.4 G Minolta 100 f2.8 macro CZ 135 f1.8 |
| price paid: | 450 € (mint) |
| positive: | G color and bokeh G solidity |
| negative: | See comments |
| comment: | This only lens exemplifies the so-called "G magic". OK, it flares, it isn't tack sharp wide open, it has a narrow zoom range and a cumbersome MFD and a derisive hood... But, as soon as you are all set to overlook its oddities, it shines like no other in this range! |
| sarapata1#9745 date: Jan-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
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: | Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 Sony 50mm F1.4 Minolta 100mm F2.8 Macro Minolta 100mm F2.0 Sony 35mm F1.4 |
| price paid: | 450 EUR used |
| positive: | excellent colours beautiful bokeh strongly built sharp |
| negative: | MFD - could be restrictive in some situations flare resistance |
| comment: | I love this lens. The pictures captured via this glass show off by themselves - outstanding colours and bokeh. Sharpnesswise - both Minoltas 100mm I own are sharper, but the difference is not huge and those are primes. Flare - this is probably the only real downside. Be prepared to use a 3rd party hood, not the original one (which is just not enough at all). Try not to include the sun in your pics otherwise you loose a lot of contrast and probably get ugly blobs. In general, when used properly, it delivers what you expect of the lens of this class. Recommended. |
| godsakes#9744 date: Jan-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 500 euro |
| positive: | Colour Bokeh Build |
| negative: | Not sharp wide open Long mfd Slow af Heavy |
| comment: | Let me stress I think a got a bad sample of this lens, but none the less here's my take. My copy was never sharp wide open and needed stopping down to f4.5-5.6 to get reasonable sharpness. The MFD is restrictively long making in door use awkward, the auto focus speed is also quite slow. Nice bokeh and colours cannot make up for all this lens' shortcoming all in all a huge disappointment. IMHO give this lens a miss get the tamron 28-75mm, half the price, sharp wide open, faster AF and a far more usable MFD. |
| lifephoto.it#9743 date: Jan-2-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 600 € (used/as mint) |
| positive: | Color and 3D sensations |
| negative: | Slow AF and only 70 cn for min AF distance. A little much longer distance on 28mm focal |
| comment: | I don't know how the equivalent Zeiss works, but I'm a old fan of Minolta brand.. so this is one of the best lenses made by my loved brand and it works excellently with my Minolta 9 Film Camera too. |
| leohendriks#9534 date: Oct-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Mi 24-85 / 3.5-4.5 RS KM 28-75 / 2.8 Tamron 24-135 / |
| price paid: | 475 euro (used) |
| positive: | - sharpness - colour - microcontrast. |
| negative: | - focus speed. - the hood - mfd |
| comment: | After reading all the positive reviews I decided to go for it myself. I found a pretty cheap copy. First I took the time to properly do micro adjust on my 850. (see other reviewers). Then I did a comparison with the lenses mentioned (that I had in my possesion). When shooting raw the G is the winner when it comes to sharpness (image wide any length). Microcontrast of this lens is oustanding and compensates for any loss of sharpness (if there is any). Colour is very pleasing. I can not but agree with others that the images have something 3-dimensional (I find the statement somewhat silly but nevertheless). Colour is good. Less yellow then my KM 28-75. I would say on par with my 24-85RS and Tamron 24-135. Shooting in whatever light gives nice colours. Mind you: faulty whitebalance can mess up (as with any lens). So the magical Minolta colour is not my cup of tea: postprocessing can do a lot IMHO. Artaphot mentions and shows some softness. Possibly related with highlight shots? I find my copy sharper then any 'compared to' lenses. That is a big plus for me. The hood is a laugh. I had a hood from my 'deceased' Sigma 17-70 that, with some minor filing, fits (YES!) and does a more then decent job (GREAT!). When shooting jpg's from the camera (A850 latest SW version) the above mentioned sharpness differences are negligible, hardly visible (except in some very low contrast areas). Weight is not an issue for me. KM28-75 and Tamron 24-135 are lighter but not by much. Camera plus lens is some 300 grs heavier with the G (~1,6 kg against ~1,3 kg). MFD requires attention. All in all I am very happy with this lens. |
| JamesAlpha850#9426 date: Sep-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta Maxxum AF 35-105mm (old) |
| price paid: | $800.00 |
| positive: | Booming great color and bokeh Great sharpness across the image wide open Reasonably fast focus with FF firmware upgrade |
| negative: | None. (Well, I wish it were lighter to tote around.) |
| comment: | This is the one I'll turn to for most of my walk-around photography now. I have been spoiled by the 35-105 for its color, sharpness and lighter weight. I can see the AF28-70 moving closer into position to rival my old classic zoom. This is the first of two G lenses for me. The focus micro-adjusts on the A850 extremely well. Several test shots taken at the Farmer's Street Market last weekend blew me away when I pulled them into Lightroom 3. The OOF is magical. Overall, a superior optic, made with prime materials and a precision difficult to find in the current production lens market. |
| ponz#8887 date: Apr-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $800 Used/Mint |
| positive: | Everything: Internal zoom, solid build, color, contrast and bokeh! |
| negative: | Nothing on the a900 |
| comment: | I had sometimes toyed with the idea of selling this lens simply because it wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer (on my a700s), but the beautiful colors, contrast and bokeh forced me to keep it and I'm sure glad I did. Now that I have the a900 and have fine-tuned the lens with the camera's "Micro Adjust" feature, I find it to be just as sharp as ANY lens out there!! It now features the best of all worlds! So - long story short = 5s across the board! I'll never sell this lens unless I need the cash for surgery or some other life changing event! Ponz |
| anakein#8773 date: Mar-10-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | CZ 24-70 Sony 70-200 SSM G |
| price paid: | 500€ |
| positive: | all |
| negative: | what? |
| comment: | my comment is only over a900 tested. Why? it is complex in mechanical design, It's hard to get a mint sharp copy but in A900 is not problem by micro adjust setup. razor Sharp, Bokeh is in other galaxy, the best 3D, CZ 24-70 is very far. My Best G lens and I have 5 G lens, but remember, only for A900 camera because you need micro adjust for razor sharp sure. |
| fabiox6#8619 date: Feb-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50 1,7 50 1,4 |
| price paid: | 300€ (from a friend) |
| positive: | Color and sharpness |
| negative: | A bit heavy, Autofocus slow Prone to flare |
| comment: | With new A850 software it focus better. In my opinion with FF it is one of the best lens available, no need to buy CZ 24-70, the only real drawback is the weight ( When I need to be light I use 50 1,4 ) |
| superx2won#8221 date: Nov-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50/2.8 Tamron 28-70/2.8 Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 Minolta 35-70/3.4-4.5 Minolta 85G |
| price paid: | 350 (broken ring) |
| positive: | Excellent Build Big size and stable AF is reasonable speed |
| negative: | Weight |
| comment: | I got this lens today, and i am very exited to test this lens. My second G lens. When i hold the lens, i was so surprise that the lens is so big compare to mini beercan and Minolta 35-105. The weight is so significant different to those 2. My hand suffer after 30min of shooting. haha. The lens was surprisingly AF fast in A700. It zoom ring is very smooth. When shooting on the A700, it give the stable balance feel. I would say superb mechanical engineering on the lens. The build material for the lens is different to other minolta lens. it material used is really solid. Well engineered lens. |
| cruiser#7839 date: Aug-21-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-70 f2.8 EG DG |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | +excellent build +internal focus +sharp 28-50 |
| negative: | -sharpness @70mm |
| comment: | The lens is a bit heavy but it produces excellent results. Compared to the Sigma it is sharper at f2.8 from 28 to 50mm. At 70mm you should stop down to f4. The Sigma delivers sharper results above f5.6. Minolta colors are more neutral and the Minolta bokeh is better. Build is exceptional good - a true G lens. |
| ponz#7815 date: Aug-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100/2.8, beercan, Zeiss 16-80 |
| price paid: | 850 (like new) |
| positive: | everything |
| negative: | Crappy stock hood |
| comment: | I’ve had this lens for about a month now. I hadn’t really put it to a good test until just yesterday. You see, I contemplated selling it due to financial reasons; but when I saw what this lens is capable of, I quickly ended the sale. I’ve always been one to determine a lens’ quality by how ‘sharp’ it is. That has always been my benchmark. That is, until now. Wide open this lens is not as sharp as I had hoped for, but certainly sharp enough. Sure, shoot the text on a magazine page at 2.8 and you’ll certainly notice a difference between this and, let’s say, the Minolta 100mm 2.8 or even the beercan. My personal test has always been shooting my African Grey parrot. I like to, distinctly, see each individual strand of a feather under 100% magnification. But has that been practical? This lens says no. Now, let’s get real here. Shoot a typical subject whether it is animate or inanimate, under normal conditions and this lens will shine. The colors are extraordinary and the bokeh is the cream of the crop. This lens makes me wish I was an artist, a painter. Glare/flare has not been an issue since I located a good aftermarket hood. There is no CA or distortion. It zooms and focuses internally. It’s not overly long and built like a tank. If you can find a gently loved one for under a grand, go for it. |
| Epic Win#6800 date: Jan-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-70mm f/2.8 CZ |
| price paid: | 450 USD (new) |
| positive: | Smooth OOF details, sharp in focus subjects. Great....grrrrreat colors! |
| negative: | Large MFD |
| comment: | I think its finally time for me to say a few words about this fine 0.85 kg of optical engineering. If you look at all the reviews for this lens you will find that so far it has consistently rated a "5/5" for color. Even the beloved 200/2.8 G doesn't score this high on color. All I can say is, this lens deserves it. Colors are magical, and coupled with the KM 7D it is a painter's....I don't know....weapon? It is sharp, though not razor sharp like the 24-70mm CZ. I still consider it a 5/5 because the overall "feel" of images from this lens is very sharp. The large MFD used to bother me but you can work around it composition wise. Build, distortion, flare etc. are all 5 because I have yet to find a flaw in any respect. Every now and then someone will bring up its ill fated descendant: 28-70mm f/2.8 SSM G (D) which wasn't internal zoom like this one. That might be just the only other negative aspect of owning one! edit 2012/06/10: the out of focus areas ("bokeh") of this lens can be best described by the word "creamy". A side effect of the size and weight of this lens is that images at low shutter speeds can turn out soft. In comparison to my 18-70 kit lens, I think this is a disadvantage because getting accurate focus, aperture, and shutter speed at once can take a while and you may lose the shot too easily. I am learning to use this lens manually these days and its a rewarding experience because I think this lens was designed to be used that way. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 70
- sharpness: 4.66
- color: 5.00
- build: 4.96
- distortion: 4.89
- flare control: 4.24
- overall: 4.75
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login