Minolta AF 28-75mm F2.8 D A-mount lens reviews
 FoxiaFox#47057 date: Dec-27-2024 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 28-75mm f2.8 Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | $70 MINT |
| positive: | cheap. |
| negative: | everything else. -sharpness is absolutely unacceptable, even stopped down to 5.6 -build quality is questionable |
| comment: | This has to be by far the worst 28-70 zoom range lens I've ever tested. Everything about it is bad, especially the sharpness. For some context, even my Sigma 28-70 f2.8 ZEN is sharper. As of late 2024, the price of this lens is around $70. If you are on a tight budget but desperately want this focal range, I would highly suggest the Tamron version. For not much money, the Sony version would also do. |
; 14MP| Ebbelboiz#44441 date: Dec-14-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony SAL 28-75 f2.8 Tamron 24-70 f2.8 |
| price paid: | €130 (used) |
| positive: | - can't think of anything |
| negative: | - incredibly soft at f2.8 - built quality pretty cheap |
| comment: | I was looking for an f2.8 standard zoom lens and tried several different (affortable) used lenses for comparison. This one was probably the biggest disappointment: It didn't get any decent looking shots until stopped down to f5.6. Of course pictures are often softer at the wider aperture end of a lens but these were just incredibly milky. Why would I want to buy an f2.8 lens at all, if the results aren't usable until it's stopped down down so far that it basically doesn't give you any of the perks of an f2.8 lens anymore? That being said, the colors were quite nice, the distortion and flare control were fine. But that's only a crumb of comfort if most of the pictures aren't usable at all. |
| lassethomasson#44047 date: Apr-23-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85 Minolta 35-105 Minolta 25-135 |
| price paid: | $120 |
| positive: | Size and weight Manageable light fall-off Auto focus |
| negative: | Overall sharpness Border and corner sharpness Build and feel |
| comment: | Actually a bit disappointed even though I didn't had high expectations. It never gets really sharp anywhere in the frame on my A99II. Not on any aperture. Center is passable but far borders and corners never gets good or even fair. I know this was a low-end zoom when it was released and time has been tough. It's nowhere near to resolve on the 42mp sensor. Nice to try but I will sell it |
| CKL#20415 date: Nov-6-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Sony A7 28-75 Kitlens |
| price paid: | part of KM 7d kit |
| positive: | - With ASP-C is sharp at all apertures |
| negative: | - Full frame, little bit soft at the edges |
| comment: | The center of the images are sharp at all apertures. With ASP-C it's sharp wide open, with full frame the edges are little bit softer. At f5.6 it's sharp across the whole frame. No micro adjust is needed. However the Sony A7 kitlens is sharper, the edges don't have the softness problem. Edit: Micro adjustment helped a lot with full frame on A7 (+5). It's now very sharp at all apertures, equal (and maybe better) to the A7 kitlens. My desire to buy a Zeiss 2.8 zoomlens is not so big anymore. Edit2: This lens is difficult to micro focus adjust.. Different focus length, different optimal setting. At the end I just set it at +0, this gives best center sharpness at all focus lengths, the corners are soft at 2.8. |
| Collingsandheal#20380 date: Oct-18-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF20. Sigma super wide 2. Minolta AF28f2. Minolta AF35f2. Zeiss FE2,8/35. Minolta AF50. Sigma 50mm f1:4. Zeiss FE1,8/55. Sony 2.8/85 SAM. Minolta AF135. |
| price paid: | £220.00 |
| positive: | Good value al round performance |
| negative: | Bettered by more modern lenses. |
| comment: | A great way of getting professional results on a budget. |
| bharnois#17337 date: Aug-17-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24-105, Sig 24 UW II, Min 35-105 3.5-4.5, Min 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | 220(US) Slightly Use |
| positive: | Good walkabout lens on FF Good color Not too heavy Constant aperture |
| negative: | Some distortion and corner softness but nothing bad or obvious |
| comment: | My new favorite walk around lens on the A900. It used to be the 24-105. |
| Freddan_6#10766 date: Dec-9-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-55, Minolta 35-70 F4, Minolta 35-80 4.5-5.6, Minolta 28-80 4-5.6, Minolta 24 2.8, Minolta 50 1.4, Sony AF DT 35 1.8, Minolta AF 28-85/3.5-4.5, Minolta AF 28-135/4-4.5, Minolta AF 24-85/3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 1575 SEK |
| positive: | Sharp, colors, OK flare control, short MFD |
| negative: | Range for APS-C sensor. On FF it is much better. Needs stop down to f:5.6 for corner sharpness on FF. |
| comment: | Great sharpness, only beaten by (orignal) 35-105 or the primes. Great colors. Bokeh a little stirry, if you do not think about compsition. Fast autofocus on my cameras (SLT-A35/A77/A99), a bit loud though. I have come to like this lens more and more. It is my primary walk-around lens with the 24/2.8 in my pocket for the wider angel. If I go for birding I bring this lens for close pictures and the Big Beercan for longer reach. Sharpness for APS-C is 5, for FF is 4.5 due to corners are not fully sharp at 2.8 Great short MFD, much better than the original 1985 Minolta lenses. Price 1575 SEK = 183 € = 236$ |
| Guy#10255 date: May-31-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-70/2.8 EX ASPH |
| price paid: | 201 EUR |
| positive: | + Sharp from F/2.8 in the center + relatively small for the focal length and aperture + fast AF |
| negative: | - the build could be better |
| comment: | This is a much better lens than I have expected. Centre sharpness is there from F/2.8 all across the range and the edges follow up quickly. My copy seems a bit de-centered, as the extreme left (last 200px on 24Mpix FF) is not sharp even at F/11 (the right is completely sharp at ~F/5.6). I use this lens as my bread and butter on the A850 when I do event coverage. Compared to the Sigma that I had before, this lens is at least on par with IQ, the AF is faster and quieter, the reach is better, and the colours are correct (the sigma has a cast). It's also lighter and takes smaller filters. Never used it much on APS-C due to the rather awkward FL, but it's IQ there is practically impeccable. |
| hp5#9663 date: Dec-4-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 24-70 Sony 35 1.4 |
| price paid: | 300 used |
| positive: | fast focus light weight size |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | I sold the CZ 24-70: to big, to heavy, to soft in the corners. Now, i'm happy with the Minolta Lens! |
| derekw#9651 date: Dec-1-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105 original Sigma 28 f1.8 Sony 35 f1.8 Minolta 50 f1.7 Sony 85 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 200 GBP (used) |
| positive: | Sharp wide open Great Minolta colours Solid Build No zoom creep |
| negative: | 67 mm filters |
| comment: | Usably sharp wide open, and improves with stopping down to become extremely sharp by f5.6 Beyond f5 compares very well with all the primes so if you dont need the larger apertures an excellent substitute for 3 primes. As good as the 35-105 above f5.6 |
| jungen#9217 date: Jul-8-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | ~250 EUR (used) |
| positive: | +Sharp (although 2.8 is not perfect) +Reliable AF |
| negative: | -Just not wide enough on croped cameras -Extends when positioned down (no zoom lock) |
| comment: | I tried for some 5 years to convince myself that 28 mm is wide enough for me :), but gave it up and trade it for Sigma 17-70. Although 75mm at tele is useful for portraits. |
| MKoziara#9189 date: Jun-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 24-70 Sony 28-75 SAM Distortion |
| price paid: | 333 USD (used) |
| positive: | f/2.8 Colours Range on FF MFD |
| negative: | Distortion |
| comment: | My favourite walkabout lens. On APS-C it may be too narrow, but on FF it's quite OK. Very good colours, f/2.8 and quite sharp wide open. getting very sharp stopped down. And a very important thing for me - great MFD. I'm not a macro fan, but a pseudo-macro - yes, of course! ;-) On the negative side - the distortion is visible, but not too annoying. I used a Zeiss 24-70 lens and sold it - too heavy, too expensive. I used a Sony SAM version of this lens and sold it - didn't like the SAM in it. And the KM is with me since my first DSLR (A100) 5 yeras ago... |
| leohendriks#9021 date: May-13-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Mi 24-85RS Mi 24-85 Mi 24-105 D So 16-80 on A700. Sigma 17-70 on A700 |
| price paid: | 250 euro (used) |
| positive: | - sharpness. - color. - weight. - build. - 2.8 |
| negative: | - range limited. |
| comment: | Very decent lens. Is on my A850 most of the time. Sharpness is good although corners need some stopping down. I would prefer it to be somewhat wider and more range on the long side as with the 16-80 or Sigma 17-70 on A700. Compared to Mi 24-85/105 it is sharper wide open and has less vignetting. In fact nothing to complain about. If I would loose it I would buy it again. Colour is a bit yellowish. Additional on sharpness: @28 the KM is worse then the Mi24-85 at wide angle (my copy). I hestitate in buying again as I am more of a landscape photographer and look for wide angle performance. But then I bought it again.;-). I sold my A850 and switched to A7II. I used the lens with the LA-EA4 in the beginning. Remarks for A7II are similar to remarks for A850. So it is on sale now. |
| niji#8942 date: Apr-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 2.8/24-70Z |
| price paid: | 360 AUD (new) |
| positive: | Compact for f2.8 Good focus speed Excellent value |
| negative: | Fine wide open on film, need to stop down on FFd. |
| comment: | I've been using this lens for a few years on film, but have only just started to test it more thouroughly with FFd. Sharpness in the centre was always great on film, but on FFd a little soft wide open. Starts to tighten up around f5 onwards. Soft across the rest of the frame with some CA, fine by the time you hit f8. Colour tends a bit towards the red/orange compared to the rest of my Minolta lenses. I was all set to buy the CZ24-70 until I did a quick test with both of them wide open. The CZ has faster focus, to my eye a more pleasant/netral colour, but centre sharpness was similar, though the CZ was better off centre in regards to both sharpness and CA. I just felt for the money there should have been an eye popping difference between them. The CZ could acquit itself as a reliable 'go to' lens, something I've never quite trusted my KM to be. 2012 Update: I did end up with the 2.8/24-70Z in the end and it has turned out to be the default dependable optic. |
| woodmen#8255 date: Nov-15-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135mm KM 17-35mm |
| price paid: | 300 CAN (used) |
| positive: | Lightweight Sharp even wide open No CA Flare resistant Value for money |
| negative: | Range on aps-c I have to tweak the color a little bit in PP |
| comment: | Great little lens! It's light, fast and focus accuratly and sharp even wide open. I've tried the zeiss once and, the only difference is a little bit more micro contrast on the zeiss and the color are better (in my opinon) For everything else, this lens is as good as the zeiss for a fraction of the price. Can't wait to try it on full frame DSLR. Last week, I bought a Minolta 7000 so, next time I have the opportunity, I'll see how it perform on film. Compared with my good old 28-135mm, it's a little sharper but, the 28-135 has something more. I can't put my finger on it but it's there. Ultimatly, I think I will keep this lens and sell the 28-135mm. Yes, it's that good! Highly recommended if you are lucky enough to find a good copy. |
| kozmo#7945 date: Sep-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 160 usd |
| positive: | Budget 2.8 Color Reliable results |
| negative: | Build creep |
| comment: | I picked this up with a like new a100 for $414 and sold the camera for about $250 to a friend. So for my investment it was well worth it. I used it at a wedding with very nice results. The results from this lens are reliable and I have never been disapointed. That being said the results have never been a real wow either. For a mid range zoom with 2.8 you could spend more and not get a great deal more I think. If you are in the market for a 2.8 zoom and want a good value that you will not be dissapointed in this may be your lens. Does a lot well but nothing great! |
| Lampo#7595 date: Jun-21-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 28-135 4-4.5 |
| price paid: | 230 EUR (Used) |
| positive: | - Great aperture - Good sharpness - Amazing min. focus distance |
| negative: | - Not so good flare control |
| comment: | It's a very good zoom lens, really useful in every condition. |
| Skarpen#7471 date: May-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-70 Zeiss 28-70 G 28-135 24-135 Tamron SP 35 G |
| price paid: | 100 euro NIB |
| positive: | - Sharp - Light - Fast AF |
| negative: | - Build - Barrel extending when zooming |
| comment: | I have previously discarded and sold this lens because of the plastic-like build, even though the results were always good. Rearranging my lineup after going full frame, I swept through this lens, then 28-70G, 24-70CZ. A few weeks ago, I came over a left-over new in box sample in a camera store. 800 Norwegian crowns (100 euros) is a bargain for sure! This lens has great optics. Acceptably sharp at f2.8 (at least my sample). The minimum focal distance is way better than the 28-70G. Corner performance is not worse than 24-70CZ - and better than 28-135. Sharpness not far from 24-70CZ, but for half the weight of the sluggish Zeiss. Colour slightly warm for a Minolta, not as good as 28-70G. All though not as reputable or übercool as Zeiss or hardcore as 28-70G, it is honestly speaking a great piece of optics. |
| Anbesol#7453 date: May-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-50 f/4 50 f/1.7 Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 Beercan 100 f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 350 |
| positive: | Excellent color and contrast Excellent resolution, Great CA control, non rotating front element, very sharp throughout range. |
| negative: | Lens Creep Weak wide on APS MF passes infinite focus distance |
| comment: | I read another review on this lens claiming this was soft wide open. For the copy I got, this was not the case. Though there was noticeable improvement at f/4-4.5 at the beginning of the sweet spot, it is still very good and sharp wide open. I've compared it to a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, which runs over twice the price, and this lens runs circles around it in every regard to optical quality, the bokeh in particular. It produces a very pleasing soft focus transition, often times comparable to the beercan. Out of focus highlights are handled excellently, couldn't ask for more on a mild wide to telephoto. The 4mm wide angle hit versus all other competing lens was easily justifiable to me for price. I personally make more use of standard and mild telephoto angles anyway, so the higher range is more important to me. However, it is severely limited with the landscapes on an APS body because of the 28mm start, and as soon as you try to do landscapes the limitation becomes instantly noticeable. I also haven't seen the slightest smidgen of CA pop its head in. The build quality is good, but there is lens creep, and the weight of the extending elements is noticeable zooming at high or low angles. The lens creep isn't much of a problem, only happens with a lot of motion. But, it is technically there. |
| Azazello13#7449 date: May-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | cz 16-80 min 28-135 min 50/1.7 beercan |
| price paid: | 325 USD (new) |
| positive: | - beautiful images stopped down - way cheaper than the new sony with essentially the same design |
| negative: | - soft wide open - clunky range on aps-c |
| comment: | this lens was alright, but I got rid of it because it didn't have much of a purpose with my a700 (or a100 bfore that). stopped down past f4 or so, this lens takes some awesomely sharp images with great colors and contrast. but wide open, it is really soft (at least mine was), almost unusably so -- which kind of negates the whole point of a 2.8 zoom in the first place. the 28-135 is as sharp at f4/4.5 with more range. then I bought the zeiss 16-80, which has a far more useful range on aps-c, and is sharper wide open than the 28-75 at the same apertures....so at that point the 28-75 was a clear third choice zoom, and easily expendable. but I suppose it still has a pretty useful niche for a full-frame shooter looking for a budget lens until they can afford the zeiss 24-70. used correctly it really is capable of some beautiful images. |
| Romeo333#7144 date: Mar-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-70HSM |
| price paid: | $200 |
| positive: | -2,8 Constant -Amazing starter short zoom -Pretty sharp! -Nice colours -Fast focus -Decent in low light |
| negative: | -Flare -No Focus Distance Window(Painted on) -light, feels cheap -Hunts -No focus hold button(On G only) |
| comment: | Another nice substitute for the pricier alternatives ∑24-70HSM or CZ24-70SSM. Its pretty light, which made me worried about being rough with it. Could be a great Walk about lens! Its pretty sharp and gives amazing colours! |
| m_appeal#7136 date: Mar-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135, Minolta 28-105, Minolta 28-105 RS |
| price paid: | 410 USD |
| positive: | Good sharpness at 2.8 on full-frame, prime sharp stepped down, colors, great minimum focusing distance |
| negative: | Bokeh is nice, but not perfect, my sample has a soft left corner at wide angle settings unless stepped down |
| comment: | I think I have a really good sample of this lens, because it's not soft even wide open. It has good center sharpness at 2.8 at all focal lengths. Stepped down to f5.6 it's as good as a 50mm prime. Colors and especially contrast are much better than the older Minolta lenses. There are no chromatic aberrations to speak of as with the 28-135mm lens. My sample does have a softer left corner at wide angle settings only (right corner is already sharp at f4, whereas the left corner is soft) but it becomes sharp when stepped down. It may be a flaw with copies of this lens, and I will probably send mine to be calibrated, but it doesn't affect me so far as I step down to f11 anyways if I want corner to corner sharpness at wide angle. I would definitely go with this lens over the old Minolta 28-135 for full-frame. The latter has very poor contrast unless stepped way down and CA galore. Also, my lens has no zoom creep at all, which is apparently the case with some of the more worn out copies. |
| louza#6947 date: Feb-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM AF DT 18-70/3,5-5,6 (D) KM AF 17-35/2,8-4,0 (D) |
| price paid: | 375 USD (used) |
| positive: | very sharp f 2,8 in the whole range good build good price for used pieces |
| negative: | not wide enough |
| comment: | My favourite lens. Much much better than set 18-70 I used to use before. The only negative for me is not enough wide end on APSC. I bellieve that for full frame camera it must be perfect lens in all aspects. |
| Richalf#6834 date: Jan-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $650 CDN |
| positive: | Very Sharp Fairly solid build Nice colours Fast focus Good in low light |
| negative: | None really |
| comment: | Although I haven't tested formally I feel this lens is sharper at F2.8 at longer distances on my KM7D than it is on my A700. Overall this is an excellent lens, especially for it's price range. |
| rohit#6774 date: Jan-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70G: lightweight, focuses faster. |
| price paid: | Part of kit |
| positive: | for the price paid, it is the perfect lens |
| negative: | no focus control button |
| comment: | missing |
| MinoltaMad#6773 date: Jan-19-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 85 f1.4 G D CZ 24-70 f2.8 SSM Tamron SPAF 70-200 f2.8 Di LD (IF) macro Tamron SPAF 17-35 f2.8-4 Di LD (IF) Minolta 75-300 Minolta 35-70 f3.5-4.5 Sony 18-70 DT kit Minolta 28-70 f2.8 G |
| price paid: | $300 AUD used |
| positive: | excellent sharpness at f2.8 across range fast focus good close focus |
| negative: | slight colour issues - puts a bit of a yellow warm effect on |
| comment: | Great lens and it really is cracking sharp if that is what you are after. Definitely sharper than the Minolta 28-70 f2.8 G at 70mm f2.8 and similar in sharpness to the Minolta 80-200 f2.8 G and Tamron 70-200 f2.8. Obviously build quality is not quite as good as others but that really doesn't take the picture does it? Colours are the real negative for me due to an unusual yellowing of the image (this doesn't happen with the Minolta 28-70 f2.8 G). Definitely worth considering for this zoom range due to sharpness, all round ability and price point. I probably prefer the Minolta 28-70 f2.8 G over this because the loss in sharpness is only minor vs better colour and bokeh which really make a portrait. |
| Bob Socko#6685 date: Jan-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Macro |
| price paid: | 440 USD (new) |
| positive: | * Good focal range/aperture for a walkaround lens. * Good colors. * The lens does not extend while focusing. * Short MFD. |
| negative: | * Soft wide open at all focal lengths, though not unusably so. * On a full-frame camera, the corners are still soft at f/8. * May be too narrow for APS-C users. |
| comment: | I recently found a new copy of this lens at a local camera shop and immediately snatched it up. Compared to my Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Macro, this lens is lighter and more accurately reproduces colors. While not as sharp as the Sigma at 28mm f/2.8, it appears sharper at 70mm f/2.8. That being said, this lens is soft wide open. On a full-frame body, you'll get good center sharpness at f/3.2, but corners are still soft at f/4. With a crop-sensor, you'll get good overall sharpness at f/3.2. This doesn't bother me as I don't expect a walkaround zoom to be as sharp as a prime, but your mileage may vary. An interesting sidenote - DxO v6 incorrectly identifies this lens as the Sony 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM and will automatically apply corrections to your image. At a glance, the corrections are accurate, or at least close enough to be a good starting point for your post processing. |
| DarkScribe#6484 date: Nov-29-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 2 flare control: 2 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta F:4 35-70, Minolta F:3.6-4.5 28-105 RS, Minolta F:3.5-4.5 35-105, Tokina F:3.5-4.5 28-70 |
| price paid: | au$110 (Pawn shop) |
| positive: | It is a fast lens at F2.8 but disappointingly is not particularly sharp. Even many of the supplied sample images attached to these reviews show this. I am very surprised that it has rated as high as it has. |
| negative: | Soft even stopped down if compared to lens like the Minolta F4 35-70 which produces a far better image. I have several Minolta lenses that match or beat it with the exception of speed in low light. They are commonly available at a fraction of its cost. It needs stopping down for reasonable sharpness to the extent where its speed advantage is lost. It is not suitable for full frame - another big negative as most people will end up full frame in time. It is very prone to flare unless you buy a large rubber hood - the one provided is useless. |
| comment: | It is a good general purpose low light lens, but nowhere near as sharp or as good a colour as the other Minolta lenses that I have compared it to. The classic Minolta 35-70 F:4 provides a far superior image in all except extremely low light conditions. I still keep it for times when I can't use flash indoors and don't want to use a prime. (As a matter of interest I have borrowed another copy of the lens and found the same results - so it isn't a matter of me having a bad copy.) I guess that it rates so high simply because it is a 2.8 regardless of the fact that it has to be stopped right down for anything approaching a reasonable result. |
| Vancouver#6470 date: Nov-26-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min BC Min 35-105 3.5-4.5 Min 28-85 3.5-4.5 Sony 16-105 Sony 18-70/75-300 Sony 50 1.4 Min 50 1.7/ 24 2.8/ 28-2.8 |
| price paid: | 450 CAD$ (New) |
| positive: | Superb color Sharp Sharp Sharp FF Great Bokeh Great DOF from 2.8 Hood |
| negative: | A bit plasticky but feel solid over all |
| comment: | Excellent deal on the price. Many people goes for Tamron version but wait until you try this. The color and the bokeh is perhaps its best streagths. I spend 500 CAD$ (TAx incl) and it is worth every penny. Many people seem to have problem with zoom creep but mine is brand new and I dont have that problem just yet. I know the G must be better but you also spend a fortune more! |
| meztelenrabbi#6469 date: Nov-26-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL 18-70 MAF 50 1,7 MAF 70-210 MAF 24 2,8 |
| price paid: | 70000 HUF (used) |
| positive: | Sharp from 3,2 and very very sharp from f4 petal hood fast AF and good performance in low light good ergonomic with a700 |
| negative: | zoom creep -.-' 2,8 not the best |
| comment: | Sometimes i really miss the wide angle, but i don't want to buy a tamrom 17-50 preferably a 10-24mm. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 126
- sharpness: 4.49
- color: 4.65
- build: 4.05
- distortion: 4.52
- flare control: 4.44
- overall: 4.43
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login