Minolta AF 28-80mm F3.5-5.6 D A-mount lens reviews
reviews found: 25
 transiently#34770 date: Feb-3-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 2.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-85 3.5-4.5, 35-105 3.5-4.5 original and RS, 24-85 etc You can't really compare the output of this lens to that of the ones above at infinity (if you do, won't be happy with this one!) but this is a very decent lens for close-ups, particularly when you factor in its continuous focus down to 40cm and the fact that it does pretty well at 80mm with a diopter lens on the front. It may well be a little more flare-resistant than the 28-85, but as many readers will know, that doesn't necessarily place it very high on the list of lenses to choose when shooting into the sun. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Small, light, focuses down to 40cm at all focal lengths (see below), not usually remotely expensive. Takes 55mm filters. Decently sharp away from the corners even wide open at shorter focal lengths, and good across the frame from about two stops down. Performance at close range is surprisingly good, and better than at infinity, although there is still some tendency for purple fringing in brightly-lit highlights. Performs much better than expected with inexpensive Jessop brand +2D close-up lens. |
| negative: | High levels of purple fringing (reduced somewhat with stopping down, but nevertheless present at all usable apertures and focal lengths in bright light). Other aberrations are also under-corrected wide-open, so the image can have a way of lacking in punch even when actually quite contrasty and detailed. There might be a creative use for this sort of look. Lacks anything remotely like the spectacular colour and microcontrast of the first series Minolta AF lenses, or of the the other compared lenses (unsurprisingly). (Colour rating: 2.5). Sharpness at about 45mm and above is weaker than at shorter lengths when shot at or near infinity (though it is very high at close focus). Higher distortion than any of the lenses in my comparison. My lens has a nasty mechanical feel when zoomed through the short focal lengths, and it's slightly under-lubricated plastic cams rubbing on each other. |
| comment: | An acceptable general purpose lens to take out and not worry about, or for when size and weight are of paramount concern. People sometimes complain that these focal length ranges aren't much use on APS-C, but an effective 42-120 equivalent seems fairly handy to me, and is quite similar to the range of some vintage zooms. A very acceptable lens for close-ups of small things, so long as you have sufficient light to work with. Seems to work pretty well with cheap supplementary diopter lens. I bought this on a whim and won't be selling it anytime soon, mainly due to its close-up abilities and light weight (which is about the same as the 35-105 RS, though that is a much better lens)...though its low value is also a factor! Made in Malaysia. Mine shows good centering and is a good enough performer when everything is considered. Best results at 28-45mm at F8-11 (but not in the same league as the other Minoltas in my comparison list) or 80mm for close-ups. |
; 20MP| QuietOC#26542 date: Apr-2-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 16-105 Sony DT 18-55 SAM I/II Sony DT 18-70 Sony DT 18-135 SAM Sony DT 18-200 Minolta AF 24-85 Minolta AF 28-100 D Minolta AF 28-105 Minolta AF 28-135 Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Minolta AF 35-80 II Minolta AF 35-105 Original Sigma AF 35-135 F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 18 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and light Parfocal Very little focus shift with zoom action Good sharpness to APS-C corners Minimal CA Smooth zoom throw Simple, minor distortion on both ends Very good at 28 mm Distance encoder Supports DMF on the Maxxum 70 55 mm filter threads |
| negative: | Purple fringing and glare wide open at the long end Somewhat heavy zoom with stiction Metallic noises in zoom mechanism Gear noise in focus mechanism Some focus breathing |
| comment: | A very nice looking copy with both caps and hood and original box and packaging purchased from KEH. This seems to have been the late Minolta mid-range kit lens with the non-D 35-80 II continuing for the cheapest models. "MALAYSIA" This lens is just slightly larger than the similar looking 35-80mm F4-5.6 II but smaller and lighter than the 28-100 D. It has a double-trombone style extending barrel where the smaller barrel extends for focus, and the outer barrel extends and contracts for the zoom mechanism. The decoupling of the two motions seems to have resulted in a kit lens that doesn't shift focus much at all with zoom. Just like the 35-80 II and 28-100(D) kit lenses it is most contracted at 50 mm. It seems to be more closely related to the 1993 28-80 F4-5.6 than the other 28-80 lenses. F4 30 to 35 mm F4.5 35 to 40 mm F5 40 to 55 mm Overall image quality is very good at 28 mm even wide-open. The Minolta AF 35-70 F4 and 35-80 II perform better over their range, but are pretty similar at 35 mm. This lens is actually quite sharp at 80 mm. Sharpness and consistency across the APS-C frame are both very good throughout the zoom range, but heavy purple fringing and haze muddy high contrast images at the longer focal lengths. Other than purple fringing there is very little visible CA. Apart from the printed lettering, the little circular hood is identical to the ones used on the 28-100 D, 18-70, and 18-55 lenses. The filter threads rotate preventing the use of a nice petal hood like that used on the manual zoom 28-105 F3.5-4.5 lenses. Overall a nice sample of this underrated little lens. It may not be as brilliant as the 35-xx kit zooms, but the image quality holds up well compared to the more expensive F3.5-4.5 lenses. The minimization of focus shift with zoom motion makes this a very nice cheap zoom for video. |
| Seakayem#11776 date: Apr-18-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 Sony DT 35mm f/1.8 Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 |
| price paid: | Free |
| positive: | I got it for free Light weight Useful focal range |
| negative: | Very soft and indistinct images Slow |
| comment: | I was pretty excited when a friend gave me an old Minolta Dynax 505si, because I wanted to get back into film and it came with this lens which has a really useful focal range and I was hoping it would make a good twin kit with my Beercan when I wanted to shoot zoom and not prime. I grabbed a found still life in the lounge room and set up the tripod to do a comparison shoot of the Minolta AF 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 at 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, 70mm and 80mm against a bag of Minolta AF primes at the same focal lengths and the Beercan. I shot everything at f/5.6 as this was the quickest the test lens could shoot at 80mm and I hoped it was in the middle of the sharpness range. The short story - this lens performs very poorly. You can compensate for the slowness by bumping the ISO up a bit, with accompanying image degradation. But you can't fix the soft focus. Doing a few 100% crops, the difference with the primes was startling. I'm a big fan of old Minolta glass and the ability to use it was one of the reasons I bought into the Sony system. And I have never been disappointed, until now. Honestly, I doubt if I will ever use this lens again after the test shots. And I could never in good conscience sell it to anyone. |
| brikas#10695 date: Nov-13-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 KIT lens |
| price paid: | 6 GBP (used) |
| positive: | Light, suitable with Full Frame. |
| negative: | Too much CA |
| comment: | If you don't have any lens, and need one extremely cheap, buy it, otherwise look for something else. I bought it just for fun- wanted to test it, thats all! |
| lifeispixels#10103 date: Apr-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 SAM Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6 |
| price paid: | 40 USD |
| positive: | late Minolta colors full frame design feather light, great for lazy days |
| negative: | slow sharpness can't be expected CA is horrible |
| comment: | I was curious and bought both Minolta 28-80 version II and 28-80 D version and found out they performed almost exactly the same. The 8 blade aperture doesn't do anything better. This is the cheapest among a-mount lens you can find. And that also means cheap quality physically and optically. The only thing I like is how light it is on the camera. The colors're ok. But the image softness from spherical aberration and CA are so bad that you'd better use the Sony 18-55 kit lens for APSC and for the full frame, spend a bit more and get for example 24-105, 28-105, 24-50, 35-105, 35-80 to improve your images' keeper rate. It's not that this lens is totally unusable. But it requires more works in post processing to make the images passable. For the same amount of money, I highly recommend sacrificing the wider end and get the plastic fantastic Minolta AF 35-80 F4-5.6 II. Super light for lazy days and that one can be eye-bleeding sharp, although it vignettes quite heavily on full frame. I sold my 28-80 as there is really no reason to like about and keep my 35-80 f4-5.6 instead. See my photos with Minolta 28-80 f3.5-5.6 and Minolta 35-80 f4-5.6 on my Flickr collection at: http://www.flickr.com/photos/lifeispixels/collections/72157628204412995/ |
| russellsbags#10026 date: Mar-14-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | £18 |
| positive: | Cheap. Cost me £18 with an old Minolta film camera Colours not too bad |
| negative: | Bad build quality Sharpness not special |
| comment: | Not bad at all for what I paid but wouldn't want to pay any more than about £30 The colours are surprisingly good but the sharpness leaves a lot to be desired. |
| zekewhipper#9177 date: Jun-25-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 D Minolta 100mm f2 Minolta 50mm f1.7 various others eg.: Jupiter 9 85mm f2 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | -light weight -quick AF |
| negative: | -not appreciably sharp at any aperture -colors are too cool even for my taste (and I prefer cooler images over warmer) -feels flimsy -poor contrast -obvious chromatic aberration |
| comment: | This was the kit lens for my wife's Maxxum 5. For the longest time I chalked up her results to her lack of experience or possibly to the filter we had on the front. Howver, after now having tested the lens on her Sony A100 and my Maxxum 7D, I can conclusively say that the lens is a poor performer. The results are the same as what we saw on the prints from her 5. I believe that the 18-70mm kit lens that came with her A100 performes better in terms of sharpness, contrast, lack of CA, and just the overall image quality. Why are folks complaining about the filter thread size of 55mm? It is a very common one. |
| kurja#8910 date: Apr-11-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | -color |
| negative: | -none for the price, except -lack of wide angle on aps |
| comment: | I'm primarily comparing this lens with the later kit lens, 18-70 when both are used on aps digital bodies. In comparison this lens is considerably faster, 18-70's max aperture when zoomed at 35mm is already 5.6 while this minolta can open to F4, and even at 50mm it can still do F4.5. Colors are a bit nicer (minolta-like), and sharpness is quite good when closed down a little - but doesn't require as much stopping down as the 18-70 to achieve similar sharpness. Overall I prefer this lens over the newer 18-70, apart from that there's no wide angle to speak of on aps. Distortions/aberrations are there, but nothing severe. This is a very light, plastic lens with nothing fancy going on about it, however as a cheap all round zoom it performs rather nicely. |
| maraten#8717 date: Feb-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-55 Sigma 70-300 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | -Sharp images -Nice color -Fast AF -Light -Price |
| negative: | -Feels cheaply build -Filter size -Plastic mount |
| comment: | Fine walk about lens. Better then the 18-55 at all apertures and colors are like older minolta's, lovely. I like the range better as the difference between 18 and 28mm is like two steps backwards. Keeping that in mind, you won't need the 18mm. For the rest, I like the close up (ain't real macro.) It's got aomw pretty fast AF even in bad situations. |
| j-dogg#7944 date: Sep-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 |
| price paid: | 25 USD |
| positive: | -Cheap -Pretty sharp images for a kit lens (when stepped down) -Practically weightless -Focal ring is beefy like all Minoltas -Matches my Maxxum 4 |
| negative: | -It's a kit lens, so the obligatory build quality complaint -55mm filter thread (easily overcome with adapter rings) |
| comment: | It's a kit lens so there isn't too much to say that hasn't been said. Shot on Kodak Portra 160vc. Wide open, some noticeable CA in high lighting situations, and colors look a tad washed out, but stepped down to like F8 or F11, this lens is a great performer and I would rank it up there stopped down with my Minolta 35-70. |
| IanMiddy#7787 date: Aug-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24-105D Sig 24-70/2.8 EX DF |
| price paid: | Dynax 5 Kit (£50) |
| positive: | Good Colour Small & Light No play, flop or give in mine |
| negative: | Lightweight build Silver not a good look on the A900, lol |
| comment: | Decided to try this on the A900 for a bit of fun - but the lens had the last laugh! - surprisingly good, a little soft wide open but edge-frame number plates were easily readable and became nicely crisp even just stopped down to f5.6 - which is wide open at 80mm and probably the worst performance. It does feel a little lost on the 900, but the combo is a LOT lighter than with the Sig 24-70! Now maybe try the other kit Min 75-300D - used to get good results on the KM5D with it, but it's sat on the shelf for quite a while now - how will it stack up to the 300G on full frame??? |
| Karel#7499 date: May-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-85 beercan fixed focal lens in general |
| price paid: | 35 Euro |
| positive: | Weight Bargin price on second hand market |
| negative: | Build quility Lens hood rather small and not effective Weight can be a disadvantage when used as small tele |
| comment: | This lens is widly availiable second hand and the price I paid was for a perfect example. Since you (usually) get what you pay for, it is hard to make any bad comment compared with the price. Coparing with a beercan at 5x the price is hardly or not realistic. If you keep this lens at f6,7 ore above, the quality is decent. Don't use P setting, use the A-setting of the camera. Buy an other lens hood. Combined with the Dynax 5, the set is remarkable light, works fast and this is the perfect set for traveling or long walks. The use for macro or short distances was no succes. Final result figures are probably not realistic compared with the use in normal situation. At f8, 4 meter distance and if you keep the sun out of the front of the lens, results are good on a 10 x 15 or 13 x 18 cm print. |
| jakubh70#5376 date: May-13-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105 RS, Minolta 24-105, Sony 18-70, Sigma 28-70 F2,8-4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Contrast, colour, extremely low weight |
| negative: | cheap build, slow |
| comment: | I've compared this small kit lens made in Malaysia with others mentioned in same circumstances and it was amazing this one seemed to be the best of them all. In terms of sharpness it is at least as good as 28-105 and 24-105 lenses. 3 aspherical glasses are used in its construction to achieve great sharpness and geometry, as well as circular aperture. It has great coatings - looking as made of dark glass. If build was heavier and front was not rotating, it would be great lens for semi-pro use. Keep it with good, light film body (4, 505, 5 etc.) just in case! |
| Dynaton-DK#4472 date: Dec-4-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF18-70 kit lens Minolta AF28-80 II (non-ADI) |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | ADI compatible Great indoor flash pictures Colour Sharp on APS-C Inexpensive |
| negative: | Build and "feel" |
| comment: | This one is better than the new kit-lens Minolta/Sony AF18-70 F3.5-5.6 and way better than the old kit-lens Minolta AF28-80 II F3.5-5.6 in regard to color and contrast. Not much, but still enough to notice a positive difference. I agree with the previous review in regard to saturation which is better than to be expected. I bought it just for fun, and expected the same poorish performance as the two other very common Minolta/Sony kit-lenses - however, this one surprised my positively. This lens is indeed very good on APS-C, and highly underrated! Probably it is not that good on FF, but on APS-C it shines. Should you buy one? Well, why not - It's cheap to buy - fine as spare lens, and an upgrade compared to the other two common kit-lenses. Furthermore it is an ADI compatible lens so flash photo is very well balanced. |
| Morning Light#3576 date: May-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon ef 28-80II. Minolta 35-70 3.5-4.5. |
| price paid: | Ł20 with Dynax 5 |
| positive: | Colours are excellent. Sharpness is good. Light and easy to use.Built in hood. |
| negative: | For the price, can't think of anything. |
| comment: | This is a really good lens and I find it performs well in all situations. I've compared the results with my Canon ef 28-80II and the Minilta D is in a different class, especially for colour rendition. My Minolta 35-70 3.5-4.5 performs about the same as the Minolta D. I've also fitted a Hoya HMC UV filter which makes it even better. |
| Space Cowboy#3354 date: Mar-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70/2,8G 28-105/3,5-4,5xi 50/1,4 28/2,8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | light&small, no "heavy negatives" |
| negative: | catches flares, not sharp enough |
| comment: | A kit lense. So its negatives are predictable. Soft at all focal length. Low contrast at f3,5-5,6. Also it was on my first camera (dynax5). So i keep some warm memories about this lense. Good to make first step in photography. |
| teodom#3196 date: Jan-19-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24-60/2.8 Minolta 100-300/4.5-5.6 Minolta 70-210/4 Sigma 24/2.8 Minolta 35-80/4-5.6 |
| price paid: | part of max 5 kit |
| positive: | light color rendition fast AF |
| negative: | soft wide open but f/8 and up it works wonders for a kit lens |
| comment: | It came as part of the Maxxum 5 camera kit. This lens replaced another kit lens. Both lenses had the Minolta "look" that we all fell in love with. The 28-80 lens is not well regarded, and you can find copies on Ebay for peanuts. I was surprised how well it performed on the A100. The colors are so saturated even without help from filters or Photoshop. Lens sharpness becomes decent at f/8 or higher. It seems Minolta wanted to give you a taste of how a "G" lens could actually perform. You can play with a "Corolla," but you really want the "Lexus" performance, right? I replaced this lens with a Sigma 24-60/2.8. The Sigma is sharp! For some reason, I miss the color rendition of my Minolta. Maybe some day I'll go for a "G" lens or a Sony/Zeiss. In the meantime, the Sigma will do. |
| hfielder#2876 date: Oct-26-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | (Minolta - AF 75-300 F4.5-5.6 D) |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap, simple, works |
| negative: | Low build quality |
| comment: | I was bought a dynax 4 with this lens included as my first film SLR. It served its purpose as an introduction to photography. The lens feels flimbsy and grinds a little now it is 7 years old. |
| Dinostrich#2583 date: Jul-26-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-105 3.5/4.5 D 35-70 4 70-210 4 beercan 75-300 4.5/5.6 D |
| price paid: | Ł28.00 |
| positive: | Lightweight D (ADI ) function Circular aperture blades |
| negative: | Modern kit lens build quality Just about functionality |
| comment: | Not as bad as some have said but it is really a "just about" lens. Just about wide angle - just about usuable for portraits. Colour fine - rest ( except for build ) just about acceptable. Build is flimsy and tacky. Pretty slow. The D ( ADI ) function is useful if your camera can utilise it. I bought it to fill a gap for a while and it did that but it will probably go soon at a bit of a loss - perhaps I should view it as "hire costs". |
| AudioDoc#1801 date: Feb-9-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | What I owned then: Canon FD MT JC Penny 35-105mm F3.5 What I own now: 24-105mm F3.5-4.5 D |
| price paid: | $295.95 (Max 5 kit) |
| positive: | Color, Price, Sharpness Stopped down. ADI |
| negative: | Zoom Range, Speed at Long end. Build |
| comment: | Ok, Ok, I'm very sorry I've taken so long to post my first review! What better place to start than my first Minolta lens, which came as part of a kit along with my first Minolta camera, the remarkable Maxxum 5. As has been said before, these kit lens receive much undeserved bashing by many. But, they are what they are -- in the first place, a zoom lens (a compromise right out of the chute) and cheap! I agree with Pop Phoot, "this lens is an excellent value in its class". In the old days my Max 5 would have come with the 50mm f1.7, cheap, but a superior lens (my second Minolta lens, btw) but I may have missed some of the nice shots I captured with this zoom, and ADI does make a difference for flash photography. The only logical replacement for this zoom, for me is the 24-105mm D and it was indeed my second Minolta zoom purchase -- covers the entire range that I normally shot (well, for film anyway). My next zoom purchase will likely be the Sony Zeiss 16-80 for my 7D. |
| jimb100#1623 date: Jan-8-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 35-70mm, 50mm 1.7, 28-75mm 3.5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Lightweight and inexpensive |
| negative: | Build quality |
| comment: | This lens is regularly trashed in reviews, although PopPhoto gave it a decent review. I obtained one as a throw in on a camera deal and snapped a few pics using it and my 7D. I was pleasantly surprised at the image quality. Focussing speed was OK, using RAW the images tuned up nicely in Photo shop with a minimum of color correction and just a little sharpening. They were a little soft in the corners, even sharpened. While this is not a great lens it seemed consistent in performance to some of the better Minolta kit lenses. It may be that there is some confusion with the older lens having the same specs. I have no experience with that lens although I have heard it was truly awful. |
| Dumont#1487 date: Nov-28-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Kit 18-70, 28-80 3.5-5.6, 28-80 4-5.6 Xi, Quantaray 28-80 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | D lens, sharp when stopped down to f8 |
| negative: | Image quality/sharpeness when wide open |
| comment: | Another lens you might buy to take on a shoot where there is a chance the lens may get banged up and this one is dispensable. Build is better than the "regular" silver 28-80. Stopped down to f8 it really can take nice sharp photos in the right light. |
| Dirk#1011 date: Jul-10-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 4 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8(D) KM 18-70 3.5-5.6 DT |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap, light, color rendition |
| negative: | sharpness, soft at almost every setting |
| comment: | This lens came 2nd hand together with a 5600Hs flash and other stuff. 2nd hand it's easy to obtain such item at a very low price like Eur 25 or less. This makes the lens ideal for close range work with a risk of damaging the lens. So what ? The lens is in wide range /tele soft both in center and at the edges. In close renge it performs better, sharpness is acceptable and contrast is good. Works well in combination with 5600Hs flash. Color rendition is close to natural. |
| damian.bradley#387 date: Jan-5-2006 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 1 color: 2 build: 1 distortion: 2 flare control: 2 overall: 1.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | - 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 (II) - 28-80mm f4-5.6 - 50mm f1.7 - 28mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - (D) / ADI flash compatible - it is a lens which produces an image |
| negative: | - build - soft images |
| comment: | Unless you want the ADI compatibility (which is probably a nice thing to have), the II series lens seems to do marginally better in terms of optics and exposure. The build quality is pretty awful, the play in the barrel is just plain unacceptable. I can't see how the review linked on this page gave the lens a decent review...I would stay away from it if at all possible. The 50mm f1.7 is in the middle of the zoom range...just take a few steps forward or back, save yourself some money and get some properly exposed, sharp images. Unless this is a temporary lens or a last resort, there are lots of better lenses out there. Check out some full size (informal) comparisons on pbase while they're up: http://www.pbase.com/dbradley/7d_lens_tests |
| celltech161#357 date: Dec-27-2005 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | These lenses can be found used anywhere for cheap. |
| negative: | Stop down to f11 for sharpness |
| comment: | This lens is okay to have as a backup to the 28-75 2.8(D). This was the lens that came with my Maxxum 5, and has spent the past year put away in the closet. |
reviews found: 25
rating summary
- total reviews: 25
- sharpness: 3.48
- color: 3.92
- build: 2.96
- distortion: 3.56
- flare control: 3.56
- overall: 3.50
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login