Minolta AF 35-70mm F3.5-4.5 A-mount lens reviews
 Pioneer#44253 date: Mar-26-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Other primes and zooms including those from Sigma, Zeiss and others. |
| price paid: | $12 used with camera |
| positive: | - Highest value AF lens I own - Very light - Quite sharp - Easy to Use - Great colors - Near macro capability - Very inexpensive |
| negative: | - Plastic build quality (which is what makes it light.) - Can be frustrating in low light as it has a hard time focusing, but I think that is the fault of the camera, not the lens. - Like other older zoom lenses this lens can flare, especially when the sun is just off to the right or left of the lens. Using a hood usually takes care of this but sometimes it will cause a problem. - Plastic lens mount could be considered a problem though it appears to have worked for over 30 years without a problem. - If you like to use a circular polarizer filter then you need to be aware that the barrel that your filter screws into rotates when it focuses. This doesn't bother me but it does bother others sometimes. |
| comment: | I am actually quite impressed with this little lens. I am not typically a big fan of zoom lenses but this particular lens has really changed my mind. As I get older my eyes are not getting any better and this little auto focus lens has kept my photography fun and enjoyable for a very, very low outlay of money. Right now I use this on my Minolta Maxxum 5000 which is a somewhat clumsy camera to use, but the combination is hard to leave alone because it is so simple to use. The camera and lens together are very light, very easy to carry and provide amazingly good image quality. If you like using Kodak Portra or Fuji Velvia color films then this is certainly the lens for you. Those famous Minolta colors will almost certainly blow your mind, especially in the right light. When you consider that I paid $12, including shipping, for this camera and lens, I really doubt that you will find a better value. I keep waiting for either the camera or the lens to quit working, but each has worked flawlessly for over 10 years. In that ten years it has traveled to quite a few beaches, up several mountains, and on a lot of trips to exotic locales, and I have quit worrying about whether or not it will work when I get there. A few triple AAA batteries every now and again, a few rolls of color or black and white film, and you have great entertainment and a wonderful record of what you and your family have been doing. If you can only carry one lens then this is probably a great candidate. 35mm to 70mm covers quite a bit of range allowing photography both indoors and outdoors, and the lens can even get very, very close in, within 20 inches, for some nice, near macro shots. This is certainly not the best lens in the world. But I am pretty sure that the best lens, whatever that would be, will cost a whole lot more money to buy, will almost certainly be heavier, probably larger, and will not provide any better entertainment for an afternoon nor will it provide any better memories than this lens does. You can take my word for it, this is a terrific value even today. Whether or not you are an amateur hobbyist, a pro, or maybe a little of both, this lens will be a very useful addition to your kit. |
; 10MP| streets#44252 date: Mar-24-2019 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-135 SAM |
| price paid: | Free from friend |
| positive: | Unbelievable performer. |
| negative: | Short zoom range |
| comment: | Slightly sharper at 35mm than the Sony camparo at same focal length and f stop. Super light weight for casual street scene use. The Sony costs 100 times more but I cannot tell the difference in IQ between it and the 35-70mm. Hard to believe indeed. I did a test of lenses including The Minolta AF 50mm macro a 50mm F1.4 Asahi Takuma, an 18-135mm Sony SAM, and this one. This was the winner and Sony placed second. |
| icameisaw#44166 date: Nov-7-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 28-80mm f4-5.6 Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 SAM II Minolta 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 Sony 16-105mm f3.5-5.6 Minolta 35-70mm f4 |
| price paid: | £6 s/h |
| positive: | Surprisingly sharp, particularly at the short end. The lovely Minolta colours. Small in all dimensions - 49mm filters are cheaper than 55mm ones! |
| negative: | Very limited range as a zoom, very plastic feel, it really doesn't like the sun getting in it. I can see a tiny bit of fringing in very high contrast areas, but only if I pixel peep. |
| comment: | For something that's 'free with every packet of cornflakes' cheap, it's very good to the point that you can almost treat it as a 35mm prime with the bonus that it goes longer. If it breaks, just get another one. Again, you have to spend considerably more to get something very noticeably better. |
| tekwizard#36804 date: Mar-27-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-135 Zeiss 16-80 Minolta 28-70 2.8 G Rokkor 35-70 3.5 |
| price paid: | 5 Eur used |
| positive: | Cheap, sharp, light |
| negative: | Purple fringing, detail resolution could be better, rotating front element, plastic |
| comment: | Good if you need a small and light setup, otherwise there are significantly better lenses. |
| eastwestphoto#26567 date: Apr-25-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f:1.7 AF same sharpness. |
| price paid: | $4.95 |
| positive: | Super sharp, super fast AF focusing, power zoom cheap build quality, BUT who cares! its focus sharpness is amazing and its so cheap, i paid $4.95 on eBay. Its very lightweight allowing my KM 7D to focus it fast. |
| negative: | Cheap ABS build quality, makes you think its a lousy lens, BUT its really great optics, MULTI-Coated optics. |
| comment: | there is no sharper lens for Minolta A mt. in AF for ridiculous little money....... I took a single close up of a red tulip, just one flower head insides and it was shockingly beautiful colors and sharpness. I think Minolta took a really bad Rap with its ABS construction lenses that may have cost them buyers for sure, But Minolta certainly didn't go cheap on the optical design. |
| erix#26560 date: Apr-22-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 1 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 35-70/4, many of minolta clasics. |
| price paid: | 20 eur |
| positive: | Can be very sharp if you get a good copy |
| negative: | can be soft if you get a lemon. plastic lens mount. |
| comment: | I had two of these. First one was super sharp wide open at any fl, but lens mount was broken... Second was sharp at 35 mm, but washed out at 70 (ok at F8). Sharpest lens sample was better than 35-70/4. Sharpness rating 4.5 is given for the better sample. There are two versions of the lens - one is with distance scale window and one without distacne scale. The good one was without distance scale. |
| Zeeke#26555 date: Apr-19-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 35-105 old Minolta 24-85 RS Minolta 28-105 RS Minolta 28-135 Minolta 35-80 II Sony 28-75 |
| price paid: | 13 euro |
| positive: | Sharp Sheap Light |
| negative: | Sheap build that brakes easily |
| comment: | I have bought two off those one attached to a camera and both where broken the same way when they arrived.The front lens group with barrel was loose.I managed to simply press it back on one of the lenses and wow what a sharp lens it is, I haven't compared them side by side yet so I may have to rewrite this review later on.But right now I think that this lens is sharper than the listed ones att 35mm and 50mm booth wide open and stopped down,it's weaker att 70mm It's a shame that they putted so nice optics in so crappy body,,,,, Edited..... Now I have tried 5 samples of this lens and contrary to the review above the two samples with distance window are sharper than the three other samples I have. |
| am2lo#18357 date: Sep-23-2015 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM II Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5 N |
| price paid: | with old minolta |
| positive: | Sharp Colors Weight underrated=cheap. |
| negative: | plastic build APS-C focal range?! if you want a real zoom severe purple fringing in water reflections and night lights. |
| comment: | So you have a Sony SLT (APS-C) camera and you got no money for a new 50mm or a 85mm fixed lens from Sony. Well you can start with this Minolta 35-70mm cheap zoom and get a sharp and superb 52.5mm F3.5 equivalent lens, an ok 75mm F4 equivalent and a cool washed out portrait 105mm F4.5 all in one piece. I've been using this 35-70 as my main "50mm fixed lens" for street and landscape photography for about 2 years and I'm loving it. In Lightroom I found that the Sony 35mm F1.4G profile corrects the distortion of the Minolta AF 35-70 at 35mm, how cool is that? I'm sure there must be much better glass out there but for the price you can't go wrong. |
| Thkpic#11617 date: Jan-17-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Anything else |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Cheap |
| comment: | I'm changing my review because I think I was a bit to harsh. This lens is actually ok. To my surprise, you can get some interesting bokeh even at 70mm. It's cheap as dirt and does a decent job at taking pics. The more I actually go out and shoot the more I realize that overall sharpness is over rated. I have a few Zeiss glass and think their awesome. But, going back and comparing you realize how much hype even lenses can be. It's a fun lens and like I said...dirt cheap. Update: 2/16/2014 I've gotten some of my most interesting pics the past few weeks with this lens. For some odd reason the black and white shots have an eerie like quality to them. The pictures take on a really odd 3D effect if your shooting it on full frame. Not like my other glass- just different. This lens has it's own personality no doubt. I've now affectionately named it "The Creeper." You have to try out some black and white pics to see what I'm getting at. It's definetly interesting no doubt. That's Minolta for you. |
| cbanks#11565 date: Dec-29-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 35-80mm f4-5.6 II - Sony 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 (original) - Sony 35mm f1.8 - Minolta AF 70-210mm F4 (beercan) - Everything else I own |
| price paid: | 16 USD (used) |
| positive: | - Sharp as a tack - Rich Minolta colors - wow! - Fits in your pocket - Did I mention it's cheap as dirt? |
| negative: | - Not for the metal body crowd - Not the greatest pointed near the sun - Short 2x range but you knew that already - Some pin cushion/barrel distortion |
| comment: | This is the cheapest lens I've ever owned. It's also on my short list of all-time favorites of about a dozen I've owned. Seriously. I want so badly to give this lens a 5 on sharpness. It's that good but, in fairness, my Sony 35mm prime beats it if you pixel peep. Surprisingly, my Minolta 35-80mm lens and Sony 18-55mm kit lens edge it out too. However, in the real world I much prefer this lens. The IQ is just... wow! Does pixel peeping really matter with a lens like this? It's not like I'm going to use it on a National Geographic assignment with editors scoping out prints with magnifying glasses. The bottom line? I'm very satisfied with its sharpness. Color-wise this lens is the best example of classic Minolta colors I own. Better than my legendary Minolta beercan even. Better than my Minolta 500mm AF Reflex by a bit. My copy didn't come with a hood so I bought an inexpensive metal screw-on vented one. It works far better than the bayonet one that came with my Minolta 35-80mm which I assume would be similar to what would have come with it. Still, there's the occasional problem pointed near the sun that's probably worse than modern lenses but far better than my 35-80mm which has problems with veil haze. Put it all together and there's a wonderful synergy. I posted some pics in the samples forum. I only wish my humble skills could do this lens justice. All this gushing aside, I know right off the bat a lot of people won't like this lens. It's not for the all-medal crowd being one of the lightest plastic lenses you can imagine. You'll forget it's in your pocket so don't run it through the wash. It's not for the folks who only want the finest best-of-breed G or Zeiss glass. Unfortunately, my a65 firmware won't correct this lens' distortion. I can't recommend this as a walk-around lens because of its limited 2x range which simply doesn't fit enough use cases. However, the beauty of this lens is you can drop it in a pocket for those times it does work. To extend its range, I've toyed with a Tamron 1.4x teleconverter. Yeah, call me strange but it works extremely well. No real loss of sharpness even pixel peeping but it does add a touch of CA that's only noticeable magnifying an image far beyond your typical enlargement. I tossed an example of this in the sample forums too. Hey, this is a hobby for me. I like playing with lenses. In that spirit I highly recommend this lens. |
| Mortal#11046 date: Apr-16-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 35-105 28-85 35-70 |
| price paid: | 20 used |
| positive: | Very fast and accurate focus Light |
| negative: | Not so good range for APSC Plastic |
| comment: | I had few of this lenses, and AF is very fast and accurate on all of them. But zoom ring is not so good quality- |
| brikas#11002 date: Mar-27-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 12GBP (used) |
| positive: | +Very sharp +Light and compact +Extremely cheap |
| negative: | -Poor AF -0.7m focus distance -All cheap plastic -Range on APS-C camera |
| comment: | Cheap Minolta version in this focal range, it's not the more expensive and valued Minolta small "beercan" with constant F/4, and is made of cheap plastic, instead nice aluminium finish. But, anyway, it's a nice piece of kit in my bag, at the moment, my most used eBay product photo lens, it's very very sharp, maybe my copy, but I read, other has very sharp copies too. You can`t beat the price/performance for this lens :) |
| Gert van den Bosch#10535 date: Sep-22-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 HSM |
| price paid: | 35 € (used) |
| positive: | Cheap, tack sharp |
| negative: | plastic |
| comment: | Try this one with an extension tube for macro and use liveview, you will be surprised. It has the well known Minolta colours. |
| bigjt#10383 date: Jul-15-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 19-35 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp,sharp sharp Cheap Light weight |
| negative: | Feels cheap Looks crappy on A900 |
| comment: | This was my forgotten kit lens from my Minolta 500si. I had never given a thought of using it on my A900, but boy does it shine. I was amazed at the sharpness of the thing, it really is amazing. Am definately going to use it more to really test its capabilities as from my early impressions on the A900 it is the bargain of the century!! |
| jakubh70#10287 date: Jun-10-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | pro 2,8/24-70 lenses |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Picture quality for no price, 200 gramm weight |
| negative: | Just a plastic kit lens |
| comment: | I you are tired and need light quality zoom to attach to A900 body, that's it. Centre sharpness is very good even wide open, borders get nice when stopped down to F5,6-8, corners are poor but acceptable when stopped down - that's the matter of size. |
| derekw#10090 date: Apr-5-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 f4 |
| price paid: | 15 GBP |
| positive: | Very sharp Minolta colours Light Cheap Overall IQ |
| negative: | Build OK but could be better Useless hood PF at larger apertures (below f6.3) Limited range |
| comment: | Very good budget lens. |
| andyken#9872 date: Feb-1-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55mm SAM 18-70mm Sony 28-135mm Minolta 35-80mm Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta |
| price paid: | 20 GBP |
| positive: | Small and light. Well built. Fairly sharp stopped down. Easy to resell! |
| negative: | Very soft at wide apertures. Rubbish range for APS-C. Worst Minolta lens I've come across to date. |
| comment: | This lens just didn't do it for me I'm afraid. Maybe I just had a bad one, but on both a Sony A100 and a Sony A33, its very soft at full aperture. It improves stopped down, but its never great. Best points are that it is solid and reliable and unlikely to let you down if you're satisfied with its mediocre IQ. Compared to the Minolta 35-80 F4-5.6 II, it feels much better built and I expected its IQ to be better, but the 35-80 is simply better at every aperture and focal length. I realise I am going against the general consensus in stating this, as almost everyone else seems to score the 35-70 higher than the 35-80 and this is what I expected as well, but it simply hasn't been born out in practice. I read FullFrameShooter's review with interest below mine, maybe this lens performs much better on a full frame sensor than APS-C for some reason, but I only shoot APS-C these days. I'm sure there are worse Minolta lenses out there, but personally I'm yet to find one. |
| FullFrameShooter#8879 date: Apr-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta AF 35-70 f4 - SAL-2875 f2.8 - SAL-50 f1.8 |
| price paid: | 30 EUR |
| positive: | - Minolta colors - Minolta bokeh - quite sharp on fullframe |
| negative: | - sharpness average on APS-C - plastic mount - plastic body - range |
| comment: | I'm going nuts! This little plastic throw-away is as sharp as the razors edge on my fullframe Alpha 850 but just average on APS-C (Alpha 350). Everything's plastic here and it looks really Mikey-Mouse-like on a fullframe camera but hey, man! it does the job! So if you have the chance to get one in good condition - do so! |
| a_savin#8242 date: Nov-12-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 3.5-4.5 Minolta 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - sharp - colors - faster than kitlens - cheap |
| negative: | - low contrast in backlight (need hood) - CA when wide opened |
| comment: | It was my first lens after 18-70 kitlens. I really like it. Sharpness is good when wide opened and very good when stopped down. Good colors (much better than 18-70). CA when wide open, but not realy ugly and can be fixed easely. |
| Hausmarke#8146 date: Oct-26-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Kit 18-70 |
| price paid: | 35 Euro |
| positive: | sharp Minolta colors light cheap |
| negative: | cheap range |
| comment: | Found my copy in mint condition, very nice colors, incredible sharpness for such a cheap lens. Weights nearly nothing. Better then the kit lens. |
| j-dogg#7942 date: Sep-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-80 II kit |
| price paid: | 25 USD |
| positive: | -stupid sharp -cheap -found everywhere -weighs nothing -Quick focusing -focus ring is pretty beefy and rubberized |
| negative: | -short focal range -49mm filter thread (easily solved with a 49->52, 55, etc. adapter ring) |
| comment: | Shot on Kodak Portra 160VC and 400VC with a Minolta Maxxum 4. Nothing touches it in the bang per buck department, if I was shooting pro-anything with an Alpha mount I would definitely have one of these in the bag. Super sharp AND cheap. Next to no CA even when shot wide open. |
| grose#7739 date: Jul-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Cheap, yet produces quality photos. Easy to find. Small and light weight. |
| negative: | Limited focal range. I wish it would go a little more than 70mm, or a little lower than 35mm. Construction feels cheap with all the plastic, but it works. |
| comment: | This is my short range shoot-around lens. I found the quality of the photos taken with this lens to beat out the Sony kit lens, so I've switched this in place of the kit lens for most of my shooting. When I need to switch it up for more range, then I'll take out the beercan or xi. UPDATE: Since working with this and other lenses more, I've realized just how LOUD and clunky this lens is when it operates. It works, takes good photos, but makes a lot of racket. I've downgraded the build rating from a 3 to a 2, reflecting this. |
| Karel#7501 date: May-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: | 28-80 silver 35-80 power zoom 28-85 beercan |
| price paid: | 25 Euro (used) |
| positive: | Cheap Quality of the optics |
| negative: | Plastic bajonet |
| comment: | Perfect basic walk around zoom for a film camera. Combined with a (film)3i camera, setting on A, f6,7, this set is a perfect street shooter or e.g. a companion during a multi day trip. You can find this lens in good condition for 25 Euro. If I compare the optical quality and the results (with foto's 13 x 18 cm) this lens is not so prone to flare and this makes performance sometimes better than an expensive "opponent". The limited zoom range is reflected in the weight of the lens. I gave the build quality a 4 due to the plastic barrel. |
| Thelone#7482 date: May-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony AF DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 SAM |
| price paid: | 15.74€ (with 3xi) |
| positive: | - Cheap - Light - Sharp |
| negative: | - Really short range |
| comment: | An underrated lens, probably because of its older brother (Minolta 35-70/4) and its very limited range. It's cheap (generally bundled with an old film camera for a few bucks), lightweight and sharp, but the range just sucks by today standards. It's too long on APS-C (52.5-105, making it a short telephoto lens), while having a limited range on FF. Zooms like the 24/28-85/105 have wider range and are more useful (on APS-C and FF sensors), but they cost a little more money. Anyway, it's a good lens for beginners and/or if you're on a really tight budget. But if you can afford it, just buy a zoom with a wider range. |
| Ovas#7168 date: Mar-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | MINOLTA 35-70 f4. 24-85, 24-105. |
| price paid: | 40US$ |
| positive: | This lens is a big supprice. Stepped down 2 steps it is a good performer on my A900. |
| negative: | Needs to be stepped down at least two steps to get good contrast. |
| comment: | I found this cheap and it looks like that too. It has a plastic flange but it is working ok. It needs to be stepped down at least two steps to perform satisfactory, and becomes sharper than the f4. It has the nice color look of MINOLTA-lenses and is a good "spare"-lens to keep in the bag. Though it is not super in any way, it is light and easy to carry around. Weights nearly nothing on my A900. It was never used so I sold it an other sunny day. |
| fugabi#6825 date: Jan-26-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | - - |
| positive: | light, sharp, rather sturdy (better than the kit lens, anyway) |
| negative: | range is awkward on a200 |
| comment: | my lens of choice. (almost) always on the camera. a bit stopped down and in good light it makes near perfect pictures. |
| gancho#6726 date: Jan-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | M 50/1,7 M 28/2.8 Sigma 70-210 Sony sal1855 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp, light, colours |
| negative: | Flimsy, plastic, not good range for SONY ALPHA 200 |
| comment: | Exellent lens for the price I have paid. fantastic pictures! |
| mikejhart32#6640 date: Dec-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: | Sony 18-70 Minolta 28-85 |
| price paid: | 10 GBP |
| positive: | Sharp! lightweight, compact inexpensive good AF |
| negative: | limited range especially on APS-C plasticky loose action |
| comment: | I bought this lens as a body cap for my 500si, and its not much more expensive than one! Fantastic colours and sharpness, quick AF. Would be good on a full frame digital, but limited on APS-C Good for portraits. Zoom and manual focus a bit loose but could be due to age. Better than the kit lens over its limited range. |
| derekw#6597 date: Dec-17-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 f4 |
| price paid: | Ł19 |
| positive: | SHARP!!!! Typical Minolta Colours Inexpensive |
| negative: | Some slight CA in difficult lighting conditions |
| comment: | This lens suffers badly in the ratings due to the sentiment over the build of the original Minolta AF lenses. Got two copies of this lens, first and second version. Both are solid, zoom action smooth... do what they were designed to do. Nothing else you can say. |
| Robin#6499 date: Dec-1-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 30 $ (used) |
| positive: | - very sharp (f4-f8) - good color (color rating: 4,5) - autofocus - lightweight - cheap and easy to find |
| negative: | - range 35-70 mm - build - CA - working under the light |
| comment: | missing |
rating summary
- total reviews: 59
- sharpness: 4.52
- color: 4.68
- build: 3.37
- distortion: 4.34
- flare control: 4.02
- overall: 4.18
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login