Minolta AF DT 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 D A-mount lens reviews
 Kopipapa#45582 date: Sep-16-2020 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-55 SAM2. |
| price paid: | kit lense |
| positive: | Range, color. |
| negative: | Build. |
| comment: | Unfortunately the kit lenses nowadays has a boring 18-55 range. 18-70 is more comfortable. |
; 10MP| 66mikeg#41984 date: Jan-8-2018 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | AF 35-70 AF 28-80 |
| price paid: | £35 |
| positive: | Light Good colour Acceptable sharpness |
| negative: | Plastic build Variable quality |
| comment: | I had a collection of Minolta AF lenses belonging to AF9000 film camera and bought a couple of cheap sony Alpha bodies to use them on. The first copy of this lens came with one of these and whilst not absolute rubbish had some issues with distortion and CA. it duly got listed on ebay. The AF28-80 and AF35-70 both good lenses weren't realy wide enough on APS-C crop so back to ebay and paid £35 for another 18-70. This was considerably better thann the first and despite the plastic build gives good results with a third party lens hood replacing the joke that it originally sported. this reminded me that with the film cameras i had to try a couple of copies of the 28-80 before I got a good one. |
| Miranda F#34758 date: Jan-21-2017 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.7 (RS & original) Minolta 28-80 Minolta 28-85 Minolta 28-100 Minolta 35-70 (f4 & f3.5-4.5) Minolta 75-300 Minolta 100-300 (original & APO) Sony 18-55mm Sony 30mm f2.8 Sony 35mm f1.8 Sony 50mm f1.8 Sony 55-200mm Sony 55-300mm Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 Sigma & Tamron 28-200mm Tamron 90mm f2.8 Vivitar 70-210 Various MF lenses |
| price paid: | Basically free. |
| positive: | Cheap, compact, lightweight, useful range; Very little CA. Essentially free from vignetting & partially useable on FF Acceptable sharpness everywhere and excellent at 18mm. Centre always good and corners never particularly bad. |
| negative: | A little soft in the 24-28mm region and again at 70mm. Slow aperture (f5.6 from 50-70mm) Busy bokeh at times. Sometimes terrible flare at the long end, not helped by useless hood. |
| comment: | I got this lens with a Dynax 5d very recently, and hoped to keep it with the camera as a normal/wide zoom because it has the right focal length range and because as a collector and enthusiast for older cameras I like to mate my cameras with lenses of their correct make and historical period. It came basically free with a Dynax 5d as the shop refused to separate them, claiming they wouldn;t be able to sell the lens on its own! [LOL] After reading the reviews here I wasn’t optimistic of its performance so immediately did some stress testing with trees or buildings covering the visual field, to see just how bad the reported softness and CA really was and whether I needed to source a better ‘period’ Minolta lens immediately. And I was quite favourably surprised - it isn’t bad at all! Let me say immediately that I tested the lens with the 6Mp camera it came with (and which I intend to use it with exclusively), and at least some of the defects will obviously be worse on a 20-24Mp DSLT, especially if you like to crop heavily or pixel peep. However, on the test camera, with jpegs in camera (large, fine, and viewed on an old 1280 x1024 pixel monitor with a fairly low pixel density, so 100% crops are magnified a lot), full-size images are sharp and show good contrast at all apertures up to f11 and all focal lengths. At 18mm there is significant bowing of horizontals away from the centre line which (unlike the later Sony cameras and lenses) won’t be corrected internally, so if this is an issue expect to correct it later in PP. At longer focal lengths this geometry isn’t obvious and I didn’t notice any significant pincushion at 50-70mm, but doubtless you will find some if you look hard enough. At 18mm 100% crops also appear sharp at all apertures, but the lens looks weaker between 24-28mm where it is softer in the corners near full aperture and with slight CA that is just about visible at 100% crop; on a 20Mp camera this is more noticeable at 100% crop and compares badly with the 18-55 which gets corrections but even here, where it is worst, it is still miles better than many other lenses I’ve tested and with normal image framing the CA isn’t noticeable (unlike certain other lenses I’ve reviewed …). The lens improves over 35mm and from there to 70mm I couldn’t see any CA unless I looked at much more than 100%. Corners are slightly softer than the centre at full aperture, as you would expect, but it seems to be mostly the extreme corners with quite a wide sharp central region and isn’t very marked. I do notice that although the lens improves at f8-11, f11 isn’t as much better than f8 as is often the case on other lenses, and there isn’t really any aperture where the lens ‘pops’ as bitingly sharp (we’re talking micro-contrast here) – but then there aren’t any where it is falls apart, either, and the comparatively modest zoom ratio clearly helps to give it good performance everywhere without anywhere being either superb or awful. Maybe that in itself is enough to dissuade some potential users, but it arguably does do what is expected of it. To put this in context, I find that 100% crops from most of the image at any focal length and aperture from full to f11 look pretty good with just a little sharpening in PP, and if this isn’t good enough for you, what are you after? Colour is natural and likeable, and vignetting is virtually absent which was another surprise; I tested it with no hood fitted, not even the totally useless item it comes with, and which just gets in the way of the lens cap. It’s the same item on the 18-55, 28-80 and 28-100mm. What were they thinking of? I took pictures of a clear blue sky at 18mm and various apertures and at f3.5-4 I could just about see a [I]very[/I] slight darkening of the extreme corners which you would hardly notice on a real picture, which is far better than I usually find at the wide end of a zoom. I guess this is because the 18-70mm is based on the 28-100mm FF lens of the later Dynax film cameras – indeed, put a late Konica Minolta 28-100 next to the KM18-70 and you can’t tell the two apart except for the writing – they even extend the same amount at the same positions of the zoom ring. I assume they simply repeated the same optical and mechanical design with all the glass elements just a bit stronger, though it was clever of them to maintain the same registration distance. Stick the 18-70 on a film camera and the image ends vignette at 18mm and corners up to 24mm but the rest of the range is clear, so you can use it on film, perhaps even at 18mm if you want a square crop and don’t mind the corners being a bit soft. On FF digital you’d probably see a bit more vignetting, but I don’t suppose many FF aficionados are going to be tempted. :-) Field curvature seems to be fairly low – not enough to be obvious, anyway – just like its FF brother, and a lot less than some of the older Minolta kit zooms. People seem to hate field curvature and soft corners today, though they were once thought quite desirable for portrait lenses … Flare and veiling are good to bad depending on focal length set. I took a picture with a strong winter sun in one corner of the image at 18mm focal length as a fairly extreme test, and the result was large but weak semicircular ghosts in the upper quarter of the frame rather than the little spots you often get, but little veiling and a quite useable picture if you’re tolerant of those things. Zooming progressively in to 70mm without changing the camera axis resulted in increasing flare and veiling (despite the sun now being out of shot) until by 50-70mm the veiling was so bad the image looked like more an 18% grey test card than a scenic view :-). Shielding the sun with a hand, however, immediately brought the picture back to a normal contrast, and the lens doesn’t seem to show much veiling due to sky alone, which is nice. If you actually [I]want[/I] some veiling to create an atmospheric summer’s day effect, just try this lens and vary the focal length until you get the amount you want! I expect to do some better tests of bokeh later, but first impressions are a rather busier background at the long end than I’d like, which probably won’t bother me too much because if I want thin DOF I’d almost certainly pick another lens – I just want things sharp on a basic zoom. BTW I do this kind of testing not merely to see whether a lens is any good, but in order to check what apertures and focal length combinations to avoid when I need a very sharp picture or when (as is often the case) a background of distant bare tree branches makes any CA more noticeable. Many lenses (and not just the cheap ones …) are basically unusable anywhere near full aperture unless you actually [I]want[/I] a soft-focus effect, and quite a few of the older ones have terrible CA at one end, so the key is not get taken by surprise. Maybe I’m lucky with my copy of this lens (I expect there is considerable variation) but it isn’t actually bad enough anywhere in the aperture/focal-length map to generate any must-avoid regions, though as I generally use aperture-priority or manual I would probably stick to f8 from 28mm upwards to keep it sharp and use full aperture sparingly at the long end. Full aperture performance at 18mm is however very good which is the best news, because 18-23mm is the region I can’t easily cover with the Minolta FF lenses I’m likely to have around*, and if 18mm is good you can always crop a little to suit. The slight softness at 70mm won’t bother me much as I won’t be cropping heavily here (I will usually have longer tele-zooms available). The slow aperture with this and other similar lenses is always a potential issue, but with ISO and IBIS to help it’s not a major problem, and when light levels are low or I want thin DOF I have a selection of fast primes to choose from. So though I wouldn’t call it a great lens (it’s not as good as the Sony 18-55 SAM II which is better to start with [I]and[/I] benefits from in-camera corrections) but I don’t think it deserves the calumny often heaped upon it. And, to be realistic, if I want maximum resolution and heavy cropping I will use other lenses and another camera anyway. I haven’t tested the Sony version, and it is arguable whether subsequent issues of a lens years apart have greater tolerances and more variability as the manufacturing tools wear out, or benefit from improvements in manufacturing as the tools are replaced and updated (if they are …) . I also can’t compare it to the 18-200mm Minolta because I don’t buy super-zooms :-) *The 5d is not just a backup camera but intended to be paired with a Minolta AF film camera in my gadget bag, and the low pixel count and lack of live-view suit my way of doing film photography. |
| eastwestphoto#27588 date: May-26-2016 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | All "A mt. Minolta zoom lenses since 1985 |
| price paid: | $25.00 |
| positive: | Lightweight ABS and optically designed for the KM 5D & 7D digital camera CCD chip. Uses 8 contact pins has ED glass two elements for correcting C.A. and spherical abberation. Image quality is striking on 6 meg files with 7.5 um pixel size for 2005 with D rating also |
| negative: | At the time 2005 , seemed like a cheap build quality, in the days of Brass and aluminium metal lenses |
| comment: | It's 2016 May 25 now and I just tested this lens for the FIRST time. I put it on a LA-EA4 Sony adapter and a Sony A7r. While it vignettes from 18 to 24 on FF cameras it amazing after 24 to 80mm and sharp as razor blades in AF focus. Now on the KM 7D is also extremely good and for the cheap money these days a real sleeper! You would be a fool to pass up this lens, designed for CCD chips not CMOS, but works so well with A7r CMOS chip and has full EXIF data. WOW! |
| Aldaer#11883 date: Jun-25-2014 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 90/2,8 macro |
| price paid: | with camera |
| positive: | Good range of focal lengths for the kit lens. |
| negative: | Not so sharp |
| comment: | Good lens for the money |
| rajneesh#11376 date: Oct-8-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Sony 18-55 SAM |
| price paid: | kit lens with KM5D |
| positive: | Weight Range Colors |
| negative: | CA |
| comment: | I got this lens as a kit with the KM5D and am writing this review as I feel this lens is unjustifiably trashed. Not a great lens but its performance should be noted in its context of similarly positioned lenses. Thought at 18 its not really wide (or fast) on APS-C I have used it to good effect for landscapes on the KM5D where its rendition of colors was very good. In my experience better than the rebadged Sony or the new Sony SAM lens. The Sony 18-55 is supposed to have a faster AF but in that range and for what I used it, it hardly was noticeable. The build feels bad but it had never failed on me. Could have been better but a decent beginners lens for those short on budget |
| Milan33m#11157 date: May-31-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | MAF 24-105, MAF 28-105, MAF 35-105, MAF 28-135, |
| price paid: | 50 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Cheap kit lens. Only for beginers. |
| negative: | Almost everything. |
| comment: | One of the worst lenses I used for Sony Alpha. Not sharp, but not heavy, plastic. Only for beginers. |
| KAMSA#10851 date: Jan-14-2013 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | SONY DT1870SAL and the Tank, Minolta 35-70 Beercan classic |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Fast and light weight, adjust quickly to the ambient temperature, fantastic colors very adapteble |
| negative: | Vulnerable, especially the AF mechanism, not so good for macro |
| comment: | I tested the Lens on my KM5D, KM7D and SONY A200. It seems the rebranded kitlens SONY DT1870SAL is simmilar to this lens in specs and performance, while the Kanoca Minolta is Vulnerable its more reliable than the SONY in my opinion. I see more SONY's DT with broken AF, and never have seen the Konica Minolta having the same problem. The Minolta 35-70/F4 wins @ macro stting compare to both lenses. Its stayes in my Gear, and urned his place. |
| JohnF#10662 date: Nov-7-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85, Minolta 100-300 |
| price paid: | with camera kit |
| positive: | Size, weight, zoom range. |
| negative: | Plasticky, disappointing contrast, distortion. |
| comment: | OK for what it is. Be prepared to use Photoshop CS to enhance its output. |
| Pirate#10396 date: Jul-19-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 2.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma AF 17-70mm F2.8-4.5 DC Macro SAL AF 18-70mm F3.5-5.6 DT |
| price paid: | £00.00 (Bundle) |
| positive: | Focal range Adequate build quality Very cheap |
| negative: | Poor IQ Hopeless lens hood Colour rendition |
| comment: | In a word 'rubbish', and it's price reflects this. If it's all you have, then it's better than nothing, but it's not one you would consciously buy. The lens hood is pointless (same as the SAL 18-70mm DT) though the Sony version of this lens is arguably better in the IQ and colour department. Yes, it's a basic kit lens, and fortunately for me, my copy was bundled with a Dynax 5D and it was subsequently re-homed. Not much you can say about this offering. Leave it alone. |
| Rush2112#10156 date: Apr-29-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Every other maker's kit lens. |
| price paid: | 45.00 |
| positive: | Price, sharpness (on a good sample), max magnification, zoom range. |
| negative: | Not going to win awards for the build quality but better build than Sony's current 18-55m SAM. |
| comment: | Some of you know that I write reviews elsewhere, but I do sometimes also here. I have to say that the Minolta 18-70mm kit lens has a sharpness and CA advantage over the supposed rebadged Sony version- and is a very decent kit lens overall. I've tested and owned every modern kit lens from all the major brands- and the Minolta is a lens that I rely on with no reservations. Might need to buy a couple and keep the best adjusted (best sample as they say) one, but once you find a good one (likely you will right away), its a very worthwhile lens to have around even if you like expensive glass. Its very light with a good focal range and has excellent macro (max magnification) capabilities. In a way Minolta paved the way for other makers to follow with a decent kit lens, and Sony still sells the 18-70mm to this day. Do yourself a favor though and look for a good used Minolta version- I swear they are better than Sony's version. -Carl |
| blackworx#10009 date: Mar-8-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 2 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | SAL16-55 |
| price paid: | Kit with 7D |
| positive: | Light as in not heavy Okay around 35mm at f/8 Good starter lens |
| negative: | CA Colour Sharpness Build |
| comment: | As above this is a good starter lens. Mine is currently with my little sister who is starting out in photography. Despite what it says on the front, this is not a Minolta lens. Smacks of having been a rushed job designed to a price. CA is awful. SAL16-55 is not fantastic but much nicer. |
| smf#9855 date: Jan-27-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85 Minolta 35-70 f/4 Sigma 28-80 |
| price paid: | $60 (used) |
| positive: | Range Weight Versatility Fast autofocus |
| negative: | Build |
| comment: | I really wish this lens had a metal mount. On the other hand, I like the weight. I bought my camera as the body only and picked this up to compare to the 28-85. If other options are available for wide angle, the 28-85 is a superior "normal-tele" lens, but I found them close enough in everyday performance that the lower weight and wider low range of the 18-70 give it the edge. |
| Gavno#9703 date: Dec-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-70 F/4 Baby Beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light weight Sharp when stopped down Decent wide angle |
| negative: | Plastic build! AF hunts badly on action shots |
| comment: | I needed a wide angle lens and didn't want to pay for a decent prime. I got this in a box of lenses at a swap meet ($10.00 for the whole box). It does indeed do a decent job as a wide angle; it will fulfill my needs until something better comes along... but it's TERRIBLE for shooting sports (my main thing). On my Alpha 7D the lens chip argues with the camera's logic chip, and AF is all over the place! Typically, it locks nicely into focus... but whrn I trip the shutter, the AF kicks in again and UNfocuses badly just before the shutter trips! For me, this is a MANUAL focus lens, and there it does a decent job... but for the REAL shooting, it'll NEVER replace my Baby Beercan! |
| Jozioau#9332 date: Aug-13-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Carl Zeiss 16-80mm. Minolta 24-105mm. Minolta 17-35mm. |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Optical quality for the price. |
| negative: | Plastic build. |
| comment: | This was the kit lens that originally came with my Konica Minolta 5D, and I kept it when I moved on to my Sony Alpha a100. I found the optical quality very good through its range, with a bit of noticeable pin-cushioning (wide) and barrelling (tele) at its extremes, but generally very good image quality for its price. The build quality is plastic and it felt somewhat flimsy compared to the Minolta 24-105mm and the Minolta 17-35mm zooms, but I must say it performed well and reliably while I had it. I was ultimately convinced to save for a Carl Zeiss 16-80mm and I must say when I ended up buying one, I was struck by the extra dimension in its image quality, but for an inexpensive kit lens, the 18-70mm does a good job. I've posted some sample images that show off its capabilities. |
| derekw#9188 date: Jun-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Most other budget zooms covering this range |
| price paid: | 30 GBP (mint) |
| positive: | Sharp stopped down Good colour Light Close Focussing Inexpensive |
| negative: | Distortion. Sharpness at f9 at long end |
| comment: | OK there are much better lenses, but there are also some worse. |
| RedDrake#8557 date: Jan-24-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 5 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | kit |
| positive: | + light + good range + sharp stopped down |
| negative: | - build - distortion is heavy - unable to provide enough resolution for newer sensors |
| comment: | Well, it's a good companion for the KM5D or 7D, but it lacks resolution to give good images on cameras with 12MP and more. However if you make small prints and/or resize your digital images to about 3-4MP, then it's practically ideal. The only really bad thing is the distortion, which is noticeable on both ends. I also haven't experienced any flare with this lens, even though I've lost the hood (which is extremely small anyway). |
| Epic Win#8180 date: Nov-4-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-70mm f/2.8 G |
| price paid: | USD 500.00 kit |
| positive: | Fast focusing, close MFD, bright colors, high contrast even in overcast conditions. Lightweight. Range 18-70 is very versatile for daily use |
| negative: | Front element rotates. Its a DT lens which means cannot be used on full frame. Red dot near lens mount came off on my copy |
| comment: | I own two G lenses which would be useless in some circumstances -- in which I turn to this cute little wonder. Its lightweight, and you can hide it in any little pocket in your camera bag. On some of my elaborate outings I experimented with carrying it by itself and the results were more than satisfactory. Images are a bit more contrasty than what I get from 28-70g or 80-200g but there have been a few times when looking at a pictures I couldn't tell if it was taken with a G lens or the 18-70mm, because in some situations, color is the only thing that distinguishes them from it. I am sure it doesn't out resolve a larger CCD but on a 7D I find this lens reliable and sharp. I gave it a 5/5 for sharpness because I've never recognized a situation when I asked for sharp images and it didn't deliver. Pixel peeping will reveal that 28-70mm G and this are different animals. With my 28-70G copy, I find that lack of microcontrast will be compensated by better color rendition and resolution. In this lens, its the opposite. Colors may not be right, but it sure can tell when one boundary ends and another begins. In other words, brace yourself for high contrast when using this lens. Color rating gets a 4 because of the the reasons above. I just find something lacking, somewhere, an extra life that pictures taken with G lenses have and this lens lacks. Build is also quite low quality as I think Minolta engineers developed this lens to be sold as beginner kit which could produce better pictures for the upgrade friendly hobbyist. I don't mind the plastic, but the lack of a distance meter and fixed front element got me, plus the red dot which marks the point where the lens can be mounted has fallen off. 4 is more than enough for this lens Flare resistance is pretty good, in fact better than both my other lenses. Distortion wise I never saw any obvious problems. On the wide angle side I need more data to make a final judgment. All in all, a very good lens. IQ is not the best but it is a great lens to have when you know you cannot carry precious/heavy glass. |
| kubuthor#7772 date: Aug-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 100-200/4,5 50/1,7 sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | came with camera |
| positive: | light, good enough wide open |
| negative: | think, that should work better when on F8... especially in terms of sharpness and aberration, mechanically nothing really great |
| comment: | Sometimes I was surprised how good it was wide open, but also how little improved when set to apertures that should optically be the best (around F8). Focusing not so fast on 5D, maybe (subjective) faster on 5, but ok Colors are nothing special - 100-200 beats it by far. Also I liked the effect when used wide on Dynax 5... but thats something not so objective Few days ago something inside has broken and the lens does not focus, so I bought sony 18/70 second hand and to be honest, didn´t await a lot... but my initial impression is that sony feels better and the images also seem to be sharper... Overall - normal lens for events, where it can come to harm without that "pop up" in images, that 50 and 100-200 have. |
| PeteMag#6884 date: Feb-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm 1.7 beercan 28-135mm 80-200 hs g |
| price paid: | kit lens |
| positive: | Cheap Cheerful Not a bad performer over the whole range |
| negative: | Distortion At any length there are better options |
| comment: | This is an average lens that works well in all situations without being exceptional in any. My copy is pretty sharp although I hear some are not, the build quality certainly is cost saving - But if I picked up my camera and this was attached I would consider leaving it on rather than immediately reach for a prime or "better" lens. I'd say this lens was under-rated by many. |
| subcat001#6343 date: Nov-7-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105 RS Minolta 35-70 F4 Minolta 50 1.7 Minolta 100-300 APO Minolta 75-300 D Tamron 90 Di Macro |
| price paid: | Bundled with 7D |
| positive: | Good Range on APS-C Lightweight Cheap Sharpness when stopped down |
| negative: | CA particularly at 18mm Distortion at 18mm Soft wide open Slow F5.6 from 35mm+ Lens hood useless Manual focus |
| comment: | As this came packaged with my 7D, it was essentially my first experience with a DSLR. After the initial honeymoon period the weaknesses of this lens became apparent. The first thing to strike you about the 18-70 is its light weight. There's no need to worry about it adding extra ballast to your bag. On closer inspection, the reason for this becomes obvious. The whole body, including the mount, is made entirely from plastic. While it feels cheap it appears to be robust enough. The zoom ring has little or no dampening applied at all, and on my father’s copy is a little "gritty". Wide open it's only really usable for snap shots, and it isn't even fast. F5.6 from 35mm onwards!!! Images are soft, particularly around the edges and at 18mm it exhibits distortion. CA is also be a problem particularly at the wide end. Stopping it down transforms it. At F8 images are surprisingly sharp, even in the corners. It's easy to be over critical of the 18-70. It certainly isn't a razor sharp prime, but it is by no means a door stop (probably because it isn't heavy enough). Except its limitation and use it carefully, and this lens will reward you with pleasing results. |
| photoBear#6008 date: Sep-7-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | (on canon) 18-55 kit lens tamron 28-300 ld minolta 28-80 film camera kit lens 70-210 beercan |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Highly usable range can produce good images when used properly not always as bad as made out by some focus ring does not shift when the camera tilts as with some kit lenses |
| negative: | rotating filter zoom can be shifted unintentionaly |
| comment: | This is my 5d kit lens, I was pleased with the range and glad the manual focus did not shift when you tilt the camera, a negative of my older minolta 28-80. filters do show up in the image corners @18mm which is crappy. The corners are generaly soft unless stopped down. From experience this lens was better than the canon 18-55 in build sharpness and range. the hood is usless as a hood, I use it backwards as a focus ring, this has also allowed me to perfect my two fingered technique for adjusting the focus and polarising filter simultaniously. I have replaced this lens with the cz16-80. Dont buy this lens, buy some other one. |
| Munin#5897 date: Aug-24-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 1 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Lightweight Good range for indoor Pretty fair MFD Pretty sharp @ F5.6 Fast AF |
| negative: | Plastic fantastic Hunts a bit in low light Lens wobbles when focusing |
| comment: | Got this as a kit lens with my 5D, I have managed to take a couple of great shots with this lens but mostly I'm disappointed by the performance. It feels like the lens is going to come apart when it is focusing, it wobbles and makes noisy clicking sounds. I do not recommend this lens unless you just want a cheap lens that you can bang around and don't worry if it breaks. |
| ianb#5439 date: May-23-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Zeiss 16-80mm Minolta 28-80mm |
| price paid: | Kit lens (?) |
| positive: | Cheap Good focal lentgh range |
| negative: | Most other features |
| comment: | Came as a kit lens with my Dynax 5D. Front lens element fell off (under the daylight filter within a week.) Pictures were never really inspiring and I mainly used this lens for interior shots or where the wide angle was needed. Perhaps the only endearing feature of this lens is the price... but I would need convincing that was a good enough reason to buy one. Other than that my trusty, very old minolta 28-80mm, spent most of its time on the camera. Now both lenses sold along with the Dynax 5D to make way for an A900. |
| Petronix#4549 date: Dec-14-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50mm |
| price paid: | 40€ as new |
| positive: | Price-quality a hit! light-weight |
| negative: | plastic build |
| comment: | LOved this plastic lens ... ;-) we (+my son)have 2 of this example..... nice for inside, showrooms etc..... also in the fields see: www.tractorsteven.be the last 2 years my son used it, for al his tractor-pulling machines...in all conditions (summer, rain, mud) unbelieveble .... find this lens for 40€ on ebay!(new in rare white box!) |
| MichelvA#4502 date: Dec-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Konica Minolta A200 / 28-200 Konica Minolta 28-100 f/3.5-5.6 Minolta 24-85 f/3.5-4.5 RS Minolta 17-35 f/3.5 G Minolta 28-70 f/2.8 G |
| price paid: | kit with KM5D |
| positive: | Good range Cheap Lightweight ADI Flare resistant |
| negative: | Build quality not so good Stop down > f/5.6 for sharpness Wobbling while focussing Small focus ring Front rotates while focusing |
| comment: | This lens came with my Konica Minolta 5D body. It isn't that bad as some say, but there's no magic either. For starters not much to complain, only poor build maybe. Image wobbles while focussing when looking through the VF. Compared to better lenses slight dull colors and flattening of images but you have to look very good to notice. Still way better than bridge camera's like the Konica Minolta A200. I could live with this lens but the fun factor is higher with better lenses. Update: the main competitor will be the newer plastic mount Sony DT lenses, like 18-55 SAM but also the cheap primes. The 18-55 is probably better value for money. |
| fjbyrne#4390 date: Nov-15-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 2 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-75/2.8 |
| price paid: | 100 USD (new - kit) |
| positive: | - Sharp stopped down a bit - Good range - Fast AF - Light |
| negative: | - Build quality isn't the best - Front rotates during focusing - Small focus ring |
| comment: | This is actually a decent kit lens IMO - especially considering it only costs $100. I got some good shots with it on vacation a couple years back. It needs to be stopped down to about f8 before it really start to shine but it is quite usable at that point. |
| sdm9465#4356 date: Nov-11-2008 | |
|---|---|
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 50/1.7 KM 28-75/2.8 Sigma 10-20/4-5.6 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light Inexpensive |
| negative: | Poor build No very sharp |
| comment: | This is an inexpensive kit lens and it's build quality and performance reflect this. (You get what you pay for.) I found sharpness to be fine on my 5D but it was quite bad on my A700 and was quickly retired. It now only sees use on my 5D when going to the beach with my kids where I'd rather not bring anything of value. |
| TallPaul#4243 date: Oct-14-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8 Minolta 35-70/3.5-4.5 Minolta 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | Kit Lens |
| positive: | Good range on APS-C. Good range for travel photography. Light to carry. Common filter size. 18mm is wide on APS-C. |
| negative: | Built to price point not performance point. Resale value very low. |
| comment: | Kit lens with my 5D, this is actually a good lens. When I look back at early photos with my 5D, where I was in P mode and so the camera was stopping down, I am often surprised to find some very sharp shots. The lens has its limitations though, the limited aperture especially at the 70mm end means poor low light performance. The build quality is not poor, but its not great either. |
| Dynaton-DK#4198 date: Oct-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 3 build: 3 distortion: 2 flare control: 4 overall: 2.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma AF18-200 F3.5-6.3 Sigma AF17-70 F2.8-4 Sigma AF28-105 F3.8-5.6 Sigma AF10-20 F4-5.6 Minolta AF24-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF28-80 F3.5-5.6 Minolta AF35-105 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF35-70 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF35-70 F4 Macro Cosina AF28-105 F2.8-3.8 Minolta AF28 F2.8 Minolta AF50 F1.7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Came free with the camera. Sharp in th centre of the frame. ADI compatible. Goes to 18mm (however not with good performance). |
| negative: | Colour not vibrant. Anything else than the very centre is either soft or blurred. Horrible distortion. |
| comment: | Updated review December 2009. As original in my review, I still think that this lens (and the Sony branded ditto) is very overrated in reviews in commercial magazines. It is a poor kit lens - and it is only fair in regard to image quality because the centre of the frame looks sharp. Anything out the very centre of the kit lens is poor - and it is in fact the worst of approx 50 lenses that I have tested the last couple of years - in fact much worse almost all of the older Minolta low-cost kit-lenses that are rated low on this site but that in my tests surprised me by being better overall. Something I did not expect but when considering it logically an old FF lens used on an APS-C sensor will only transmit light in the centre of the FF optics and thus using the "best" part only - whereas an APS-C lens does not "cut out" the flaws in the corners as does the FF lens. On an APS-C lens you get the poor parts of the optics within our picture frame. So what may be a poor performer on FF is in fact doing much better on APS-C. I found the pictures pretty boring in regard to colour and contrast - as they were dull and colours not vibrant. Any of the old classical Minolta lenses from the 1980's have much better colour (and can be found at the same price). Best thing about this lens is that it normally comes "free" with a camera and is better build than the flimsy - and likewise poor performing - old Ř62 revision Minolta AF28-80 F3.5-5.6 that came with a lot of older Minolta analog cameras. (Note that the Ř55 Minolta AF28-80D is a lot sharper than the kit lens - and must not be confused for the poor Ř62 revision!) If you are going to pay for this lens it is in fact very difficult to justify the approx. 40 USD these come for - you can find much better lenses for the same money. I sold this lens very fast after getting my first Minolta digital SLR - but as it is available for no money used I bought one again recently to have a "reference" when doing my tests of some 50 different lenses. Pro's: It comes for free and it is ADI compatible - and is fairly sharp in the very centre of the frame. Con's: Everything else - virtually any old FF lens used on APS-C will blow this lens out of the water. Worst of approx 50 different lenses corner-to-corner. The same goes for distortion - this lens is not a good performer when comparing it to any other lens. If you going to pay for the lens is it too expensive as much better lenses can be bought at the same little money (or less in fact). If you want to keep this lens use it for benchmarking (as I do) or use it as your "do not care if I break it" lens. Of cause this one can also be used when you need to go wide in case you do not (note: do not) have any other lens in the 18mm-28mm range. If you do not like the idea of using a FF lens and only want to use APS-C designed lenses then go for the Tamron/Sigma AF18-200 instead as these covers your entire range and prices even for brand new ones has dropped significantly the last couple of years. If you do not already own this lens - just walk away - your money can be spend better on virtually anything else! |
rating summary
- total reviews: 125
- sharpness: 3.69
- color: 4.01
- build: 3.07
- distortion: 3.51
- flare control: 3.73
- overall: 3.60
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login