Minolta AF 28mm F2.8 A-mount lens reviews
 andyken#10171 date: May-3-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 35mm f1.8 Minolta 50mm f1.7 Sony 16-105 f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-55 f3.5-5.6 Sony 18-70 f3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | £65 (used) |
| positive: | Relatively cheap for a Minolta prime. Small and light, but well built. |
| negative: | Surprisingly mediocre IQ. |
| comment: | HiDesert is absolutely spot on with the review below mine and I haven't got that much to add except to entirely concur. Its not appalling, but its just nowhere near as good as it 'ought to be' in my opinion. Every shot I took with it was just ok, not one single shot came across as really sharp or impressive. Out of the lenses listed above, only the unloved Sony 18-70 failed to give better IQ at the same focal length and then it was a close call. Unless you're desperate for f2.8, if you've already got a Sony 18-55 kit lens, just give this a miss, the kit lens is both better and more flexible and that's much more of an indictment of the 28mm f2.8 than it is singing the praises of the 18-55mm kit lens. In absolute terms neither are great lenses, but the 28mm f2.8 is the weaker of the two. Only good thing about it is that I managed to sell it for more than I bought it for. |
; 16MP| HiDesert#10012 date: Mar-9-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm F1.7 Sony 35mm F1.8 Sony 18-55 Sony 18-200 Sony 16-105 Tamron 17-50 F2.8 |
| price paid: | $100 IIRC |
| positive: | Built like a tank |
| negative: | Soft |
| comment: | This lens is the example to bring up if anyone ever tells you that any prime lens is better than any zoom lens. Other than being F2.8, this lens produces no better image quality than any of the zooms I listed in "compared to." And that includes the 18-200, the worst walkaround zoom I've ever had. The 18-55, 16-105, and certainly the 17-50 all produce sharper images than this lens, even if you stop this prime down. And it's nowhere near the same leage of image quality as the 50mm F1.7 or the 35mm F1.8. Now that I've got my Tamron 17-50 F2.8, I might sell this lens. I got it when the 18-200, that champion of mediocrity, that poster child of underwhelmingness, and even with that comparison the 28mm F2.8 failed to impress. If my 18-55 broke, I'd trade this for a good 18-55 without a second thought. Even that basic kit zoom is sharper and more fun to use. To sum up; I'm not impressed. |
| SakuTT#9999 date: Mar-6-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | -Minolta 50mm 1.7 -Sony 50mm 1.8 DT |
| price paid: | 110 € (used) |
| positive: | -Build -Small size -Quite sharp -Cheap |
| negative: | -Hood -Flare |
| comment: | Nice lens if you´re on a budget. You can find ´em easily on ebay. And it doesn´t loose it´s value anymore and it´s easy to sell. Good buy. Fast 2.8 aperture. Distortion not a problem. Flaring can be. Famous for it´s ridicilous built in hood. The hood is absolutely useless. Build is all metal, so it feels very solid. Small, so it doesn´t take that much space on your camera bag. I don´t do much pixel peeping, but seems almost as sharp as the Minolta´s 50mm 1.7. Focus speed isn´t so fast. It isn´t slow, but it´s just not fast for a prime. 50mm is faster. Sold mine after purchasing the 15-30mm Sigma. It just wasn´t wide enough (or fast enough) to make it useful. Because of the crop factor works on aps-c sensor like a 50mm on FF. I would recommend it on APS-C, not so much on FF. But almost worth buying for because of the worst hood design of the history of cameras. |
| Reddevil#9957 date: Feb-21-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | € 75 (used) |
| positive: | - Sharp - Nice colors - Compact - Cheap |
| negative: | - Lens hood is useless |
| comment: | missing |
| jmmmerwill#9945 date: Feb-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron SP AF 17-50 F2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical Sony SAL 18-70 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 70 EUR (used) |
| positive: | nice color small/light weight sharp natural/neutral angle of view |
| negative: | tiny hood |
| comment: | Bought this lens to use on my Minolta Dynax film SLR. I rarely used it. I really like it on my Alpha 700 for street photography. I could recommend it without a doubt and will keep it - FF times will come in the future. |
| kaiser_jeff1986#9913 date: Feb-11-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 24-85mm minolta 50mm f3.5 macro sigma 18-200mm |
| price paid: | 65 usd |
| positive: | sharp minolta colors, lens construction, cheap alternative wide lens for your sony alpha aps-c close to 50mm. |
| negative: | the lens hood is cute but not very helpful... |
| comment: | another vintage lens from minolta. its wide for full frame but for aps-c it will give you the sweet spot almost 50mm to take snapshots in almost any situation.. its a walk around lens for me. its this one or the 50mm f3.5 macro. |
| blek#9816 date: Jan-18-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 35-70 F4 Sony AF DT 50 F1.8 Sony AF DT 18-70 F3.5-5.6 Sony AF DT 18-55 F3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | Rp. 1.100.000 |
| positive: | Sharp, Sharp, Sharp! Definitely Minolta colors Build like AK-47 |
| negative: | For this price? Nay. |
| comment: | This is the best, cheapest, widest prime someone can afford. Sharp even wide open. Small, light, yet metal build. On APSC sensor, it is closer to 50mm, only slightly wider. Thus, for such price, this is the best lens for street shots, indoor shots, and, of course, long exposure night starry sky with ISO 400 and below. Beautiful, warm toned colors, like all original Minolta AF mounts. Best bokeh of course at the minimum focus distance. Oh, and the lens have built in hood, and as you may already know, a hood is just a gimmick for boosting looks. Using hands are always better. :P |
| dinadan#9798 date: Jan-17-2012 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24mm f2.8 Super Wide II |
| price paid: | 80 EUR |
| positive: | small, light, sharp, excellent colours |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | my favourite lens at the moment. |
| Berean#9483 date: Oct-9-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-4.5 |
| price paid: | 75 GBP |
| positive: | Cheap Filter size Colour |
| negative: | Build |
| comment: | A little soft at the edges with large apertures. Not as sharp throughout as my Sigma 17-70, but lovely Minolta colours. Small and easy to keep in a bag side pocket. Build is a little dodgy, but I think that's probably just mine as one a friend has is alot better. |
| Doublejayz#9436 date: Sep-18-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-105 3.5-4.5 RS Minolta 50 f1.7 |
| price paid: | 4200 THB (135 USD) |
| positive: | Price Build Color Distortion |
| negative: | Only 28mm (42mm APS-C) Only 2.8 |
| comment: | Waited to get this one for a while for a wider than 50mm with a low price. From other reviews I thought it was not bad at all and I've found that it's kinda good At 28mm from 28-105 causes more distortion from this len and except for its length this little one is much better Tried some portrait shot but I think I prefer an image from my 50 f1.7 and 100-200 f4.5 but it's perfect to stick with my camera all the time for gerneral shooting I'll try 24 f2.8 in the future for the length so this 28 will be useful until then :-) |
| Karlos007#9306 date: Aug-6-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50/1.7 Sony 18-55 SAM |
| price paid: | £92 ( used ) |
| positive: | Price Sharp Brightness Built like a tank |
| negative: | slightly strange focal range Hoods worthless ( but funky design ) |
| comment: | This lens gets a hard time from reviewers and its a shame, because it is one of the must haves for the a-mount used bargain hunter. Nice sharp images, good colour ( not quiet as good as other Minoltas from the era, but still impressive ) Excellent build quality, not to heavy but substantial, quiet a bit of metal. they dont make them like this any more. Nice and bright, shame its not an f1.8, but 2.8 opens up some opportunities that no zoom can touch near this price range. Strangest thing on this lens is the range, 28mm (42mm APS-c ) just seems odd. not sure how to describe it. not wide, but off normal, just does not seem to sit to well. Compose your pictures with some though though and this becomes a somewhat lesser worry. Overall a great little lens and i really don't know why it gets such a panning , if yiu can pick one up, i recommend you do so!!! |
| joeyc#9198 date: Jul-1-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 85 USD (used) |
| positive: | Very Sharp Little Distortion Small Size |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | This is my go to lens on the A55 and a landscape lens for my A850. On both cameras this lens is quite sharp all the way across the frame. My copy must be excellent as I have seen some less than stellar reviews. In my opinion this lens IS stellar, especially considering the sub $100 price. |
| sonya300#9136 date: Jun-15-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 100.00 |
| positive: | Sharp Fabulous colours build lightweight |
| negative: | nothing comes to mind |
| comment: | What should be expected all the way, SHARP. |
| trongkien#9101 date: Jun-7-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minnolta 85mm f1.4 Minolta 50mm f1.4 Sony 50mm f1.4 Minolta 50mm f1.7 Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 Sony 17-70mm (kit lens) |
| price paid: | 75 USD (used) |
| positive: | - color - light and compact |
| negative: | - not sharp at wide open - flare |
| comment: | This lens is great for walk-around lens. I spent one week roadtrip and used only this lens. I were very happy with photos I took that week. Flare is a problem with this lens sometimes. |
| Pipswich#9068 date: May-30-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta zoom lens that drop down to 28mm |
| price paid: | 100 |
| positive: | Cheap crisp and easy to use. |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | I hoped for a bit wider angle. It seems very fast and is currently the fastest lens I own. I haven't done night shooting yet so don't know the ramifications of the speed. At typically $100 US on Ebay, it's quite affordable to get started. There are wider and faster lens out there..., for $300+ each. |
| slantyyz#8932 date: Apr-16-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50/1.7 24/2.8 |
| price paid: | 200 CAD |
| positive: | Nifty integrated hood Good all purpose focal length |
| negative: | Colours not as nice as 50/1.7 or 24/2.8 |
| comment: | After I got a 24/2.8, this lens has been struggling for my affections. Now that I upgraded my body, this lens enjoys a little better life as a walkaround lens on my older body. I like the focal length on a crop sensor. |
| dcad10#8715 date: Feb-28-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 24mm f1.4 L Canon 24mm f2.8 Canon 17-55mm f2.8 IS |
| price paid: | $50 USD |
| positive: | small size built in hood fast focus cheap cost |
| negative: | slowish aperture |
| comment: | My biggest complaint about this lens is that the f2.8 aperture is the same speed as many zoom lenses. Good zoom lenses are about equal in overall image quality to this lens (that is to say both are very good). Which I would want to use comes down to whether you want a smaller/cheaper fixed focal length lens or a larger/more useful zoom lens. |
| bartman#8675 date: Feb-19-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 35/1.8 SAM CZ 16-80 |
| price paid: | 120 (used) |
| positive: | lovely vivid colors |
| negative: | not very sharp till 5.6. |
| comment: | Somehow I like this lens. I still prefer it above the Sony DT 35/1.8 SAM. |
| N.Terrell#8575 date: Jan-27-2011 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 50 Can |
| positive: | colour build great for low light sharp |
| negative: | nothing |
| comment: | I have owned quite a few of these and I have always enjoyed using it. Very sharp. A great little prime which will fit in your pocket. Always had great results. A good fast prime with all the classic Minolta attributes. |
| Thelone#8023 date: Sep-26-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Tamron SP AF 17-50 F2.8 |
| price paid: | 105€ (second hand) |
| positive: | - Cheap - Compact - Sharp |
| negative: | - 28mm on a F2.8 zoom is pretty much the same - Sucks for landscapes |
| comment: | This lens is great if you use it right. It's perfect for street photography (or anything short/middle range), but totally sucks for landscapes. The "problem" is, if you have a F2.8 zoom, you won't see the difference between the 28/2.8 and the 28mm position on the zoom. |
| glass-hoper#7917 date: Sep-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 3 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | M50 1.7 Sigma 17-70 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | small light build |
| negative: | mine was not too sharp colors a tad less then M50 1.7 slow painful manual focus ring like all of its generation |
| comment: | got this because I liked the FOV in a small package and thought to give it a spin for street photography. compared with the M50 is dissapointing - pictrures just look duller and mine was not too sharp ( my 17-70 was doing same/better at 4.5) perheaps I got a lemon, but I ended up returning it. overall an ok lens, but just ok. want to try the new 35/1.8 |
| Ovas#7875 date: Aug-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | MINOLTA 24 f2.8 |
| price paid: | 95 USD |
| positive: | Nice and light |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | OK lens but not impressive, sold it and like my 24 f2.8 better. |
| DaveJonT#7857 date: Aug-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Voigtlander 28mm Ultron |
| price paid: | Free |
| positive: | Small. Cheap. Near pretty sharp wide open. |
| negative: | Mine had some flare issues. |
| comment: | For quite a while, this was my only Maxxum AF lens. It is an excellent lens, and along with the 50f1.7, one of the greatest deals in all of cameradom. I don't really have anything bad to say about these lenses; my first one flared a little, the one my brother gave me, does not. |
| rsf3127#7837 date: Aug-20-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 2.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon EF 50mm 1.8 II Sony 35mm 1.8 Rokkor MC 50mm 1.4 MInolta 50 mm 1.7 Sony DT 16-105mm Vivitar 28mm 2.8f |
| price paid: | 80USD (used) |
| positive: | Size - a tiny lens. Build Fast AF |
| negative: | Sharpness focus ring hood? |
| comment: | Expected this lens to be a lot sharper than my zoom lens on my a700, even at 2.8f. It is NOT sharper than the zoom at any aperture - indeed, the sharpness is the same - but I have a lot more light into it, so I am able to shoot handheld in situations where I had to use my tripod previously. It has more chromatic aberration than the zoom. The 35mm has the same amount of CA of this lens, but only when @ 1.8f. Also, the colors of the zoom are warmer and more pleasant. The focus ring is very thin. The hood is awkward. Perhaps, may become a usable lens for its size - ideally for trekking and hiking. Edit: found a Vivitar on md mount for 15 bucks and have put it to test beside the maxxum on my NEX-5N. The Vivitar is sharper, has less CA and comma is less pronounced (if marginally). Have not tested flaring. |
| vaughaag#7773 date: Aug-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 50mm f1.7 CZ 16-80 Beercan Min 17-35 2.8/4 |
| price paid: | 54 GBP |
| positive: | Nice build and size. Usable at 2.8 but better at 3.5. Smooth focus. Buttery looking Bokeh. Great Colours. |
| negative: | Not as sharp wide open as my 50mm 1.7 |
| comment: | I really like this lens. At 42mm on APS-C, the focal length is a little odd to get used to but once you do its brilliant. I also love this lens on my 9000AF, nice, wide and sharp for landscape. The colours produces are superb, with nice buttery Bokeh. |
| paso144#7477 date: May-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 24 F2.8 50 F1.4 & F1.7 |
| price paid: | 27,50 euro |
| positive: | compact heavy build F2.8 cheap |
| negative: | Not sharp wide open. |
| comment: | My first wide angle prime and I took a lot of street and architectural shot with it. Here the more then average distortion comes to play. This compact lens is very sharp stopped down a bit but quite soft wide open to my opinion. Upgraded this one to the 24mm which shows less distortion and is sharper wide open. |
| Yugus#7306 date: Apr-18-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 50 CAD (Used) |
| positive: | Very inexpensive Small and light Relatively sharp even wide open Bokeh is neutral at best, smoother at F4 in my opinion |
| negative: | For the price it sells at used none |
| comment: | A very nice entry level wide angle lens that can be bought for next to nothing (around $100) compared to many other lenses. This lens preforms quite well, and is very small and light. The corners on a FF body is quite soft until you stop down to F8, and the light fall off isn't to noticeable in real world shots, neither is the distortion. The only problem some people might have with this lens is that 28mm on a APS-C body is 42mm which might be to wide for some people, as it doesn't actually enter the wide angle lens category. Unless you really need that extra stop of light you would be better off getting this lens instead of the Minolta 28mm F2 which is around 4-5x more expensive then this lens used ($400-$500) as F2.8 is generally fast enough for most people. So either way I would highly recommend this lens to anyone that wants a good cheap, and somewhat wide lens. |
| supeter#7151 date: Mar-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 20/f2.8 RS 24-85/f3.5-4.5 RS 50/f1.7 Beercan |
| price paid: | 195 NZD |
| positive: | sharp colors cost size/weight bokeh build quality |
| negative: | nothing |
| comment: | I've managed to get a mint and sharp copy (seems like never used). I think this is a must have lens for all Sony/Minolta users. Very nice colors and contrast. I have no problems with sharpness even when opened to f2.8. Perfect for general photography, can't wait to test it on FF. Bokeh is nice and smooth. |
| hg102#7093 date: Mar-15-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105 Minolta 24mm f:2.8 |
| price paid: | $99 used |
| positive: | Compact well built first generation Minolta. |
| negative: | Not as sharp as my 24mm |
| comment: | This is copy is not as sharp as the Minolta AF 24mm f 2.8. It is compact and has reasonably good focasing speed. |
| madecov#7090 date: Mar-15-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 17-50 Minolta 28-85 Minolta 24-85 Minolta 28-135 |
| price paid: | 100.00 usd used |
| positive: | Great build, fixed aperture, typical Minolta color and contrast. Fixed aperture |
| negative: | Not wide enough on APS-C frame. |
| comment: | I suppose I got a decent copy as I can't really see the complaints about soft images with this lens. It is sharper than most zooms that have the same focal length and of course is smaller and weighs less |
rating summary
- total reviews: 141
- sharpness: 4.24
- color: 4.64
- build: 4.52
- distortion: 4.27
- flare control: 3.86
- overall: 4.31
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login