Minolta AF 28mm F2.8 A-mount lens reviews
 Dave2006#4245 date: Oct-14-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Ł60 |
| positive: | Well built & cheap |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | This lens is used for mainly IR shots for which it produces nice results, occaisonally there is a hot spot in the middle but nothing serious. I have used it for a portrait or group shots too and it works very well, great colours been the main attraction. |
; 12MP| Dynaton-DK#4201 date: Oct-10-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF50 F1.7 (Minolta AF18-70 F3.5-5.6) Minolta AF24-85 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF35-70 F3.5-4.5 Minolta AF35-70 F4 Macro Minolta AF35-105 F3.5-4.5 (Minolta AF28-80 F3.5-5.6) Sigma AF17-70 F2.8-4 Sigma AF18-200 F3.5-6.3 Sigma AF28-105 F3.8-5.6 Cosina AF28-105 F2.8-3.8 |
| price paid: | 600 DKK (Used) |
| positive: | Allround applications. Light weight. Image quality. |
| negative: | Slight distortion. |
| comment: | The reviews already says all - this is a good lens and very usable with the 1.5x crop of APS-C as "light weight" walk-around lens. It's fairly sharp, produce great colour and contrast - but not as sharp as my Minolta AF50 F1.7 and (surprisingly) not as sharp as my Cosina AF28-105 F2.8-3.8. However,the latter are around 50mm so the comparison is not completely fair as the angle thus is not the same. Buttonline - I like this lens and regard it as something fairly close to the analog film camera "standard prime lenses". Can be recommended - and the feel of lacking a zoom is surprisingly easy to overcome as the angle of view in real life cover a lot more images than I expected (having forgotten the days when a 50mm lens on a film camera was the standard). |
| IanMiddy#4181 date: Oct-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 20/2.8,24/2.8,28/2 Min 50/1.7,50/1.4 Min 24-105D KM18-70DT, KM17-35D Tam 18-250 |
| price paid: | L55 s/h |
| positive: | Light Fast focussing Cheap Good colour & contrast |
| negative: | For my shooting style, none |
| comment: | My second MinO prime [after the 50/1.7] and probably my most used - I have better lenses, wider lenses, faster lenses and more flexible zooms, but for over a year now [since the A100 became my primary cam] this lens has stayed on my 5D almost constantly. I mainly use it with in-cam B&W mode [starting with Oct07 one-prime] and I can only describe the combo as the digital version of the rangefinder cameras I used 30yrs ago - it's nice once-in-a-while to just use 'a camera' - for this method of use I find the 42mm equiv fl just about ideal. Not sure why, but I've never had the same level of satisfaction using the 28/2 in the same style - maybe I subconciously worry about taking it into situations where it might get damaged - not something I consider with the more easily replaceable 2.8. [Edit: Have to admit that it doesn't do so well on the A350, so will probably be retained just for use on the KM5/7D Edit2:...but it does do better on the A700 - but not as well as the 28/2, so the comment above still applies! Edit3: Sold (with 50/1.7) to fund Sig 50-150] |
| Edinator#3790 date: Jul-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm F1.7 Minolta 28-75 F2.8 |
| price paid: | $80 CAD |
| positive: | small compact design great deal good build close focusing distance |
| negative: | not as sharp as some zooms 49mm filter thread |
| comment: | I find the Minolta 28-75 F2.8 sharper when stopped down and it is more useful than this prime. This thing focuses really close but the zoom surpasses it in teh 75mmm end. I would recommend the Minolta 28-75 over this lense unless you are on a tight budget. |
| LECHER#3643 date: May-28-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 Minolta AF 135mm f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 25 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small and Light Fast on A700 Great Bokah Good IQ |
| negative: | Didn't get one sooner |
| comment: | Just picked up this lens today with the other primes up top. I got these 3 lenses and a Beercan for $125.00. Glad to say I pulled off over 200 pictures with these lenses today and I am very happy. Shot about half in RAW and the other half in JPG, just to see what kind of color and noise I would get. The 28 was good but the 50 and 135 was better. The Beercan was damaged so I didn't get to shoot it today. I will do that tomorrow as I just took it apart and fixed the forward barrel problem. Thank you, Pete Ganzel, for the great info on the Beer Baby. Didn't have any issues with Flare or viginetting and thought I saw some CA in the JPG but when I compared it to the RAW, there was no CA to be had. Minolta colors were all there. |
| jvandegr#3545 date: May-2-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 24mm f/2.8 Minolta AF 50mm f/1.7 Minolta AF 135mm f/2.8 |
| price paid: | 90 (near mint) |
| positive: | Compact Light weight Fast focus Inexpensive |
| negative: | Lacks color of Minolta 24mm f/2.8 Not quite as sharp as Minolta 24mm f/2.8 |
| comment: | I've shot with two samples of this lens and in both cases, I was left wanting a little more. One sample was the original crossed XX version, the other was not. Sharpness is good, but not quite as good as many MTF tests suggest. When stopped down to f/5.6, sharpness becomes more impressive. I think my 24mm f/2.8 is sharper in the center and gives a similar performance near the edges. My Minolta 50mm f/1.7 is even sharper still. I found only minimal distortion near the edges of the frame, and flare is usually not a problem. Color rendition is good, but it lacks some of the great Minolta color tonality of my other Minolta primes. Handling and autofocus speed are very similar to the 24mm f/2.8, which I was happy to see: light, compact, and fast. The built-in lens hood is nice because I won't lose it, but it's of limited use on a 1.5X crop camera. In the end, this is a good lens, but it's tough to justify owning both this lens and the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 for a 1.5X crop camera. Even considering it's low price, this isn't something that will displace my 24mm in my camera bag. All that being said, if you need a 28mm lens, this is a good one. |
| vsldk#3462 date: Apr-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | compact sharpness is OK nice color nice build |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | missing |
| fute77#3284 date: Feb-19-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 1.7 Minolta 70-210 beercan KM 18-70 |
| price paid: | 60€ |
| positive: | light fast focus |
| negative: | range, 28mm becomes 42 (35, 24 or 20 mm should be more adapted) |
| comment: | nice lens I use a little |
| wildeye#3160 date: Jan-9-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 17 3.5, Min 20 2.8 RS, Sig 18-125, Min 24-105, CZ 16-80, Min 50 1.4 |
| price paid: | 75 USD (used) |
| positive: | Small, solid, reliable, discrete |
| negative: | small MF ring |
| comment: | I got this as my first prime because it was cheap. What a bargain! It has really performed much better than I had expected. As a travel lens for walk around it's great on APS C. Like any lens, it's not always fair to expect great sharpness wide open, but I'm impressed with it at 3.5 and up. I've had good results indoors in low light and in daylight I don't give sharpness a second thought. Although I now use the CZ and the Min 20 the most, This little guy is still a keeper. |
| dmacgee#3127 date: Jan-4-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $30 CDN (used) |
| positive: | A good fit with my other lenses. Gives me a good fixed lens. |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | missing |
| womprat4#3124 date: Dec-31-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - really small - decent build quality - great color and decent sharpness |
| negative: | - funny focal length on my a700 |
| comment: | I really have come to love this lens. I bought it solely because it was available cheaply, and basically put it in a drawer for a few weeks. Then one day I pulled it out, put it on, and now I use it all the time. I love the compact size for everyday in the house shooting and quick excursions. Great color, and fairly sharp (more than adequate for quick snapshots and everyday pictures). wished it was actually 28mm on my a700, but meh, it's still very useful. Recommended. |
| Cato79#2988 date: Nov-28-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 30mm 1.4 Minolta 50mm 1.7 |
| price paid: | $80 (used) |
| positive: | * Great lens for street photography * Not expensive when buying it used on ebay, good optics for the money |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | If you need a small and discreet wide / normal lens, that boats decent optical quality, then this is for you. Hood that protects against flare is included in the lens, i.e. just like on the Minolta 50mm f/1.7. The included hood give this lens another thumbs up for discreetness. For this reason, I love using this lens for street photography. My Sigma 30mm 1.4 is sharper and faster, but bigger. I keep and regularly use both. |
| Profu#2985 date: Nov-27-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 229 USD (new) |
| positive: | Very good resolution. Small. On Digital - good all around lens. On film good for street photography. |
| negative: | Bad flare control Sometimes focus hunting in low light, and AF speed it's not the best. On Film - Vigneting at f/2.8 with internal hood. Thing that some of you will don't like. |
| comment: | I actually boght this lens with my 7D. I didn't have enough money to buy a good zoom lens, so I decided to buy a fix one that will be an all around lens, for people group shoting, indoor, lanscape, street ... small and versatile. I like the lens as I had only this one for the first 8 months, I shot a lot with it, and the quality of pictures is very good even wide opened. Because it's small, it can be easy used with internal flash of 7D. After the use of this fix lens for almost a year I decided to go only on fix lenses. I have tested some cheap zooms and I din't like the image quality. When I bought the film camera, I use almost this lens on it + ProFoto 400BW = excelent for street photography. It makes some vigneting wide open, BUT !!! i like this vigneting :). I sometimes use f2.8 only to get the beautiful vigneting on the picture :). It has some distortion, but it's a wide lens :). The bigest problem is the flare control. If the source of the light is near the frame of the picture it makes some gosts. The hood is not enough and I use my hand to stop the light. At long exposures during the night it also catches some gosts from out of the frame source of light. But i try to avoid this, and everything is ok. In spite of my rating, I highly recommend this lens to anyone who need a small qualitative 42mm eq. toy on Digital. |
| TheStig#2840 date: Oct-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 4.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Kit lens Div Sigmas (zoom) 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | 130USD (used) |
| positive: | Small/discrete Lightweight Solid built Near normal (28x1.5=42mm) Fast |
| negative: | Focus ring |
| comment: | I really like this lens, and it is one of my favourite walk around lenses. Its build quality is excellent. Nice colours, fast focusing. Really sharp if stopped down slightly. I love it, and would never part with it. |
| levice#2763 date: Sep-21-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 17-35D 28-135/4-4,5 50/1,7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Color Fast Cheap |
| negative: | distortion |
| comment: | missing |
| finnt#2751 date: Sep-17-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 Kit lens |
| price paid: | 100 Euro (used) |
| positive: | Good old Minolta lens |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Sharp with Good Minolta colors. |
| twb119#2559 date: Jul-18-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-75mm sig Kit lens |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Full frame, Fast, small, |
| negative: | none for the price |
| comment: | Got this lens about 16-18 years ago don’t remember the price Wished they had made it in F/1.4 now, close to normal on digital camera and sharp It is just ok on a film camera, nice and wide but not good on the edges Fast focus on any camera |
| Dinostrich#2552 date: Jul-16-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 50mm f1.7 100mm f2.8 macro 400mm f5.6 |
| price paid: | Ł31.10 |
| positive: | Good prime sharpness Usual Minolta colour quality No problems on distortion and little flare |
| negative: | Bit of a silly hood Focus ring a little small |
| comment: | Good performing lens with the usual Minolta qualities and little in the way of wide-angle problems that can be found on some varities. Used mostly for cityscapes/landscapes. Good value for money at the price paid. I am a little surprised by some of the low marks - maybe I got a good version or I am easily satisfied :) |
| Grubeater#2543 date: Jul-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
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: | 50/1.4, 50/1.7, |
| price paid: | package deal |
| positive: | Good build like any Minolta prime. Lightweight. Wide view angle. |
| negative: | Little mf-ring, same odd lenshood as the 50mm's. |
| comment: | I really start liking primes, next one will probably be a 24/2.8. |
| Torchwood#2395 date: May-31-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 28mm F2.8 / F1.8 USM (on 20D) . Nikon 28mm F2.8D (on D200) . old Sigma 28mm F1.8 fastwide (non-EX), 28mm F2.8 (non Ex) both on D200. |
| price paid: | 45 UK |
| positive: | Fast sharp and VERY cheap. |
| negative: | Leaves nothing to be desired at the price they can be picked up for even from dealers in mint condition. |
| comment: | On Sony A100 it's very sharp even at F2.8 right out to the edges, only the VERY extreme borders when viewed at 100% (10Mp remember) show any signs of slight softening. fast focus and accurate too. sharper than the Canon, Nikon and the old Sigma Pre-EX variants even in the middle and a lot sharper at the edges.. the most Impressive 28mm prime I've used. It doesn't seem to get much respect amongst the Minolta frat but they've not had to put up with the mediocre examples from other makers. either that or this sample is especially good. |
| Mauricio11#2356 date: May-25-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sigma 30/1.4 sony 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | 99 USD (almost new) |
| positive: | - cheap - reasonably sharp - compact |
| negative: | - small focus ring |
| comment: | I think this lens is much better than people say. It simply does the job! Very good for indoor shooting (2.8/iso800/no flash), full frame, light, compact, normal VoF. I'd say this is great for street photography on digital. |
| PMacinSeattle#2352 date: May-25-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-135 F4-4.5 |
| price paid: | 80 USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharpness and Colours |
| negative: | Flare |
| comment: | I'll cut to the chase and admit that I'm comparing this to a lens I was a little unhappy with and I have little experience with any other lenses so I may be scoring it inaccurately. But, with those caveats I am really really happy with my new toy. Its lovely and sharp, the sweet spot for the center appears to be between F4 and F8, and by about F4.5 sharpness appears pretty consistent across the frame. Most importantly for me the colours are wonderful. The 28-135 I was using had woeful contrast and really flat colors - I was usually able to recover pictures but often couldnt really get the best of the photo's. The new 28 is completely different - the photos come straight from the camera clear and punchy, this is a great relief for me. Build and distortion are good - not great but certainly above average. Flare control is perhaps a little below average, get the sun within 20 degrees of the sun and you will have flare spots. For the first couple of phtos these look kind of pretty but after spending 20 minutes moving around, shading the lens, doing everything you can to get rid of those spots only to have the sun go down and take your dream shot with it you get pretty tired of it. All in all - these lenses are dirt cheap, my 80 bucks was probably a little over the odds and it punches well above its weight. |
| jonatanmelin#2297 date: May-10-2007 | |
|---|---|
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 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | 85 USD used |
| positive: | Surprisingly scharp, nice price. |
| negative: | Small MF.ring with no feeling. |
| comment: | I was surprised by the scharpness, and realy pleased with this lens. I have`nt tried it out that much yet, but i will surely do so... |
| jonatanmelin#2296 date: May-10-2007 | |
|---|---|
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 50/1.7 |
| price paid: | 85 USD used |
| positive: | Surprisingly scharp, nice price. |
| negative: | Small MF.ring with no feeling. |
| comment: | I was surprised by the scharpness, and realy pleased with this lens. I have`nt tried it out that much yet, but i will surely do so... |
| Sanjuro#2161 date: Apr-15-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Pentacon 29, m42 |
| price paid: | 90 usd, used |
| positive: | Very well build. Fast. Very little |
| negative: | Nothing I can find. |
| comment: | A very recommended lens if you like a wide lens. I guess a 28/2 is better but for the price this lens is excellent. |
| Maffe#1773 date: Feb-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Light, small and cheap |
| negative: | Silly hood |
| comment: | I did´t like it my KM 28-75 was better so I sold this one. |
| hotwire#1762 date: Feb-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8 (D) |
| price paid: | $125 CAD (used) |
| positive: | Cheap |
| negative: | Useless Hood Focus Ring on MinO lenses kinda sucks. |
| comment: | While I hardly used this lens anymore since getting the 28-75/2.8 (D), it occasionally served purpose when I need a compact lens. From my understanding the Sony 28/2.8 is the same except for the D functionality. |
| dimi_dinev#1650 date: Jan-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | detailed comparison to 17-35/2,8-4 |
| price paid: | 99 € (used) |
| positive: | compact not too expensive sharpness is OK nice color nice build |
| negative: | not as sharp as most people say built-in hood practically useless built-in hood can harm focusing some CAs focus ring |
| comment: | (Same text as in my 17-35/2,8-4 review...) I bought the old 28/2,8 some weeks ago and tested it against my zoom KM 17-35/2,8-4 (at 28mm) on my 7D. The latter means that my results are founded on an image from a cropped sensor! I have USED both lenses on my 800si, but haven't COMPARED them in detail under full frame conditions. Both lenses are practically new. I bought the 28mm almost unused, and it's in a very good shape for such an old model, completely clean. Generally I am very careful with my equipment, so the 17-35, which I bought in July is also in best possible shape. Wide open, the zoom (f3,5) has a slight better performance in both upper edges, the other two edges are almost equal The 28mm (f2,8) has a very slight advantage in center performance. Above f5,6: The center performance of the 28mm is at every f-stop just slight better than the zoom, but really a tiny advantage (a little more contrast). The zoom delivers at the contrary a visibly better edge performance at each f-stop. The zoom's CAs are visibly less. On the whole, the zoom performs better. It can be considered sharper at every f-stop and has visibly less CAs. I'm a little disappointed from the 28/2,8. As it's a prime lens, I had expected a better performance than my 17-35. The latter I consider as a very good and useful zoom. Here the thread in the forum where I have published my test of both lenses: http://dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=10201&PN=2 |
| hitormiss#1633 date: Jan-10-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | 17-35mm Minolta |
| price paid: | 75 USD(used) |
| positive: | excellent sharpness and color. Maybe the perfect focal length(see below). |
| negative: | None |
| comment: | I've used this lens several times on commercial jobs with outstanding results. Maybe the fact that some peopple have a problem with sharpness is due to some quality control issues. In my experience this lens is as sharp as my 50mm f/1.7. Images taken with my KM 7D viewed at 100% on screen are razor sharp! Many people also don't seem to like the 42mm focal length. All I can say is that they haven't given it enough of a chance. See- http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-may-05.shtml for a great explanation of the 40mm attributes. The more you work with this lens the more you'll learn to love it. It takes some getting used and requires that you "work" a bit but the results are worth it. To quote Mike Johnston- "Moderate focal lengths, to my eye at least, serve in part to remove this sort of "specialness" from pictures. They make the angle-of-view and the type of distortion nondescript. And what this allows, in turn, is a concentration on the visual content of pictures. That's what's so special about not being special." This pretty much sums up how I feel about this lens. |
| Tank#1617 date: Jan-6-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I have experience with this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm 1.7, Kit 18-70mm |
| price paid: | 80 USD (used) |
| positive: | Cheap, fast, good build, light |
| negative: | Not as sharp as my 50mm 1.7. Could be faster. Soft, needs to be stepped down to about f5-6 for crisp images. |
| comment: | I was kind of disappointed by the results I've gotten with this lens. The images are clear in good light but kind of grainy in low light. My 50/1.7 is far superior in low light at f2.8 with the same shutter speed and ISO. I did some informal and subjective testing between my lenses and got similar results with the 28/2.8 and kit lens in good indoor lighting. Outdoor daytime shots were sharper than the kit lens when stepped down a bit. Overall, not a bad bargain but I'm currently hunting for a 28mm f2. |
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