Minolta AF 17-35mm F2.8-4 D A-mount lens reviews
 Yugus#8174 date: Nov-3-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $300 CAD (Used) |
| positive: | Cheap super wide angle lens Fast on the wide end Very lightweight Somewhat sharp Bokeh isn't bad Very little CA |
| negative: | Noticeable distortion Poor flare control Coma is pretty bad wide open Light falloff is noticeably hard on the wide end and doesn't go away stopped down (Full Frame) Due to light falloff use of a thick UV filter of circular polarizer becomes more noticeable (Full Frame) |
| comment: | This lens is a very inexpensive super wide angle that is most likely a rebadged Tamron lens. The lens is pretty sharp in the centre of the frame on the wide end though gets pretty bad near the corners (on a full frame) stopping down to F11 will really help if you want the whole frame sharp. There is actually very little CA wide open when using this lens in well lit or high contrast areas, and the bokeh is pretty decent for a super wide angle lens. Due to the cheap plastic build this lens is very lightweight as well. As with a lot of super wide angles there is a noticeable amount of distortion, and this lens handles flare very poorly as well, the hood doesn't do much. Though my biggest issue with this lens is the amount of light falloff it has on the wide end on a full frame, it's bad because it comes on heavy and falls off hard, even stopped down you'll see just a little bit of the very corners are dark (no gradual transition just a hard dark corner). And this issue gets a lot worse when using a circular polarizer. Besides the mentioned issues this lens preforms pretty well for its price and should be considered for anyone who wants to try going wide but doesn't wan't to drop a lot of money on a CZ 16-35mm F2.8 or Minolta 17-35mm F3.5 as both those lenses cost over 3x-4x as much as this used. |
; 14MP| jychook#7920 date: Sep-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-35mm F2.8-4 |
| price paid: | $400 AUD |
| positive: | wide for FF, wide open aperture (F2.8) |
| negative: | Flare, Not wide enough for APS-C. 77mm filter thread is not convenient for bag storage. |
| comment: | This lens best used on Fullframe DSLR. The wide open aperture (F2.8) is good for a wide angle lens. It is difficult to store the lens in your bagpack as the big filter tread (77mm) and hood taking a lot of spaces. I have to spend more for the CPL and other filters due to its filter size. |
| aKenneth#7717 date: Jul-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 2200NOK (340USD) |
| positive: | -Cheap -Good wideangel range on FF -Good center sharpness -Good colors |
| negative: | -Short range on APS-C cameras -Flare -Corner sharpness |
| comment: | I love this lens. It's cheap and good, with and without it's faults. Want a wideangel lens for your Sony FF and are on a budget? Try this one, it's a fun lens. I was about to buy the Sony 20mm when I found this lens used in mint condition. I bought the 17-35mm and got a KM 7D with grip, PS, battery, charger, Lowepro bag, CF-card, remote triggers and more for 3000NOK(462USD) + S&H. |
| Beer_Stalker#7671 date: Jul-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | £275 (used) |
| positive: | Cheap, light, small |
| negative: | Soft wide open |
| comment: | Fantastic lens on a FF camera. Good enough for A1 sized prints. A must for a FF photographer on a budget. |
| cny3123#7646 date: Jun-30-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 12-24 on crop sensor |
| price paid: | 300 USD |
| positive: | Pretty sharp lens, especially considering the amount of money paid for it. Definitely love this focal length range. Build quality is ok, nothing amazing. |
| negative: | Flares pretty badly with the lens pointed anywhere near the sun. |
| comment: | Pretty much said it all in the above positives and negatives. In order for corners to get sharp, stopping down is a must. Has some pretty strong distortion along the edges, which is expected with a lens like this. |
| jeep#7644 date: Jun-30-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 20mm Sony f2.8 14mm Samyang f2.8 |
| price paid: | £230.00 |
| positive: | This lens performs well when used at f8 - f11 |
| negative: | None really considering price paid. Not sure the lens hood offers much flare protection so best to hold something to help when the camera is on a tripod. |
| comment: | Just got this as 'new' from ebay and pristine condition of lens, box and information inside points to that being true. Very smooth to use on my a900. My main use will be for landscapes so it will mainly be used at the sweet spots. I don't find the slight softening at the extreme edges detracts from the overall performance at 17mm. For the money something of a bargain. If I want to go wider I use the Samyang 14mm which is very sharp and the distortions don't really effect landscape images if used carefully and corrected - the moderators are dragging their feet with the inclusion of this lens in fixed focal lengths! Update: I was surprised how good this lens is at 17mm f8 on my Sony A7R, in fact better than a Canon 17-40mm L which at f8 which shows smearing at the edges. The Minolta gives a very sharp frame from edge to edge |
| Janneman1967#7629 date: Jun-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 400 EUR (new) |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | It's ok. but let's leave it at that. |
| Mark_k#7555 date: Jun-12-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 350 usd new |
| positive: | Light weight, inexpensive Fast focus |
| negative: | Sharpness and saturation |
| comment: | It was a rather surprise purchase at 350 USD. You have no complaints but you do not get anything extra from the price you paid |
| Station53#7548 date: Jun-10-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-85 minolta |
| price paid: | $300.00 (new) |
| positive: | This is a great lens. Everyone seems to rave about the colours and I have to agree. I've used this on my 7D and 9000, both with great results. Nice and wide on film, not too bad on APS/C |
| negative: | The hood seems a little big but that's the way it is. |
| comment: | I always wanted the G version but this lens works just fine. I don't regret buying it and I use it quite a bit. That being said, nothing beats my 28-135mm! |
| dominik#7191 date: Mar-29-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | other my lenses, kit lens |
| price paid: | about $200 (used) |
| positive: | light, very cheap, quite useful lens |
| negative: | optically could be better and lighter |
| comment: | Cheap and good lens. Worth those money. Great on film cameras, quite good on A900. Thanks to it I don't have to buy wide Zeiss zoom ;) |
| Romeo333#7143 date: Mar-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 2 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 2.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 24/1,8 24-70HSM |
| price paid: | 200 |
| positive: | -Wide -Decent F/stops -Cheap -Sharp stopped down -77mm filter - Decent substitute for the CZ and G variant |
| negative: | -Flare -No Focus Distance Window(Painted on) -light, feels cheap -Hood doesn't do much -Vignetting -Hunts |
| comment: | Its an amazing lens! This lens works amazing on the a900! When i shoot events this lens is on my a850 and the 24-70 or 70-200G is on my a900! This is a necessary evil. It does feel a bit cheap, it is very light. You must stop down in order to get sharp images! It does vignette so you must purchase a thin 77mm filter or not shoot at 17mm. Decent substitute for the G or CZ variant. |
| Russ#6959 date: Feb-24-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-105 f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | 150 GBP (new) |
| positive: | Colours Sheer usability No filter rotation |
| negative: | Barrel distortion |
| comment: | It's unlikely I'll add anything to the reviews posted before this, but here's my input; this is an excellent landscape lens because of the colours and sharpness, and a terrible architecture lens because of the barrel distortion. It's also a surprisingly good portrait lens - if you get the bottom of the frame to coincide with the subject's waist, the barrel distortion makes the subject look slimmer :-) It's light and easy to use. I've never had a problem with flare with this lens like other reviewers; I use it with the hood and a UV filter up front all the time and that may make the difference. |
| ylfd700#6948 date: Feb-22-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 10-20 F4-5.6 DG EX |
| price paid: | 190€(used) |
| positive: | focal length range wide aperture |
| negative: | distorsion at border. Sharpness wide open |
| comment: | I've bought it to have an similar focal length with the full frame compare to my Sigma 10-20 with the APS-C. It's for me a really nice lens, the focal length range is really adapted to landscape and city shooting. I enjoy with it. |
| mattholluk#6481 date: Nov-28-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 16-105 Sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | 280 USD |
| positive: | Great Minolta Colours Usable Bokeh Solid Build Quality if a bit plastic |
| negative: | Lens hood is pointless Flare is appalling without shading it in direct sunlight |
| comment: | This was purchased as part of a general move to Full Frame cameras in the future filling in below a Tamron 28-75. Build quality is pretty solid but has the classic Konica Minolta plastic look and feel. IQ is good with the vivid Minolta Colours on show and matches in better than I expected with the Tamron. Sharpest around f8 on my copy. Flare is this lens' big problem if left to the lens hood to take care of it. Best to follow other reviewers advice and hold your hand or a piece of paper over the front when in bright daylight. A good performer for the price. |
| derekw#6479 date: Nov-27-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 21-35 Tamron 20-40 Tokina 20=35 f3.5-4.5 Minolta 18-70 Sony 18-55 |
| price paid: | Ł225 |
| positive: | Sharpness Colour Weight |
| negative: | None for the price, after reading reviews for the 5X more expensive G version |
| comment: | Compared to the others, expensive, but only the Tamron comes close to it and that isnt wide enough on APS-C |
| mhlvos#6330 date: Nov-5-2009 | |
|---|---|
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 24-70 f2.8 Minolta 35-70 f4 Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Nice range. Full frame. Sharp (center) |
| negative: | The corners are not ultra sharp |
| comment: | Bought it used but in mint condition. Unfortunately I can not compare it to the Sony 16-35 but I am very pleased with this ultra wide angle zoom. |
| jordo7#6273 date: Oct-26-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-135, 11-18. |
| price paid: | 325 |
| positive: | Incredibly sharp at 35mm from 5.6 on, in fact sharp 1 stop down from max. at all focal lengths. I can't imagine paying 4 times as much for the G version, just because I can't think how any lens with the same focal length could be 4 times better than this one. I haven't had any flare, but have used it as indoor lens mostly. It seems solid to me. The colors are very true. |
| negative: | Slight distortion at 17mm. Aperture is only 2.8 @ 17-18mm. |
| comment: | Most used indoor lens on my camera. Great range with 1.5x crop factor. All in all worth more than I paid. Not bad on a99, but colors aren't as great as I remembered |
| nitrosyl#5985 date: Sep-5-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 20mm f/2.8 RS - Minolta 24mm f/2.8 RS - Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX DG |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - affordable wide-angle zoom w/ relative large aperture - reasonable resolution - circular aperture blades - light weight |
| negative: | - flare not well controlled - mild distortion - too much cheap plastics |
| comment: | color rendition is a bit on the warm side |
| lucy58uk#5689 date: Jul-12-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5 Sony 70-300 G |
| price paid: | 147.00 GBP |
| positive: | sharp |
| negative: | flare |
| comment: | I Like this lens apart from flare, Its sharp, And being able to zoom wide angle to get the right frame is a bonus,I take an A4 card and use this to shade lens, While firing camera single handed, Its a pain but I am happy with the results, All in all I am very happy with this lens |
| NetQwik#5643 date: Jul-4-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 3 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | 17-35 APO G |
| price paid: | 299 USD (new) |
| positive: | Economical Light Weight |
| negative: | Ridiculous hood |
| comment: | I originally purchased this lens for my long-gone a100. The results were mixed and marginal. Indoors without a flash the images always were dark and had a blueish tint which had to be corrected in PP. The images tended to be soft as well. It comes off 2.8 as soon as you zoom past 17mm. At the wide end, I started using my 16/2.8 FE and just lived with the distortion. I kept it when I got the a700 but still seldom used it. When I got an a900, I replaced the 17-35D with the 17-35 APO G and WOW!!! I have to call the 17-35D a compromise. Eventually I'll probably get the 16-35 CZ for the 2.8 but for now, the expense is not justified. If you're a discerning photographer, this will not be your favorite. |
| flavinho#5570 date: Jun-21-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 300 eur used |
| positive: | wide angle relative cheep sharp build qualitty |
| negative: | zoom range flare |
| comment: | missing |
| kappe#5486 date: Jun-2-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | M 35-70mm F/4 M 50mm F1,7 Sigma 70-300 DG Apo Macro |
| price paid: | 250 Eu |
| positive: | Warm Colors, sharpness |
| negative: | Flare |
| comment: | Sharpness is ok, better when stopped down to F5,6-F8. Build is very lightweight and solid. It can flair, the pictures I've taken with my 7D had beautifull colors. I would recommend this lens. |
| DonSergio#5361 date: May-8-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - 16-80za - 18-70 - 24-105 - 24/2.8 |
| price paid: | 300 USD (used) |
| positive: | + Light weight + Not expensive + Good central sharpness on APS-C |
| negative: | - Too much flare - Feel cheap - Edges not sharp on Full Frame cameras |
| comment: | Good wide light-weight FF zoom, usable on APS-C. |
| fute77#5302 date: Apr-28-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70 DT Tokina AT-X 28-70/2.8 |
| price paid: | 120€ |
| positive: | Fast AF openning is good |
| negative: | Short Range |
| comment: | I am quite happy with that lens. I use in ordre to have a wider angle than with the 28-70. It is far better than the KM 18-70 DT Flare an CA can occur :( |
| brororn#5111 date: Mar-28-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 10-20/4-5,6 Sony 16-80/3,5-4,5 Minolta 24-85/3,5-4,5 Minolta 28-85/3,5-4,5 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Fast, reasonable optical performance |
| negative: | Focusing issues at wide settings |
| comment: | Bought this new with my first DSLR K-M 7D. I have used it with good results, although the sharpness is good only when stopped down to F5,6-F8, but this is not usually a problem. Focusing is problematic at 17 mm setting especially with 7D. Distortion is strong at 17 mm, sometimes have to correct it in PP. Having sun in the corner of the picture produces a lot of colour spots, but I can live with it. |
| 4paperi#5100 date: Mar-26-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 lenskit |
| price paid: | 240 EUR (new) |
| positive: | Wide for me |
| negative: | Big and sometimes useless lens hood. |
| comment: | Very affordable wide zoom. It's not so sharp at the edges, colors are quite good. Needs a different lenshood on film. Recommended at that price |
| vangio#5017 date: Mar-12-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | AF 17-35mm 2,8-4 (D) AF 24mm 2,8 AF 28-75mm 2,8 (D) AF 28-85mm 3,5-4,5 AF 28-135mm 4-4,5 AF 35-105mm 3,5-4,5 AF 50mm 1,7 AF 70-210mm 4 AF 75-300mm 4,5-5,6 1st Tamron AF 11-18 4,5-5,6 Beroflex 400mm 6,3 1st |
| price paid: | 220 € (new) |
| positive: | FF f 2,8-4 fast AF min focus distance 26mm on APS-C very good "Street" Lens price |
| negative: | not really very sharp needs perfect Light very hard to control Flare Filters are delicate (Flare) only 26mm on APS-C |
| comment: | I've bought this lens in new condition in 2006 and most of my pictures since then I've taken with this one. The colors are warm and the contrast is good. Using a Polarizer seems to be a good idea... It's easy to handle, the weight is ok. Fast AF with 7D and A700, but it hunts in low light. A very good street lens, but it could be sharper. Flare is the most negative, Filters make problems, Hood is a joke on APS-C CA is not really a problem with this kind of lens. I'm not really experienced using this lens with Film, but the pictures I've taken had beautifull colors. Build seems good, solid feeling (better than 28-75mm 2,8 (D)), but MF feels cheap, not damped. All in all - a very versatile "must have" lens for every A-Mount user because of it's range and performance – just my 2 cent... |
| ABramley#4454 date: Nov-29-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 2 flare control: 4 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35mm f2 RS CZ 24-70 2.8 |
| price paid: | 150 GBP (2nd hand) |
| positive: | Wide & cheap! Rapid AF - seems pretty sure too. Everything is 'ok' - especially for the price. Very lightweight... |
| negative: | Too lightweight. A bit plasticy. Nothing makes you think it's worth more than you paid for it! Rotating focus ring. Sometimes produces CA. |
| comment: | It's alright! Obviously distorts pretty heavily. Sharpness is ok - it lacks the 'wow' factor of some of the competition, Minolta 35/2 RS and Zeiss 24-70, but if you stop it down it seems pretty uniformly ok across most of the frame. Zeiss takes it to pieces in the corners at overlapping focal lengths. Build is very lightweight but reasonably solid. It can flair, but when it does so it's reasonably well controlled - nothing like a Siggy 20. CA can be a problem - not too bad though. 'OK!' - and at about 850GBP cheaper than a Zeiss 16-35 that'll do me just fine :) |
| ciupo35#4442 date: Nov-28-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 DT Minolta 28/2.8 Minolta 24/2.8 |
| price paid: | 190 USD (used) |
| positive: | Quite wide on APS-C sharp filter not rotating |
| negative: | build not perfect AF hunting distortion and CA on FF |
| comment: | Very useful on landscapes, architecture. Also for indoor shooting. EDIT: FF results Works well with film camera, but on digital FF I noticed significant degradation of IQ in the edges and corners of frame. CA are more visible and barrel distortion can cause problems. |
| remai#4252 date: Oct-16-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 28-75 |
| price paid: | 250€ |
| positive: | Build already good at 2.8 for me |
| negative: | Requires a very good AF |
| comment: | It's the first lens I had. It was an offer with my D5D, and until I understood that my AF was sometimes not good enough for that lense, I was a bit disappointed. But actually, I think we have to understand that this 17-35, even if from Tamron glasses, is a very good wide angle, better than its Sigma equivalent, as well as equivalent 17-35L and 17-40L from Canon, three times more expensive (take a look on phtozone tests.. :) ) Of course sharpness is not perfect, but anyway, now Unsharp mask helps to forget it. I think it's really worth its price and I'm glad of it. That lense on a A900 is theoretically a better combo than Canon 1Ds MkIII with 17-40, so let's enjoy it! |
rating summary
- total reviews: 133
- sharpness: 4.27
- color: 4.58
- build: 4.14
- distortion: 3.74
- flare control: 3.60
- overall: 4.07
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login