Minolta AF 17-35mm F2.8-4 D A-mount lens reviews
 Mark_k#3934 date: Aug-6-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 20/2.8 |
| price paid: | 370 new |
| positive: | Light weight, sharpness, price. |
| negative: | Weight, |
| comment: | The 2nd lens I bought with KM 7D. Unexpected image quality at this price. Highly recommended |
; 16MP| ropmann#3801 date: Jul-3-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Kitlens |
| price paid: | 158€ (used) |
| positive: | Sharp Full Frame |
| negative: | (77mm filter needed) |
| comment: | Almost everything about the lens is already said. It's a nice and sharp all day lens! |
| mrggt#3761 date: Jun-27-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Ł150 [new] |
| positive: | sharp good colours light |
| negative: | flare |
| comment: | nice lens that is a light with good colours and pretty good contrast. flare can be quite a problem with this lens unless your careful |
| ronin#3613 date: May-19-2008 | |
|---|---|
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: | €180 (New) |
| positive: | Full Frame, Sharp |
| negative: | Lens hood |
| comment: | I picked this one up as KM cleared out their stock after the closed up shop in the EU and therefor I got it for a dream price. I cant add anything new to what has already been said other than after I got this lens it didn't come off the camera for a long time. UPDATE haven't use it for a while but it shines on the 900. rediscovers my love for this lens |
| AndrewJD#3551 date: May-4-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 27,000 JYN |
| positive: | * Light * Good range * Cheap |
| negative: | * Sharpenss on full-frame? |
| comment: | I have a love and hate relationship with this lens. On an APS-C camera, another 10-20mm on the long end and I would have found a perfect match, but on film I feel it leaves much to be desired. For APS-C, the 17-35mm range is very useful. It isn't terribly wide, but getting down to 35mm and you have a very useful indoors-in-a-cramped-area portrait lens. It doesn't produce much noteworthy distortion, and the colour is great. Stick it on a full-sized 35mm sensor / film plane, however, and it's a whole different story. To date, I haven't been able to take a single shot with this lens that is as sharp as it should be. The first roll that came back looked as though each frame was out of focus. I took out another roll and used it for a test, zoomed in and out, stopped down to f8, wide open, in a variety of conditions. No dice. So far, I've foolisly dedicated a lot of film to trying to get better results out of it, but it has so far managed to disappoint me at every turn. I don't like to blame equipment for poor shots, but if there is any way that I could figure out why it looks so blurry all the time then I'd love to know. It just doesn't come up to the quality of any of the other lenses I use in a similar range. Bady copy, perhaps? If you are intending to use this on film / a full-frame camera, then I'd get my hands on it first before buying. It could by just my own stupidity thwarting me here, but caution may be a good thing. |
| blueshift#3268 date: Feb-16-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-75 2.8 beercan |
| price paid: | S$420 and S$310 |
| positive: | Considered as affordable start from 2.8 |
| negative: | Nil so far |
| comment: | I got two copies of this lens.. one of them after kept in cold (ac) place and brought to warm place, moisture always appear in the inside glass.. however the other one doesnt have that problem.. |
| lozw#2849 date: Oct-16-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70mm "kit" |
| price paid: | 119 UKP |
| positive: | Sharpness Full Frame |
| negative: | Filter size |
| comment: | Noticably sharper than the kit lens. I got for a bargain price in a clearance sale, so doubly happy. Looking forward to seeing a real 17mm on a FF one day... |
| Phrank#2845 date: Oct-15-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 380 USD (new) |
| positive: | missing |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | Very, very sharp throughout zoom range at f/8 or f/11. |
| bobfloyd#2724 date: Sep-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Kit 28-100/3.5-5.6 (D) 28-75/2.8 (D) |
| price paid: | 450 USD (new) |
| positive: | Great color rendition Build quality Minimal barrel distortion |
| negative: | Lens flare Hood Filter size Aperture is not 2.8 constant |
| comment: | I really like this lens. The colors this lens gives me are just so good. In fact, when I have done a multi-lens shoot, I can usually tell at a glance which photos where done with this lens just because of the vivid, bright colors. I get better color out of this glass than any other lens I own short of my 100/2.8 Macro. I also really like the build. It feels solid on the camera with a firm zoom that does not creep on me when I hang the camera over my shoulder. On the downside, I have to be careful of shooting angles verses my light sources due to lens flare. It has the worse lens flare of any lens I have ever owned, digital or film. The hood looks good but is basically useless and I spend a good deal of my time shading the front of the lens with my hand to cut down on the flare. Also on the downside is that it is not a constant 2.8 aperture. I would have paid more to get that. When I need to zoom a bit I always seem to be on small side of the aperture change. All in all, I really like this lens. I don't use it as much as I would like just because I often need more than 35mm in reach so the 28-75 spends more time on the camera but the images I get from it are excellent. |
| Grubeater#2721 date: Sep-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tamron 20-40/2.8-3.5, KM 18-70/3.5-5.6. |
| price paid: | 175 euro (mint) |
| positive: | Nice range, full frame lens, nice colors, good build. |
| negative: | The Tamron has a slightly better build. No fixed aperture. |
| comment: | This lens replaces my Tamron because it has a wider angle of view, it's a D-lens and it has warmer colors then the Tamron. The build of the Tamron is better, but the KM is lighter. This is my main lens on the A700. |
| timquig#2719 date: Sep-13-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Canon 17-40mm F4L USM KM 28-75mm F2.8 Sony 18-70mm F3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | $285 US |
| positive: | overall very sharp build quality evident will triple in value once FF comes out |
| negative: | slight softness wide open-must stop down +1 |
| comment: | Overall..delighted with the lens and it's a terrific value right now used if you can find one. I've got the 18-70mm kit lens and it's really not bad up until 50mm or so and stopped down 2 stops. But that gets to be slow shutter speeds even with A/S. But this lens immediately shines the moment you look thru it. I've owned the equivilent lens in the Canon line for my 20D, the 17-40mm L and this is just as sharp and even better color and contrast..which is saying something as that was one of my favorite lenses on my Canons. Yes, it's a touch soft at the edges wide open, but so was my Canon. You either crop the image slightly to delete or you stop down 1-2 stops and shoot. This is typical of a quality FF lens in this zoom range regardless of maker. Only primes are going to be better. I use this for wedding work along with the 28-75mm F2.8 and I can shoot all day with just these two and get everything I need. The fact that this lens is only a 1:2 zoom range makes it very sharp overall for it's range. Once you start getting past 1:3 zoom ranges, you really are wasting alot of image quality at each end because you are going to get distortion, so they are a waste of money IMO if image quality is a concern. Stick to quality zooms with short zoom ranges and you will not go wrong. There is some flare on this lens and like all W/A lenses, you have to be careful with your light sources. But overall this is a keeper and I'll not be selling this one. |
| vitor#2717 date: Sep-11-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | DT 18-70 |
| price paid: | 250€ (new) |
| positive: | Build, price, range |
| negative: | Digital: Hood in digital too short, prone to flare Film: soft in the corners with fullframe, distortion |
| comment: | Digital: At first I didn't like this lens much, the reason for this was that I only used the lens when shooting quick scape's without using tripod, when using the tripod and setting the len to F8 you will get some nice photos. Its soft wide open, but if used between F8-F16 you can get pretty good sharpness on the corners and through infinity. Film: Love the look on film, very wide, some distortion but you can be creative with it, as I already said wide ? |
| Minolta Head#2712 date: Sep-10-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony DT 18-70 3.5 Kit Tamron 11-18mm |
| price paid: | 120 GB Pounds (Used) |
| positive: | Sharpness Build |
| negative: | Filter Size (77mm) Hood Inefective |
| comment: | After reading a few reviews at Dyxum I decided to go for it and buy this lens. The glass lived up to and exceeded my expectations. After using the awful Sony DT 18-70 kit lens the Minolta blew me away from the first use. Great sharpness and colour. The large size and heavy build is useful to steady handheld shots. Flare can be a problem unless you look carefully around the view finder. I found a little vignetting at 17mm, but generally I always keep away from the extremes at both ends of all my lenses to avoid such problems. All in all this is a great buy and is a treasured photography possesion. |
| ickle97116084#2592 date: Aug-1-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | Ł150 |
| positive: | Very Sharp Full frame compatible Bright and Fast |
| negative: | Large front element so expensive for filters Heavy and bulky |
| comment: | Fantastic very sharp lens. Images are sharp and have great colour. Distortion evident at 17mm. |
| dcxk#2465 date: Jun-22-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 kit sigma 28mm 1.8 |
| price paid: | 289 |
| positive: | fast and wide good for indoors |
| negative: | 77mm filters are more expensive. |
| comment: | pretty good lens a lot of fun to take wide angle shots indoors with natural lighting. Seems nice and sharp better than the kit lens on the alpha. |
| Scoobay#2412 date: Jun-5-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 Kit Minolta 35-70 3.5 |
| price paid: | 210 EUR (used) |
| positive: | great wide angle on full frame fast AF crisp at f9 |
| negative: | unsharp edges on full frame Lenshood only protects physical violence |
| comment: | I'm very satisfacted with this lens. It might show little unsharpness in the edges attached to a full frame camera but that doesn't spoil the great effect you get with it. You can get great landscape photos with a great sharpness overall but as a physical circumstance you won't get a great DOF at wideangel. Would be great! |
| m.b.#2366 date: May-26-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28/2.8 24-85/3.5-4.5 RS |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | cheap sharp full frame |
| negative: | hood flare |
| comment: | decent build, better than 24-85 decent sharpness for a zoom lens, not as sharp @35mm low distortion from 28mm up, but considering the short range I'd expect less distortion at 17mm lot of flare, FF hood doesn't help light and compact for a 17-35/2.8-4 lens |
| minoltaclubuk#2203 date: Apr-24-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-35mm, CZ 16-80mm, Sigma prime 18mm, Minolta 20mm f2.8, Konica Minolta 11-18mm. |
| price paid: | 150 GB pounds (new) |
| positive: | This lens was widely sold at very low prices, and mine cost less than any decent 17mm f4 would have been in the past. |
| negative: | It is not especially sharp at full aperture at 17mm, and really needs stopping down to f4-5.6 for critical work on a digital APS-C format. |
| comment: | The real interest in any wide-angle zoom lies at the wide angle end - you can get focal lengths from 24 to 35mm in many other zooms, and 28 to 35mm in almost any modern standard zoom. Therefore the critical range for this lens is 17-24mm, whether used on full frame or on an APS-C DSLR. I have found that while the lens itself is optically satisfactory, focusing on all three of our DSLR bodies (5D, 7D, A100) is often not precise enough at 17mm and f2.8 so the really big benefit of this lens - a fast aperture at a wide angle - is missing. On film, it's a different story, because f2.8 at a true 17mm coverage is impressive and the focusing generally seems to work better. I am keeping our 17-35mm (D) in the hope that a full frame DSLR arrives. For what it cost me, it can be mothballed without great worries. In the meantime despite smaller working apertures either the 11-18mm or the CZ 16-80mm do a better job of replacing that old favourite, the '28mm'. It's funny how we took 28mm on full frame for granted, and now we have to buy exotic wide zooms to achieve it on digital! |
| mark victor#2188 date: Apr-20-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 17-35G 0wn; 17-35sigma used to own; 18-70/Kit own |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | good, nice color and some f-stop gain on wide end... sharp enough for the price I paid... good build quality tho it's still plastiky |
| negative: | it has no match with my 17-35G and present not much of material advantages over the kit if you do not shoot full frame. |
| comment: | If you are paying full retail price on this lens, you may be surprised that you do not get too much of benefits to justify the investment. The lens is well built, providing good color and sharp ( good sharpness when stopped down and quite acceptable when wide open.) Unlike the 28-75/2.8, this 17-35 is no match to the G version counterpart and presents little significant advantage over the kit lens except FF compatability and f/2.8 at the wide end... Overall, a good budget wide angle lens and a good choice for those who are using 28-75/2.8 or 28-70/2.8G |
| arthedains#2183 date: Apr-19-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 3 flare control: 2 overall: 3.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-70/2.8 G Minolta 70-210/4 Minolta 50/1.7 Minolta 100/2.8 (D) Macro |
| price paid: | €260 (new) |
| positive: | Not so expensive. Good range for cropped sensor. Relatively sharp. Decent color and contrast. Full frame. 2.8 at the wide end. |
| negative: | Hood is a joke. Flare a big problem. Photos don't pop. Distortion at wide end. |
| comment: | This lens is a mixed bag. It offers decent value for the money but it leaves a lot to be desired. The sharpness is good stopped down but even then doesn't come anywhere near that of the other lenses I own. The hood is both a joke and a burden to carry so I leave it at home. It doesn't help in cutting flare at all on a cropped sensor. Build is ok for the price. The range is decent for a cropped sensor but I wish it went until 50mm. More than anything the photos this lens produces do not 'pop' and need some extra processing unlike those from say a beer can or the 100 macro. And that is what disappoints me the most. I think Minolta compromised quite a bit here in the name of cost cutting. It just doesn't have the feel or the results of a classic Minolta lens. Having said that it is my standard WA lens (mainly because of few good alternatives) and has given me some beautiful photos. So I don't see myself letting this go unless I land the ultra rare and super expensive 17-35 G or a decent and sharp copy of the Sigma 12-24. |
| Jay2x#2182 date: Apr-19-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 beercan 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | 269 EURO (new) |
| positive: | sharpness feel |
| negative: | images miss a bit of 'oompf' |
| comment: | Got it relatively cheap and like it a lot. It's a good lens, certainly better than the 18-70 and works nicely on film too. It's nice, really nice. But that's it. It's not like the beercan or 50 1.7. You will not be surprised by the quality of the images, the colors, the contrast or bokeh. I'm not saying that it's bad or something, just doesn't tickle me. |
| veevee#2124 date: Apr-7-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70/3,5-5,6 DT |
| price paid: | 200 EUR (used) |
| positive: | sharpness fullframe fast AF fast lens construction |
| negative: | very big hood 77mm filter thread |
| comment: | Very good lens for it`s price. Bought it, because KIT lens isn`t fullframe. One of my walkaround lenses. |
| DaveK#2106 date: Apr-3-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | my 20 years old Minolta lenses |
| price paid: | 220 Euro |
| positive: | - Good colour - Sharp, sharp, sharp (stopped down) - min. focus distance! |
| negative: | - Lost of Flare (red dots) |
| comment: | I realy like this lens a lot. I didn't think I'd like it this much, but I realy, realy do! |
| hellboy79#2105 date: Apr-3-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma - 18-50 F3.5-5.6 DC minolta 28-80 f 3.5-5.6 |
| price paid: | 289 USD(new) |
| positive: | - fast and quiet focus - good coverage in dynax7d and dynax7(film) -solid no like toys |
| negative: | -hood...nice to see only |
| comment: | good lens..just love it.... |
| MostlyHarmless#2082 date: Mar-30-2007 | |
|---|---|
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: | MinO 20/2.8 Sigma 15/2.8 Fisheye (Canon) Tokina 19-35/3.5-4.5 (Canon) |
| price paid: | 499.95 USD (new) |
| positive: | Decently sharp Good wideangle coverage on a DSLR Fast and quiet AF |
| negative: | Silly hood Big! Variable aperture (F2.8 at 17mm only) Plasticky build |
| comment: | I purchased this lens thinking it would be my most-used but too often, I left it at home. It's not an easy lens to carry around and it doesn't balance very well on my 5D. The lens is even more cumbersome to carry when it has its hood attached. Ultimately, this lens was replaced by the 20/2.8 which does everything I need it to do in this range and has the benefit of being less than half the size. At the very least, the Tamron version of this lens seems to be a better buy and the newest 17-50/2.8 looks to be a very compelling alternative as well (if you're ok with no FF). So in short, this lens leaves little to be desired optically but there are better choices out there. |
| chrisphotog#2058 date: Mar-27-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 260 USD (new) |
| positive: | light and fast focusing excellent lens for events |
| negative: | lens hood not practical |
| comment: | lens great for my work as actual wedding photographer. able to fast focus and capture every moments with ease. Fast focusing, it's light to move around fast. Sharpness is great and I confidently release my photos to the couples without much post editing. I love this lens!! Managed to get old inventory for the good price. |
| BrownJenkin#2004 date: Mar-20-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 3 distortion: 5 flare control: 2 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM AF 11-18 DT KM AF 18-70 DT Minolta AF 28-105 RS |
| price paid: | 300 eur (new) |
| positive: | Great sharpness (after 4 / 6.7) Great colors Plastic-like, but solid build Controlled distortion D type Works wonderfully on FF machine |
| negative: | Hood almost useless Really bad flare control Bulky Heavy vignetting at 17mm |
| comment: | Last review, after using the lens on a Sony A900. I'm still quite disappointed with flares, that are everywhere. The flare control of this lens is probably the worst I've ever seen. And you have to deal with flares not only when you shot in direct sunlight, but everytime you have something that could be called "light source". Hood is quite bulky and useless. The glass is really exposed to any kind of damage, so I strongly reccomend to get an UV or a skylight filter to protect it from scratches and dust. Distortion seems quit good to me, used on a FF body. I'm also adding a point to color rating. At 17mm on a FF body heavy vignetting in the corners, i'll add some test pictures soon. |
| kug_gr#1943 date: Mar-11-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 199 EUR (new) |
| positive: | + solid build + good sharpness and color |
| negative: | - quite bulky and heavy - hood is even more bulky and doesn't easily fit in the camera bag |
| comment: | As far as image quality is concerned this is quite a good lens, sharp and not much CA. However, it turned out not to be very versatile with its small zoom-range. I would rather go for a 17-70 today. The filter diameter is quite large (77mm) and this causes additional cost for filters. |
| hotwire#1887 date: Feb-24-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 18-70 DT Sigma 12-24 |
| price paid: | 240 CAD (used) |
| positive: | Full frame lens relatively fast D lens Better than kit a100 kit by far. |
| negative: | wish it went a hair longer 77mm filters cost money |
| comment: | Nice lens. Being 17mm, it complements the Sony 56 flash's widest supported focal length without fiddling. Less distortion/stretching than Sigma 12-24 at overlapping focal lengths. |
| bracket#1857 date: Feb-19-2007 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 180 EUR (demo) |
| positive: | very sharp, reasonably bright |
| negative: | original hood useless |
| comment: | This is my wide angle lens. It is useful for wide interior shots and landscape/cityscape/architecture kind of stuff. I initially thought it is a bit soft, but I rather had a focus problem. At f/4 and focussed correctly it is very sharp. There is some barrel distortion at the wide end but that is not too surprising with such a wide lens. The original hood is very useless on cropped frame, because it is too large. But flare can be a problem without hood. I got a rubber hood from which I had to cut a bit away to make it flower shaped to avoid bignetting in the corners. With this selfmade hood it works very nice. Built is very solid. Dropped it to a wooden floor from 1.5 m (5 feet) and no damge whatsoever. Still sharp as ever. Looking forward to use this as super-wide angle on a future FF camera...if there ever will be one. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 132
- 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