Minolta AF 28-135mm F4-4.5 A-mount lens reviews
 vaughaag#8393 date: Dec-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28mm f/2.8 Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Minolta 17-35 Minolta Beercan CZ 16-80 |
| price paid: | £122 GPB Used |
| positive: | Superb IQ Super Sharpness Bokeh Superb Build Good Focus Colours Good Range |
| negative: | Weight Large |
| comment: | Superb Lens, I won this lens on eBay after reading several reviews and listening to some friends bigging it up. I now know why it is held is high regard. Its a great walk around lens even on APS-C, I would love to see how it performs on FF. |
; 10MP| glina#8381 date: Dec-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 17-35 24-85 24-105 28-75 35/2 50/1.4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | perfect range for FF it takes great photos if the conditions are right |
| negative: | it's hard to find a more flawed lens in this system ;-) |
| comment: | How do I rate this lens? For as long as I had it (5 years and counting), I really wanted to hate it. The flaring is a joke and no matter what you do, you will fall a victim of it sooner or later. The MFD of 1.5 meters makes you pull your hair out on lost opportunities. Then the colors and contrast are not really up to the level of 17-35G or Minolta primes if used on a gloomy day. But then from time to time I put it on, and in good conditions the photos it takes become instant classics. Everything seems just right about them, and for some reasons I cannot reproduce that effect with any other lens. The depth, bokeh, contrast and colors (actually natural and not overdone as with many other lenses) are truly unique. It's the combination that's right, not any feature on its own - this is pretty much what defines this lens. It’s like the 35/1.4G which compared to 35/2 is clearly inferior in any photographic test. It’s only when you look at the photos you know what’s it all about. 28-135 is a perfect range for FF and the lens is sharp and usable throughout at all apertures (blah blah soft corners at 28mm/f4, who cares!). The long end is great for portraits, where once again the weaknesses become strengths (reduced micro-contrast). I don’t think Minolta actually planned this lens to be what it is. It just came out right and we are lucky to have it in your system. The 28-135 cannot be easily recommended, as it’s not that versatile and has its obvious flaws. Even though, I think everybody should at least try it. I rated it 5/5 in all categories, but that’s only because the categories are wrong. Look at the photos not at the numbers, and then make your decision! |
| jdkeck#7969 date: Sep-14-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | tamron 28-75 |
| price paid: | 160 usd |
| positive: | color, sharpness wide open |
| negative: | mfd |
| comment: | picked this lens up from a small camera shop for 160 usd, i normally keep my a700 on "deep" setting, when i first started shooting with it, i looked at the pictures and thought, "what is going on with my camera", then i took it off deep and put it on neutral and realized the depth of the colors from this lens, also it handles high iso's very well. this has become my main lens on my camera, yes, the mfd is something to get used to, but not impossible to work around. I now have the a850 and this lens is a good range for ful frame, did some iniitial tests, the images look great. |
| crimemastergogo#7953 date: Sep-8-2010 | |
|---|---|
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 70-210 |
| price paid: | 200 USD (used) |
| positive: | Range Colors Build |
| negative: | No hood hence poor flare control Hunts, useless indoors Needs at least 1.5 meters plus to focus correctly |
| comment: | Let's start with the positives. This unit is built like a tank. Sure it's weighty but feel wonderful and steeped in japanese craftsmanship. Has beautiful and warm colors, typical to minolta. It starts to get sharp when stopped down and focus is further from 1.5 mts. Great range for a walkaround lens. Negatives for me were; auto focus is a bit slow. Flare control is rubbish. Overall it is a great lens when managed correctly. Not something you can just pick up, shoot and expect great results. |
| spada#7947 date: Sep-6-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 28-75/2.8 Sony 24-105/3.5-4.5 Sigma 24-70/2.8 Tamron 17-50/2.8 |
| price paid: | 100.00 (used) |
| positive: | Color Color Color Sharpness Fast focus! minimal CA (not as bad as others make it out to be) |
| negative: | excessive Flare rotating front element on zooming 1.5m MFD |
| comment: | I don't really know where to start with this lens, but it is becoming my favorite zoom lens ever. I picked it up for $100 at a local camera shop that definitely did not know what they had. Once you get past the fact that there is a 1.5 meter minimum focus distance (when not in macro mode) you will be amazed by this lens' sharpness, colors, and overall look of the image. It produces a very special feel to images that cannot be explained. People can call "3D" but it creates images that are instant classics. Whoever first came up with the name 'secret handshake' described it perfectly in those two words. Sharpness from wide open is superb, and it might need to be stopped down to f/5.6 at 135mm. I never hesitate to use this lens wide open on my A850. Distortion can be a slight issue, but it can be easily corrected, and if you can correct it with your software, this lens is a great landscape lens for a FF camera because of the sharpness and colors that it produces. Blue skies stay DEEP, green grass is FRESH, and red bricks explode out of the screen and paper. The macro switch is fun. You can zoom really close at 28mm and it creates a unique perspective. I think the lens gets even sharper in macro mode, as you can leave it at f/4 if you want a really shallow DOF. I have learned how to manipulate it to where I don't use it for macro shots, but I've gotten portraits out of it in macro mode. More on the negatives now. The front element rotates when zooming, which is very odd, and makes it impossible to use a petal shaped hood. This lens doesn't even come with a circular hood, and I think I know why. Even if you used a hood, the flare from this lens can simply ruin a picture. I think even an LED flashlight could make this lens flare. Surprisingly, the flare doesn't completely ruin the contrast of the picture, but the multiple rainbows across the image render it useless. I feel bad that I had to rate the flare control so low because it made my average score for the lens a 4.0, and it really deserves better. Zoom creep is only bad in the middle of the zoom range. But when you are zoomed to 28mm or 135mm, it stays locked in place. The focus makes a loud SLAP at both ends of the focus range, which is slarming. With all that I have said (probably too much) I would recommend this lens to anyone with a full frame camera, film or digital. Ignore the claims that it is too soft or has too much CA in the corners because what this lens delivers across the entire frame is impossible to beat at around $250. |
| JamesAlpha850#7934 date: Sep-3-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF24mm f2.8 Minolta AF50mm F1.4 Sony AF100mm f2.8 macro Minolta AF28-85 f3.5-4.5 Minolta AF35-105 f3.5-4.5 Minolta AF70-210 f4-4.5 Tamron AF28-300mm XR f3.5-6.3 |
| price paid: | 425.00 USD |
| positive: | IQ is superior Classic Minolta Sharpness Classic Minolta colors Fast automatic focus Great range for FF walk-around Macro is useful Bokeh is smooth Great optics and build Minimum CA |
| negative: | My copy has slight lens creep. Considering its age and weight, I think that minimal creep is acceptable. The MFD limits its use in close proximities. |
| comment: | The Secret Handshake of the old Minolta lenses, it is rumored to be a precursor to the G lenses of the mid-eighties. What is certain is that the Minolta AF 28-135 performs color magic on command. This objective is all about IQ. In spite of its age, my copy is in great condition and functions as a precision optic should. Truly, it is an ideal walk-around zoom for events, such as outdoor jazz concerts. The rear automatic focusing ring is especially snappy, a bit strange to my fingers at first, but totally fast. I love the S.H.'s saturated colors and the nearly creamy bokeh. Stopped to f5.6, this zoom is a worthy competitor for sharpness with the 100mm macro and 50mm 1.4, two lenses I consider as benchmark optics. Compared to my zooms, the Handshake is sharper than the Beercan and nearly the same as the 35-105. Well-balanced on the full-frame Alpha, the combination of the 28-135 and the A850 make it a heavy-weight contender, especially in light of its performance in reviews paired with the much coveted CZ24-70. To be fair, I can only make comparisons with my personal array of A-mount lenses. It is comparable in sharpness to the 35-105. IQ appears to be quite similar to the 35-105, which I am finding to be a stellar walk-around zoom with great range on the FF. Lots lighter, too. The 28-135 has a greater zoom range and weighs less than the CZ. On a full-frame camera, 28mm is a wide enough focal length for most compositions. This lens renders razor-sharp 3D-like images across the frame. The zoom-macro feature creates usable images at close MFD. While flare can be present when directing toward the sun, I tend to avoid this angle as with all the old Minolta lenses. A rubber screw-down hood would serve to shield this lens from the sun, although I seldom use mine. The S.Handshake deserves every consideration in its class as it's purchase makes perfect sense for FF Sony Alpha photography. |
| terenz#7898 date: Aug-29-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-85mm Minolta 135mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 320 CAD (used) |
| positive: | Good walkaeound lense sturdy built |
| negative: | Weight zoom creep bit dark lense rotates on zoom |
| comment: | Good range coverage. Used it as a sole lense (had a fisheye too but that's a different creature) on a European trip and it covered everything I needed it for. Only problem is it is a bit dark, and very heavy! Just about the same weight as an A850 body and combined weight for both is just about 4 lbs. |
| DaveJonT#7854 date: Aug-25-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-70f2.7 EX DF |
| price paid: | USD179.00 (used) |
| positive: | Very sharp from f4. excellent contrast, especially for a zoom. |
| negative: | Both of mine exhibited some zoom creep. Often, when the camera hung from my neck, the lens would zoom to 135, on its own. |
| comment: | To date, the lenses I owned (2, 1 for me, 1 for my brother), produced some of the cleanest images I have ever shot. Sharpness is excellent at f4; the point of buying faster than 4.5 lenses, is the speed. If the lens is not good wide open, why have it, or pay the extra for it? Were I to buy another zoom, it would either be one of these again, the Contax 35-70f3.4, or maybe one of the ZA zooms. No other zooms even cross my mind. Update 2012 - Years after owning it, I would have to say I would likely not buy one again. It is a decent, but very large lens, that doesn't focus close enough, and is actually pretty slow. I know compared to a lot of the f5.6 or f6.3 zooms it is faster, but it really isn't. I have owned previously and own now Minolta, Zeiss and Leica lenses ranging from f1.2 to f2.8, all of which were designed to actually be used wide-open, and be at their best 2 stops down. That means they are at their best at f2.8 or f4, not at f8 like most of the zoom lenses you will find available today. That difference means lower ISO's, faster shutter speeds, and a decrease in camera-shake worries. This lens was good in its day, but don't buy it because you think you will be getting something you are not. I think its status as the "Secret Handshake" needs to be left in the past. |
| Jose#7797 date: Aug-8-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 35-105nn (New) Minolta 50mm 1.7 (New) Minolta 28-80mm Xi Minolta 24-50mm (old) Minolta 70-210mm F 3.5-4.5 Sony 18-70mm Kit Sigma 135-400mm Apo |
| price paid: | USD $ 70 (used) |
| positive: | Sharp! Sharp! F 4-4.5 excellent in F4 Filter 72mm |
| negative: | Need a Hood Flare Weight |
| comment: | Is a excellent lens. I bought in aution for argentine pesos 270.. bargain!!. |
| minolta_mutley#7765 date: Aug-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sigma 12-24, k-m 28-75 f2.8, 28-105 f3.5-4.5, 35-70f4, 80-200 2.8, sony 70-300G |
| price paid: | 175€ (2nd) |
| positive: | Minolta colours,long range, sharp |
| negative: | weight |
| comment: | If you find one - test it out - if it's a good one - buy it! I got lucky - i had to do some minor cleaning inside myself - now it's a perfect lens to me - (tested on A700/minolta 5D - so only cropped factor!). If you want it - you'll have to kill me. It's always in the bag when i'm going out for landscape & building photographing together with the 12-24 + the 70-300G. Used it with the LA-EA4r (monster) with firmware release 5 - and it works like a charm on the A7III. |
| SChurchill#7761 date: Jul-30-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 35-105 F3.5-4.5 Beercan Big Beercan |
| price paid: | 265 GBP used |
| positive: | Build Range |
| negative: | Bad CA Ghosting Flare even with after market lens hood. MFD Focus ring location Macro at wrong end of range |
| comment: | I've really tried to like this lens but I just can't get a decent image out of it. I assume I have a duff copy. In my experience the sharpness is rather average and flare control is non-existent. Even with a lens hood and shading the front element images appear washed out and halation is apparent. I tried using it to take photos of Brighton pier at night only to find the most horrendous ghosting when viewing the downloaded images. The macro feature being it the wide end is also frustrating. it makes the minimum focus distance much more noticeable than with the 35-105 where it is at the other end and seems more natural to me. My 35-105 seems to out perform the 28-135 on every level being much sharper, less prone to flare and CA and I tend to use it much more. I've not given up completely on it and think that getting it serviced may improve performance. I've also noticed it performs better with film, but then that is what it was designed for. |
| Janneman1967#7627 date: Jun-27-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta G 28-70 F2.8 |
| price paid: | 175 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Color, sharp |
| negative: | Heavy |
| comment: | Nice lens but in the end i stopped using it when i bought the 28-70 f2.8. |
| Cauldfield#7546 date: Jun-10-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta "Beercan" 70-210mm - Minolta 100-200 f4.5 - Sigma 18-125 - Nikon 18-105 - Canon 70-200 L Usn f4 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - The Best Minolta lens I ever tried. - Sharpest zoom lens what I have ever tried. (better than classic Beercan 70-210) - Excellent build quality. - Awesome IQ. |
| negative: | - I can't mention anything, okay it HAS a weight, but it's not for little girls - that's all. |
| comment: | An old dream of mine to have this lens. I bought it on the net, and it's in PERFECT condition. If You want a REAL quality zoom lens, with outstanding IQ, than don't need to search for other. Here is Your "body", here is Your choice :) First of all, It's "built like tank", but (okay it's relative) in my opinion it looks like good. Well.. It has a size and weight.. But in my opinion, every quality lens has a weight, so You have to carry it. So? If it's too much (about 700g) than don't buy it :) It's so simple. But when You start to use it... You will absolutly forget the weight. I promise You. |
| paso144#7487 date: May-26-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 24-105D 35-105 org. beercan big beercan 135 prime |
| price paid: | 50 euro incl B&W CPF |
| positive: | Sharpness 3D feeling to pictures Build quality Charisma (72mm of glass) |
| negative: | MFD F/4-F/4.5 |
| comment: | Loving the beercan range this was a must have for me and I got it for a steel. Perfect outside walk around lens. Less useful inside because of the MFD and F/4. Sharpness is excellent and IQ is really special with that typical 3D quality I also get from my 135mm prime. |
| Cool daddy#7442 date: May-18-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 35-70 Min 50/F1.7 Sig 18-200 |
| price paid: | 150 euro |
| positive: | Pictures have 3D look warm colors |
| negative: | focus ring close to cam body MFD to big Only F4 as biggest aperture |
| comment: | What can i say more about this lens... it's a 72 mm big window to bring the light to my sensor and i love how it gets there!! Only thing is that with 1,5 meter minimal focus distance it's not so good for indoor shooting, and it also only F4.... the tube is soooo BIG , why is this not F 2.8 or even 1.7 ??! [edit] i have compared it to my new minolta 28/F2.8 , and i must say that the 28 mm is waaaay better than this one.... i have a very bad copy of the 28-135....... |
| terenz#7378 date: Apr-30-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 16-80mm CZ |
| price paid: | 320 USD |
| positive: | Build Range coverage |
| negative: | long minimum focus (compared to 28-85) when not in macro weight! |
| comment: | Just got this lense and still testing it out. Did some close-up shots of tulips and peonies. The shots seem as sharp as the CZ 16-80 with nice colour too. Very similar to the 28-85. Weight is heavy but it nicely balances the weight of a A850 So far, haven't had flare issues but I've had the sun to my back. Review revision will probably follow |
| Yugus#7307 date: Apr-18-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Carl Zeiss 24-70mm F2.8 |
| price paid: | 350 CAD (Used) |
| positive: | Very sharp at the centre Covers a good range (Very good walk around lens) Useful macro mode to counter act the long MFD F4-4.5 (Other brand 28-135mm lenses are F3.5-5.6) |
| negative: | Corners are quite soft even stopped down on the wide end Noticeable distortion on FF Macro mode only works on the wide end (Not really a negative as all minolta lens with a macro mode is like this and better to have it then not) Bokeh quite harsh in my opinion No dedicated lens hood |
| comment: | This is a very solid lens that was first introduced back when Minolta introduced the A mount. Even by today's standards this lens preforms quite well. This pretty much a one of a kind lens as even today no other company makes a 28-135mm lens at F4-4.5 as all other companies use F3.5-5.6... For the price this lens normally sells at and how it performs this is one of the must have lenses for people looking to just carry around one lens. On a APS-C body the lens is a great all around performer even on full frame bodies. It even has a fun to play with and useful macro mode with turn the MFD from 1500mm to 246mm. Though the corners on this lens is quite soft even stopped down to F11 on the wide end when using a FF body camera. Also barrel distortion is quite noticeable when using it on a FF body. And one thing this lens has been known for is its poor flare control and even so it has such problems it does not come with its own dedicated lens hood. And in my opinion the bokeh is a little to harsh for my tastes. Also people complain about the lens suffering from zoom creep though it does come with it own "zoom lock" just switch the lens over to macro mode and it will not creep. A very good performer that is well worth the money if you do not need the extra stop of light. that the CZ 24-70mm F2.8 or Minolta 28-70mm F2.8 provides. As this lens preforms just as well. |
| cruiser#7259 date: Apr-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28-70 2.8 EX DG Minolta 35-105 RS Minolta 35-200 xi Minolta 135 2.8 Minolta 100 2.0 |
| price paid: | 220 |
| positive: | feels solid center sharpness |
| negative: | not sharp off-center zoom creep |
| comment: | I'm not impressed. Because of the good reviews I bought this lens in good shape. I have tested it indoors open and at f8 and compared it to the other lenses. While sharpness was good in the middle it was a lot worse off-center. I was positively surprised by the Minolta 35-200 xi in this shoot-out concerning colors and sharpness. I have sold the 28-135 again. |
| acemclynch#7257 date: Apr-7-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 2 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f1.4 Beercan 70-210mm |
| price paid: | Ł160 |
| positive: | Amazing walkabout lens on FF Wide angle plus a decent zoom Super Sharp Nice Colours Very little CA |
| negative: | Zoom Creep MFD F4 minimum |
| comment: | I must say I love this lens on FF. It's a great walkabout lens. I have been wondering if I should go for a f2.8 and sell this but I have thought about it and there is no way I am doing it. 100% zoom in the image reveals how sharp it is. Cant beat it. Was using my beercan recently and my 28-135mm really beats it hands down. Much sharper and very little CA if any. Only prob is flare which can be sorted with your hand or a hood. In low light situations I just use my nifty 50... sorted! I had this lens on my A350 but it makes much more sense on my A900. Love it! |
| hooni#7253 date: Apr-6-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | $325 USD (used) |
| positive: | Range Colors Bokeh Fast AF |
| negative: | No lense hood Zoom creep if not fully retracted |
| comment: | I love this lense but it does not get to stay on my camera often as I have fallen in love with primes. I keep my Sigma 70 2.8 on alot and when it is not on my 70-200 is. The colors are perfect and my copy seems sharp across the whole frame at max aperture. No complaints here and would recomend. |
| pcarmalt#7220 date: Apr-1-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 17-35 F2.8-4 EX DG Sony 20 F2.8 CZ 24-70 F2.8 Sony 24-105 F3.5-4.5 Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Minolta 35-70 F4 Minolta 35-105 F3.5-4.5 Old Minolta 50 F1.7 RS Sony 50 F1.4 Minolta 70-210 F4 CZ 85 F1.4 Sony 100 F2.8 Macro Minolta 100-300 F4.5-5.6 APO Minolta 135 F2.8 |
| price paid: | GBP 230 I think |
| positive: | - Images have a special look...really lovely colour - Probably the best "walkabout" lens for full frame - Fast AF - Bokeh is smooth |
| negative: | - Wide open, not great sharpness on full frame. Especially corners at 28mm very soft - Worst lens I have for CA - MFD 1.5m - Visible barrel distortion at 28mm |
| comment: | This is quite a unique lens. It was not love at first sight. It took a while for me to warm to this lens, but now I love it. Makes a great walkaround lens on full frame with almost 5x zoom range, the only one of its kind with good enough quality. At first, comparing to my Tamron 28-75/2.8 I disliked the not great sharpness below F.6, awful CA especially with tree branches, limiting MFD, distortion, and low contrast. However, the images produced by this lens have a kind of special sometimes 3D quality, with really great colour. When I started shooting RAW, low contrast became a non-issue as it's easily tweaked. And when taking landscapes, I stop down to F8 or F11. However, the special look of this lens is NOT easy to replicate, i.e. I can't make my images taken with the Tamron look like this lens. I think a lot of hype for this lens was created by the comparisons on Artaphot.ch where it outperformed CZ24-70 etc, however I think Stephen has an freakishly good copy. I have compared with CZ24-70 and it blows away the 28-135 for sharpness. Looking at sample images other people have taken using the 28-135 on dyxum/flickr they do not look any sharper than my copy. Therefore, do not expect your 28-135 to equal the sharp across entire frame wide open on full frame that Stephen's copy seems to exhibit. I think anyone who rated this lens a 5 for sharpness has not used a CZ prime 85 or 135 :-) AF is faster than all my other lenses except 135/2.8, this is very welcome... Compared to the much cheaper 35-105 Old, there is very little in it in terms of IQ. However, the 28-135 range is much more convenient. Compared to the beercan, there is very little in it in IQ except at 135mm where beercan is sharper. However, 28-135 has much faster AF. |
| dominik#7194 date: Mar-29-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | zeiss 24-70/2.8 |
| price paid: | about $300 |
| positive: | Quite good optically, very fast, solid build |
| negative: | minimal focus distance flare control noisy no lens hood |
| comment: | Quite nice, cheap lens. Not so good flare control, also focus distance could be better. On the other hand it's quite good lens on full frame cameras. |
| Romeo333#7139 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: | 50/1,4 24-70HSM |
| price paid: | $150 |
| positive: | -Decent Range -Sharp images -Made of Metal(Heavy) |
| negative: | -Clunky -Zoom Creep -20+ years -Rear focusing is a little getting used to -No Hood -Hunts in low light -Slow focus |
| comment: | Very overrated. It's a decent lens to have, maybe to travel (If its lost or stolen, no problem). I bought it because of the hype, it does produce decent sharp images but not G quality. I Much rather use a 50/1,4. |
| rabbit#7128 date: Mar-21-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 16-80mm f/3.5-4.5 Vario-Sonnar T* Minolta 100-200mm F4.5 Minolta 35-105mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 rs Minolta 35-70mm F4.0 Beercan |
| price paid: | 250 |
| positive: | good image quality, quick autofocus, very sharp |
| negative: | no original hood |
| comment: | I have been using this lens since last year. The optics, glasses are superb.The colors are very vivid, saturated and contrasty. |
| brororn#7074 date: Mar-13-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-70/2.8 G K-M 17-35/2.8-4 Sony Zeiss 24-70/2.8 |
| price paid: | 280 EUR (used) |
| positive: | Extremely sharp at smaller apertures, build is xtremely good |
| negative: | Heavy, close focusing distance, corners very soft at 28 mm wide open (field curvature) |
| comment: | A heavy walk-around lens, gives very good results when stopped down to at least F/5.6. Has a strong field curvature at 28 mm so cornes become soft, but in good light you get nice results when stopped down to F/8. In mid range you do not need to stop down so much to get razor sharp pictures. |
| Sean21#7036 date: Mar-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG |
| price paid: | 349 USD used |
| positive: | Very sharp Nice colors Good bokeh Macro mode |
| negative: | MFD Focusing ring too close to body |
| comment: | After reading all the reviews (especially Kurt Munger's), I started looking for this lens. Shortly after using it I put my Sigma 24-70 2.8 EX DG Macro on ebay. It is 50g heavier than the Sigma, so not a big change really. I do loose 1 stop but it makes up for it with it's longer range (I dont mind the 4 mm loss on the low end). It is sharp at f4, nice bokeh and colors on my 7D. I bought a 3 stage rubber hood for $7 to take care of the no hood issue. Was my walk around on my a700. I tried it on the a77 and it was fast to lock focus even in video mode. I think it was faster than the 16-50 (in video) but the mic pics up the noise when it focuses.Love this lens on my a900. |
| snajper#7005 date: Mar-5-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minoltas Beercan 35-70 F4 100-200 |
| price paid: | USD200 |
| positive: | Very sharp Excellent colour |
| negative: | Heavy no lens hood |
| comment: | I bought this lens few months ago but didn't have a chance to test it out until now. and WOW it is magnificent. It produces very rich contrasty colours. Just Amazing. Every photo comes out really impressive. My 6 primes are staying home lately bcs this is very sharp zoom lens. |
| Glynk#6939 date: Feb-21-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-85mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta 28-85mm F3.5-4.5 Minolta 70-210mm F4 |
| price paid: | Ł170 eBay |
| positive: | Edge to edge sharp Life and colours Solid |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | This lens is everything they say it is. Yes is is heavy, yes it is prone to flare, yes it does not focus that close. Yes it is one of the best lenses ever produced. Sharp and that Minolta first generation lens life and colour. Get one fast, the prices are rising due to the A850 and A900. I found a lens hood that fits, a Mandee 72mm metal wide angle lens hood. Sometimes a very slight shadowing in the corner. |
| woodmen#6896 date: Feb-10-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50mm f/1.7 Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Minolta 200mm f/2.8 G APO |
| price paid: | 220 USD (used) |
| positive: | Sharp!! low distortion build Quality Low CA Good Contrast |
| negative: | Focus ring at the wrong place Long MFD Prone to flare Balance on a a100 (front heavy) Stiff zoom ring (could be a bad copy) No dedicated lens hood |
| comment: | When I recieved this lens 1 week ago, I was a little dissapointed by it's performance. I did all my tests indoor with bad lighting because it's soooo cold outside here (Canada). The images where soft mostly because of long shutter speed and because flare from the windows. One thing that bugged me too was the location of the focus ring. I am used to hold the lens near the camera mount (especially with a heavy lens). I have to be cautious because if I continu to hold the lens near the camera mount (on the focus ring), I will eventually break the focus mechanism. BUT... When I decided to go outside to test it, it blew my mind. Sharpness is very very good for a zoom especially at that price. The contrast is also on the high side. If you plan on using it outside (or inside with a decent flash), you can't go wrong with this lens. |
| PeteMag#6885 date: Feb-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 20-35 AFII Beercan Big beercan Kit lens 18-70 Minolta 100mm f2 Tamron 28-75 f2.8 Minolta 50mm f1.7 Minolta 50mm f1.4 Minolta 80mm-200mm HS G |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | Sharp when open Great range on FF Build Quality Colours Macro added value Internal focus in rear |
| negative: | Flare Soft corners FF at 28mm f4 sometimes not enough No hood Minimum focus distance Rear focus can get in the way |
| comment: | There is plenty to love about this lens, but before you buy you should consider the negatives. The Minimum focus of 1.5m is too long and often causes a hinderance. If you want a zoom to cover low light then any 2.8 might be a better option. There's flare thats sometimes difficult to control - especially as it came without a hood. The rubber hood I have shows in the corners of the image on FF up to around 35/40mm. Rear focus although quick can get in the way of how I hold the lens. On FF I have noticed two versions of the lens exhibiting soft corners at 28mm wide open. This is unlikely to pose a problem in real life use - when do you use it at 28mm and f4 and want sharp corners? Thats the faults out of the way, but the positives are well documented. Sharpness of a G lens is a fair comment, build quality and engineering is amazing - just look at the way the zoom moves for a start! Focusing is quick due to the rear focus. At 28mm its sharp wide open in the middle, getting sharp in the corners from f8/11, from 40/50mm up its sharp all over at f4/4.5, the macro is useful (including to focus shorter than 1.5m!). The range is brilliant on the a900, a true perfect lens in good light for what people call walkabout (or I call don't want to bother switching lenses all the time). Colour is good, although not quite up to the 100mm f2 or 80-200 HS G. Its a bargain at todays prices, if Sony released this now they'd call it a G and my guess would be L600-800. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 203
- sharpness: 4.63
- color: 4.83
- build: 4.80
- distortion: 4.41
- flare control: 3.44
- overall: 4.42
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login