Minolta 24-105 lens vs older 28-135 f4-4.5 lens

I came accros a 2nd hand Minolta 28-135 f4-4.5 lens for about £90. How
does this compare to the newer 24-105 lens?

Should I go for the 2nd hand cheaper 28-135 lens with a longer length
or the new lens for £200 plus?

What would others?

Chris...

 

(Chris Wilkins) wrote in

The 24-105 has a better range (I'd rather take the extra 4 mm at the bottom
than the extra 30 at the top). The 28-135, which I own, is optically
absolutely fantastic, but suffers from a couple of drawbacks:
* Heavy
* Fragile
* Extremely bad minimum focusing distance (1.5m)
* Large, unprotected front element, no dedicated hood exists
* Fast focuser, but the focusing ring is behind the zoom ring, very
uncommon for Minolta
I am no fan of the lens because of these reasons, although I admit it's a
very, very good performer. I haven't tested the 24-105, but I owned the 24-
85 for a short period of time: I couldn't stand the wide angle distorsion
and sold it promptly. I understand that the 24-105 is better than the 24-85
distorsion-wise, and given a choice between these lenses, I would
absolutely give the 24-105 serious thought despite the higher price. Don't
forget competing brands: for the price, Sigma's 24-70/2.8 may be a good
alternative for you.