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

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by Chris Wilkins, Sep 27, 2003.

  1. 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, Sep 27, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Chris Wilkins

    Magnus W Guest

    (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.
     
    Magnus W, Sep 28, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.