Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0

Discussion in 'Minolta' started by badr, May 1, 2004.

  1. badr

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0

    Not so, Bill:



    Minolta AF 3.5-4.5 24-105mm D 3.17 (3) = average
    Lewis Lang, May 6, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. badr

    Bill Tuthill Guest

    Aha! The score went down since I last checked. I wonder why?
    Has some magazine newly reviewed it in the past few months?
    The Tamron 28-75 score did not change, which is somewhat surprising,
    because it is a newer lens and you'd expect not completely reviewed yet.
    Bill Tuthill, May 7, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. badr

    Lewis Lang Guest

    Subject: Re: Minolta 24-85mm vs. 35-70mm f/4.0
    I don't know.
    Possibly, but I haven't been following mag tests too closely recently...
    WHat surprises me is that this lens seems optically as good as Canon's best L
    glass. If it was a 24-75/2.8 with equal stats I wouldn't hesitate to put it on
    my camera. I wish Minolta and Pentax would come out with such 24-70is f/2.8
    constant zooms.
    Lewis Lang, May 7, 2004
  4. badr

    Ming Guest

    I own 24-50mm, 24-105mm , 70-210mm, 85mmf1.4, 135mm f2.8 and 200mm APO.
    50mm f1.7 and 50mm f1.4. All Minolta AF.

    Both 24-50 and 24-105 are very sharp. 24-105 has distortion in the 105 end.
    The 24-50mm has yellow tone on the slide like many older lens. I blow the
    slide up on the wall and also printed them in 16x20 using Tmax 100.
    However, There are too many variation including aperture used and focal
    length used and I haven't done a very systematic test.
    But the difference in sharpness between these 2 lens is not too big.

    In my humble opinion, I love the 24-105mm. It is almost always on
    my Dynax 7 now. It is extremely convenient without the need of changing
    lens most of time and the sharpness is very good. I have taken one wedding
    event with this lens and the result is good.

    For the 70-210mm lens, well, you have to understand that it is not
    an APO lens. Under 16x20 inch with Tmax100, it cannot be as sharp as APO
    lens at focal length over 135mm. This is mathematical certainty, not the
    manufacturer's fault. But, at 8x10, I can say that it is an excellent

    For the 135mm lens, f2.8 is not extremely sharp (at 16x20) . But improves a
    lot at f4. Well, it is not APO. You get what you pay for.

    85mm f1.4 and 200mmAPO are extremely sharp. I don't think a German
    lens can be much better.

    If you don't have any lens or camera, I would suggest you begin with
    Minolta and 24-105mm. It can give you excellent 8x10 photos.
    And Minolta is little bit cheaper than Canon/Nikon.

    Next thing to buy is a light meter, like Sekonic 358 or 558. Get a good
    meter before you buy other lens.

    Hope this helps.


    ¦b Thu, 06 May 2004 10:26:37 GMT, Mike Lipphardt
    Ming, Jun 3, 2004
    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.