A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Sony/Minolta SLR System > Minolta AF D 24-105mm...

Featured Equipment Deals

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM A Review Read More

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG HSM A Review

Pro family photographer, Stacy Bostrom, reviews the Sigma 50mm f/1.4. See how this lens stacks up against her tried-and-true favorite.

Latest Equipment Articles

Sun Position Tracking Apps Read More

Sun Position Tracking Apps

These 5 apps, ranging in price from free to $8.99, are our top picks for tracking sun (and moon) light. Also ranging in complexity, some help you keep tabs on the ideal lighting of the day while...

Latest Learning Articles

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes Read More

25 Exhilarating Photos of Airplanes

By land and by air, photo.net members have captured stunning shots of airplanes at soaring heights, performing incredible stunts, and in breathtaking locales.


Minolta AF D 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 on the 7D?

Erik S. , Mar 31, 2005; 09:18 p.m.

Has anyone tried out the Minolta AF D 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 on the 7D?

I'm trying to decide on which lens to get with my lens rebate once it arrives. I've narrowed it down to the 24-105mm or the new 28- 75mm (D). This will pretty much turn into the primary lens for the camera, to minimize the dust risk (reduce need for lens changes), but want to maintain as high of quality in the pictures as possible.

Reviews and ratings on these two lenses seem to be pretty limited. One is too new, so not much on it yet, but can hope that it's similar in quality to the G lens. The only thing I could really find on the 24-105mm is that it has some vignetting and distortion at the low end. But what I'm really wondering is if this is a factor at all on the smaller APS-C sized sensor??? Also, since it's only F/3.5 compared to F/2.8, is that a significant enough factor???

At least from a Specs perspective, the 24-105 is ahead in factor of range (24 vs 28 & 105 vs 75), weight (395g vs 510g), size (69cm vs 94cm) & price (by ~$70), where-as the 28-75 D wins with better F- Stop (F/2.8 vs F/3.5), and min-focus distance (33cm vs 50cm), otherwise they seem to be pretty equal. But when it really boils down to it the key factor is quality of the shot?

Thanks for any feedback!

Responses

Manuel Garcia , Apr 01, 2005; 01:15 a.m.

Looks like your on the right track, however don't forget the 1.5 crop factor. I don't have the 7D, I instead opted for a new film Maxxum 7 last month. But I do have the 24-105 and it's magic on my film 7. I didn't notice any vignetting or distortion at the wide end when I used it on my Maxxum 5 and I don't expect any on my film 7.

Either one is a good choice, you didn't mention what type of shooting you will use this combo for. But the 24-105 is hard to beat if you don't need that extra speed. Good luck!

Ivan Dzo , Apr 01, 2005; 02:53 a.m.

Do a back search on minolta zooms. The quality of the 24-105 has been covered many times. I own it and find it very poor at the longer end, and sharp but distorted at 24mm. The old 28-85 3.5 for a few dollars on ebay is much the best zoom I've ever tested. Other people seem happy with the 24-105 (but check they own the different zooms and have tested them before you give too much credence to their views).

Bill Tuthill , Apr 01, 2005; 01:52 p.m.

The Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di is a better lens by all indications, 4.14 vs 3.17 score in Photozone's magazine test composite. Both lenses handle nicely. I can post Pop Photo SQF scores for both if you want. If you want the 24-28 range, the Minolta 24-50/4 is worth considering. It's even better than the 28-85/3.5-4.5 that Ivan favors, and autofocuses faster, but unlike the two you mention, has rotating front element. However both 24-50/4 and 28-85 take 55 filters, matching several long Minolta telezooms.

SL ATTANAPOLA , Apr 01, 2005; 02:06 p.m.

What about the 24-85mm/3.5-4.5? I have one of these and it is an excellent zoom! Would equate to a 36-127.5mm zoom on the Dynax 7D.

C L , Apr 01, 2005; 03:01 p.m.

(to repeat, go to the Minolta forum home page in here and scroll down, I got flamed for asking this Q a few days ago)

But .... to sumarize - because I have also been looking at the 24/28-60/70/75/85/105 lens option.

1 - what do you shoot? With a 7D's crop this will turn into a portrait lens, or a filler for your 17-35 & 70-200 for example.

2 - the sharper lens by far is the new 28-75 Di. There are a lot of good things said about the Tamron branded version (www.fredmiranda.com > reviews).

3 - BUT it is worht getting the KonMin branded version of this lens, you ahve to pay more. Because the mechanical side is BETTER on the KonMin. Its KonMins OWN mount, and not Tamron's copy. I can't remember the other thing, I think it was one of the internal mechanisms? But there was reason enough to get the KonMin version not the Tamron one.

4 - from previous posts: The 24-85 is sharper than the 24-105, but the 24-85 has more distortion.

5 - the 28-75 is certainly bigger and heavier.

If you want the sharpes but refuse to pay G money. Then the 28-75 Di is the one to get. IF THE RANGE SUITS YOU?

Erik S. , Apr 01, 2005; 05:47 p.m.

Thanks for the feedback. I have run a number of searches before and after my original post, as well as a number of searches in other locations. I still have not found anything about the performance of the 24-105 on the smaller frame sensor on the 7D. I'm assuming that the smaller sensor would crop out the vignetting and distortion that has been reported with this lens, however, without testing, it's just an assumption.

I've also found that the Tamron 24-135mm SP lens is rated pretty good, and higher than the Minolta. Though, not quite as high as the 28-75. So, I may just have to go down to a local camera store and see if I can do some test photo's.

Thanks for the input!

Ivan Dzo , Apr 02, 2005; 03:12 a.m.

The 24-105 is poor in the centre at the longer end, so smaller censor won't help. If you're looking at huge hulking zooms like 24-135's then the legendary 28-135 minolta (good value on Ebay) is an incredible lens. Very sharp at all lengths and would be great on a 7D, but weighs a ton. This lens is even better than the 28-85 3.5 but isn't usually a contender as I find it too heavy.

Manuel Garcia , Apr 02, 2005; 10:56 p.m.

Ivan must have gotten a defective 24-105 becuase mine doesn't exibit any of the problems he mentioned. A photo.net member did a comparision between the 24-105 and a prime lens (the 50 1.7 I think). From his test there wasn't much difference between the two. I'll see if I can dig it up for you.

Back to top

Notify me of Responses