24-85mm Minolta

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:13 am

Jacobs had a new, boxed 'old stock' off the shelf complete 24-85mm for £139.99 inc VAT and shipping on eBay, so after much thought, I went for it. I remember my main issue with the 24-85mm was a poor close-up range compared to the 28-105mm, or the later 24-105mm which I welcomed mainly for superior close-up ability.

But I've been missing the 24mm equivalent (or lens) with my two alternative lenses being the 28-75mm f/2.8 (exceptional for close-ups) and the 28-105mm, on the A900. The 17-35mm is OK at 24mm but can not really be kept on the camera as a walkaround lens. The Sigma 12-24mm is wonderful at 12mm to 16mm, but deteriorates so much that by 24mm it's almost useless (they have always had this problem).

I'll be checking this lens carefully against the 28-105mm, which I know is substantially better than the later 24-105mm.

David

Javelin
Emperor of a Minor Galaxy
Posts: 1910
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2008 4:51 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Javelin » Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:35 am

there are a ot of those lenses around here. isn't there even a silver version of it?

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Wed Dec 16, 2009 5:50 am

Dyxum rates these lenses as follows.

AF 24-85 F3.5-4.5 RS

sharpness: 4,39
color: 4,69
build: 4,20
distortion: 4,17
flare control: 4,09
overall: 4,31


AF 24-105 F3.5-4.5 D

sharpness: 4,33
color: 4,56
build: 4,09
distortion: 4,27
flare control: 4,33
overall: 4,32



AF 28-105 F3.5-4.5

sharpness: 4,47
color: 4,73
build: 4,53
distortion: 4,33
flare control: 4,07
overall: 4,43

Overall probably not a lot in it, the 28-105 is the sharpest by a midge, I was surprised to see the 24-85 listed as having worse distortion than the 24-105 and that the 24-105 has the best flare control, that might be so on APS-C perhaps, maybe they weren't measured on FF?
I kept my 24-105, I still think it's a great little lens on APS-C...
Greg

User avatar
ianmiddy
Heirophant
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Derby, England & SW Scotland
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby ianmiddy » Wed Dec 16, 2009 9:12 am

David Kilpatrick wrote:Jacobs had a new, boxed 'old stock' off the shelf complete 24-85mm for £139.99 inc VAT and shipping on eBay


I got a lot of my glass from Jacobs when there was a store just down the road from where I was working [incl. my 300/2.8], but didn't realise they sold on eBay - do you mind letting slip their seller ID, David ?

Cheers

IDM

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:13 am

I bought the other one, the boxed as new/mint one for £115 ;-) (maxxum version), about 2 days ago. (from a private seller, who was also selling his A850 and flashgun etc)

Good to know I got in there in time, I saw that one DK bought, but they don't deliver outside the UK.
I'll let you know what this one is like (when it arrives)...I needed 24mm for FF 35mm, though I have it in another lens, this should be better overall.

Jacobs Photo are also selling a Minolta AF 28-80mm f3.5-5.6 II "new" for £69.99. Don't all rush to get it :lol:
They also have a Minolta AF 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 again as new old stock for £169.99

http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/jacobs-photo/

User avatar
ianmiddy
Heirophant
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun May 20, 2007 8:26 am
Location: Derby, England & SW Scotland
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby ianmiddy » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:45 am

bfitzgerald wrote:They also have a Minolta AF 24-105mm f3.5-4.5 again as new old stock for £169.99

http://myworld.ebay.co.uk/jacobs-photo/

Thanks for the address, Barry - I got my LNIB 24-105 from them a couple of years ago for £150...

IDM

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Wed Dec 16, 2009 11:55 am

If that 24-105 is a (D) version it would be a good buy at that price for use on an APS-C camera, (I think the 24-105 only came out in (D) anyway), and that 28-80 II is the 10 element in 10 group version, not the 7 element in 7 group version, or the later 8 element in 7 group (D) version...so that one might actually be ok.
Greg

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:16 pm

I bought an older film body for a pal, and that came with a 28-80mm II. I tried it out, and my impressions were that it was inferior to the 28-80mm D in just about every way. Not that they care, as they print at 6"x4" and maybe the odd 7" x 5". I think the II is 10 element, and the D is 8, so they are not the same optics wise.

24-105mm D, had one only briefly, my feelings are that it's good for APS-C users, but shows some problems for FF ones, distortion, CA, and it suffers from Vignetting. I am sure that was only ever a D lens. I hope that the 24-85mm is a better lens than the 24-105mm, for FF use, it should be from what a number of users have said.

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Wed Dec 16, 2009 12:32 pm

Of course there's always variances of a lens model as well, a given sample might actually be above the average, it's just the luck of the draw...
Greg

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:13 pm

I sold my 24-105mm which had been a regular companion on the A100-700 models. It was one of those closeout bargains at Dixons - £49.95 new - so I made about a 200% profit on the sale. It simply was not good enough for full frame - really strong barrel distortion at 24mm, and the worst CA of any lens I had. Also, I had got the 16-80mm Zeiss which replaced it on the APS-C cameras; and I already had a 28-75mm for the A900.

I got the 28-105mm RS in the same 'boxed unused old stock' condition more or less on a hunch that it could be very good, because it was the final 1997 incarnation of alll the original 28/35-XX designs. The 35-105mm, 28-85mm, and early 28-105mms all led up to this lens. It is far better than the 24-105mm, but I did not test one thing, which was how the 24-105mm performed at exactly 28mm. It is possible that the 24-105mm at 28mm might have matched the 28-105mm, because most of the distortion kicks in just as you hit the 24mm mark.

I take the Dyxum figures with a pinch of salt. For one thing, at least half the 'reviewers' don't know what distortion is. They think it means converging verticals, as many posts on Dyxum and dPreview reveal. I'd guess that a minority of DSLR users grasp the difference between 'distortion' (leaning buildings caused by using a wide angle too close) and 'distortion' (barrel, compound or pincushion) and that the 'distortion' ratings on Dyxum are therefore the most suspect of all.

My purchase is based on the sample variation chance - this may be equal to the 28-105mm, in which case I will give it thought and see whether I value 24mm v 28mm more than I value 105mm v 85mm and the slightly better close-up scale; it may be better than either the 28-105mm, or the 24-105mm I sold, in which case it gets kept. If it really does have worse barrel distortion at 24mm than the 24-105mm, I'll sell it on.

There is a second reasoning behind this - we may just move entirely to full frame in 2010, with an A850, and need an extra standard zoom.

David

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3538
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:42 pm

I cannot find anything review wise on the 24-85mm, strange..even these comparison sites don't seem to have it. Which is odd considering it's not exactly a rare lens.

User avatar
Greg Beetham
Tower of Babel
Posts: 6155
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 3:25 pm
Location: Townsville, Qld. Australia
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Greg Beetham » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:05 pm

Well it has every right to actually be a good lens, 14 elements in 12 groups, and I forget if it was the RS (your one) with the good focus grip and circular aperture, it's slightly heavier (14-5/8 oz) than a 24-105 (13-15/16oz) 62mm filter, which is not very heavy, plastic construction maybe? the 28-85 RS and the 28-105 RS are both 17-5/16oz, 17-1/8oz, and the 28-85mm is the only one in the bunch with a 55mm filter. There's not a whole lot of other options to get a good 24mm in a zoom for FF, there was a 20-35mm 3.5-4.5, a 24-50mm 4 RS, 17-35mm 3.5G, don't know how good the first two are/were on FF, the G is probably v/good but anyone who has one would probably never part with it.
Greg

Mike-Photos
Oligarch
Posts: 139
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2007 3:07 pm

Hi David...

Unread postby Mike-Photos » Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:46 pm

David Kilpatrick wrote:But I've been missing the 24mm equivalent (or lens) with my two alternative lenses being the 28-75mm f/2.8 (exceptional for close-ups) and the 28-105mm, on the A900. The 17-35mm is OK at 24mm but can not really be kept on the camera as a walkaround lens. The Sigma 12-24mm is wonderful at 12mm to 16mm, but deteriorates so much that by 24mm it's almost useless (they have always had this problem).


I have the same lenses and a similar problem on my A900. The 28-75 is a very nice lens, its fast and light, but it's sometimes just not wide enough. The 17-35 is not great - I have tried three of them, and its performance is variable. I have the Sigma 12-24, but I rarely need less than 16mm, so I use it at its worst focal lengths.

I invested in the CZ 24-70, which is a great lens, and I have it on my camera most of the time. However, I reckon I would get good benefit from getting down to 16-23, but how do I do that? I'm starting to think that the CZ 16-35 would have been a better purchase than the CZ 24-70. I could then use the 28-75 for mid range. I also have the Sony 50 f/1.4 which gets very little use because of the CZ 24-70.

I'm therefore considering selling the CZ 24-70 and acquiring the CZ 16-35 instead. What I can't find out is whether the 16-35 is as good as the 24-70 in their overlapping focal lengths. Do you have any knowledge about this?
Mike

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6245
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:30 pm

The real issue is that you can end up with a very bulky and expensive outfit when what you are really looking for is something on full frame to give you optimum interiors and architecture. I mainly use the Sigma 12-24mm for extreme situations, where a crop from the A900 frame can be used in place of a shift lens, or nothing else will get the image. I find focal lengths from 17 to 20mm optimum; 16mm is a bit wide, I used to have access to 15mm in the 1970s with Pentax, and it was just that bit too much.

When Minolta (going AF) stopped having a 17mm at all, at first I was upset - the 17mm f/4 had been a 'main lens' for me, I did not have a 20mm and my next lens up was initially the 24mm f/2.8 and later on the neat little 24-35mm f/3.5 MD. But the 20mm f/2.8 was a return to the standards of performance of the old 21mm f/2.8, so I went for that. I then had a 24mm, and 35-70mm/50mm f/1.4 as needed for mid range.

If I had the 24-70mm, I would find the 20mm f/2.8 an interesting possible team up. But with the 17-35mm I'm not seeing any big difference - 17mm at f/2.8 performs as well as the 20mm at f/2.8 (neither really pull in the corners unless you stop down).

What I would really like is an 18mm f/2.8 prime - something of Distagon quality.

David

User avatar
InTheSky
Viceroy
Posts: 898
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 4:23 am
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby InTheSky » Wed Dec 16, 2009 7:50 pm

Hello David,

Unfortunately I haven't backup the picture took with the 24-85mm. I got this lens with a MAXXUM 800SI I think 2 years ago. For my memory, I can remember that the lens was feeling better in hand than the 24-105mm.

For the image quality, I didn't have Full frame at this time, but remember that the lens was not Sharp wide open, but didn't really verify if it was miss focus (only kind of test you are doing when you removing the lens from the Film camera and just take some moment to get picture on the DSLR body).

I remember having saw most of the Adds for the 800SI with this lens ... meaning probably that Minolta was probably telling customer that this lens was good enough to be respect with the 800SI camera (and probably because the 800SI flash was design perfectly for the lens, the only one camera I know having a Zoom flash adjustment on camera body).

Looking forward for your testing with the lens. It is not big in size ... can can at least take the place a prime lens in a bag.

Regards,

Frank
Frank
A7 (R, S & R II) + NEX 3N ( and few lenses )


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

cron