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.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Tue Feb 03, 2015 12:54 pm

I found the 24-105mm to perform better than my copy of the 24-85mm but the first 24-105mm I used ages ago was not as good, maybe I got lucky with the boxed new 24-105mm this one is sharp across the range esp the tele end, at 85mm the 24-85mm was not usable not really at F4.5 (haze) it picked up significantly at F5.6 but I was not unhappy with the lens for the meagre outlay. You don't have to stop the 24-105mm down at all tele end (it's not a great idea to shoot F3.5 24mm on full frame so I would close it down there)

The Canon isn't a a bad lens it has flaws just like most lenses do that cover a bigger zoom range, the one's I've used seemed better at the wider end not quite sharp at F4 70mm and up (usable but not tack) It's just a reasonable cost lens and some do buy it for the red ring and sealing it's far from a compact lens though

Sony could have done a 24-70mm F4 making it much more affordable than the F2.8 I think such a lens would have been a good move, but then looking at the daft price of the E mount 24-70mm F4 maybe not. The only non silly priced normal zoom they have is a re-badged Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, hence people run to s/h Minolta lenses

User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2544
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby pakodominguez » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:16 am

bfitzgerald wrote:I found the 24-105mm to perform better than my copy of the 24-85mm but the first 24-105mm I used ages ago was not as good, maybe I got lucky with the boxed new 24-105mm this one is sharp across the range esp the tele end, at 85mm the 24-85mm was not usable not really at F4.5 (haze) it picked up significantly at F5.6 but I was not unhappy with the lens for the meagre outlay. You don't have to stop the 24-105mm down at all tele end (it's not a great idea to shoot F3.5 24mm on full frame so I would close it down there)
The 24-85 is older than the 24-105 and, with second hand lenses, you never know how much they were abused... Both 24-85 ad 24-105 are soft at the long end, wide open. IMHO the 24-85 is better at the short end than the 24-105: less distortion but more vignetting...
bfitzgerald wrote:Sony could have done a 24-70mm F4 making it much more affordable than the F2.8 I think such a lens would have been a good move, but then looking at the daft price of the E mount 24-70mm F4 maybe not. The only non silly priced normal zoom they have is a re-badged Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, hence people run to s/h Minolta lenses
Let me tell you that the Sony FE 24-70 f4 worth every penny you paid for it. The Tamron/KM/Sony 28-75 is a great lens also.
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Wed Feb 04, 2015 6:11 pm

I've not used the Sony so can't comment it's a bit pricey for an F4 lens

The 24-85mm has less distortion wide end, the 24-105mm seems sharper across the frame and with better edge performance. The "as new" 24-105mm is sharp at F4.5 @ 105mm not a hint of softness from the lens. I'm sure they do vary no question but the newer lens was vastly superior in the tele end, the 24-85mm has veiling haze at max aperture it clears up pretty quickly granted and it's still a good lens. I tread with care on Dyxum user reviews I'm sure ropey copies are out there but I can't rate the older lens as better

User avatar
pakodominguez
Minister with Portfolio
Posts: 2544
Joined: Tue May 22, 2007 5:38 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby pakodominguez » Wed Feb 04, 2015 10:51 pm

bfitzgerald wrote:I've not used the Sony so can't comment it's a bit pricey for an F4 lens
I didn't knew you have an A7(x)...
Pako
------------
http://www.pakodominguez.photo/blog" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Fri Feb 13, 2015 1:19 am

Never said I had an A7!

Just for fun here is an example of how compact the 24-105mm is, some of these ILC lens designers would do well to look at this..
http://gattos.exblog.jp/9087560

classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 929
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby classiccameras » Fri Feb 13, 2015 9:51 am

Same as my Minolta 24-85.

David Kilpatrick
Site Admin
Posts: 6248
Joined: Sat May 19, 2007 1:14 pm
Location: Kelso, Scotland
Contact:

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby David Kilpatrick » Fri Feb 13, 2015 11:13 am

I had a Minolta 24-105mm and it was terrible. I moves on to the 24-85mm and it was one of the best lenses I've owned. There is also no distortion at 24mm and sharpness at 85mm was not a problem. Then I picked up a bargain Sony SAL 24-105mm and that was completely different from the original Minolta - much less distortion, less colour fringe, and generally better than the 24-85mm simply because of its range. Nevertheless, still slightly more distortion at 24mm.

David

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Fri Feb 13, 2015 12:37 pm

The original 24-105mm I used ages ago was not overly impressive I know samples vary but it's possible I had tried a ropey one, like DK the CA was quite notable much less so on the as new boxed one I got in fact CA is significantly lower. I've seen CA variations between lenses. The problem with the 24-85mm wasn't a lack of sharpness but Spherical aberration from about 35-40mm + at the max aperture there was a "hazy soft focus effect" not the worst I've seen and it was not impossible to use the lens at the max aperture but the contrast dropped off quite a lot and you had a slightly hazy image.

I'd used worse (the Pentax 18-55mm kit lens is notorious for this at the tele end and it never gets sharp across the frame even stopped right down) Surprisingly the older 28-85mm didn't suffer from this and was usable at the tele end wide open (quite sharp, though not so much for close up focus shots) Every lens is unique it's possible I got a not so good copy (the 24-85mm was in super condition and the RS one) so I can't say if they're all like this. It did clear up stopping down just a little, but I really needed a lens that was better tele end at the open aperture.

The second copy of the 24-105mm has proved to be optically excellent with low CA, good sharpness and having shot in on FF bar some vignetting it's good at the 24mm mark too, for the silly price I paid for a boxed new lens it's proved something of a bargain. I've no idea why some lenses rate so high on Dyxum I suppose some people's expectations vary, even the 18-55mm bar the good close up performance the copies I tried were hmmm passable at best nothing more, yet to some it's "sharp"

Mark K
Grand Caliph
Posts: 397
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:10 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby Mark K » Mon Apr 20, 2015 5:56 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, 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

24-85 was the first great lens for me from Minolta. After that I got one 28-105 for Dynax 600 classic for my dad. That lens turned out to be a bad copy and can't be compared to 24-85. I bought a 24-105 along with my Dynax 7 but again, it is in many ways less as sharp as 24-85. Now I have to retire these two lenses completely because 24-105 produces unaceptable flares on my A7 cameras and 24-85 has a mechanical injury that Sony told me not to repair anymore. My Sigma 28-70EX f2.8 is also aged to have yellow casting all over its optical elements and images were too dark.

User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3726
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: 24-85mm Minolta

Unread postby bfitzgerald » Thu Apr 30, 2015 1:04 pm

I'll have a look through my 35mm film but whilst flare control wasn't amazing on the 24-105mm it wasn't that bad either you can get a circular ring fairly large at that but it doesn't wipe out the entire image in a way many of the older Minolta lenses could suffer (28-85mm wasn't great here massive loss of contrast in some cases)

There are only a few lenses I have that are quite good with flare even then I had problem with the 17-50mm with LED Lighting I had to take shots of. By a cruel twist of fate the 18-70mm kit lens is actually very good with flare


Return to “Lens Lore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron