Minolta dynax SONY 28-105mm AF lens mint

[alphaomega]

Here is a mint copy of the much praised Minolta 28-105 zoom on ebay UK with end time 29.12.08

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Minolta-dynax-SON ... 240%3A1318

[David Kilpatrick]

I've been processing a lot of shots taken with mine today - my regard for its sharpness (if not its mid to tele geometry, which often needs correction) is maintained. I've got some shots which must be as sharp as any I've had from any lens. These shots have included stuff with trees against the sky at the edges (etc) and really, the lack of big CA problems/purple fringes etc is making the lens very easy to work from RAWs.

David

[quaero]

That is not the RS version. The RS has circular aperture. Although they are equally good according to the Dyxum reviews. Anyone compared the RS and non-RS version on A900?

[David Kilpatrick]

The version on eBay may have a circular aperture - I'm not sure that the restyle involved was anything more than a change to a ribbed focus ring. I don't have an older one to compare, but Minolta only started pushing circular apertures at a certain date, and the modification may have arrived before the RSII styling.

David

[Dr. Harout]

And welcome Quaero.

[quaero]

Thanks Dr. Herout!

Regarding the 28-105, according to Dyxum "The difference between original and this restyled lens are: Circular Aperture. New style rubber focusing and zoom grips." So I don't think the original version has circular blades.

[Vidgamer]

David, what f-stop are you using to get good results? Wide open, I'm not happy with it (the 28-105xi -- similar but perhaps different lens), but it seems much better stopped down... two stops, and I'm pretty well blown away by it, but I've been told that many mediocre lenses look good at f8, so I don't know what to make of it. I keep trying to use it now and then, as I kind of like the range. I still think I'm getting sharper results from my 17-50, but the 28-105 has a "look" that seems pleasant. Not sure how to quantify it, but given your many comments on various lenses, I would think it might be a good topic to try to compare a newer made-for-digital lens with an older Minolta film lens, just to see if there is something unique about the look, or if it's merely a bit softer.

And I don't mind the non-circular aperture. As far as I'm concerned, it's a pleasant enough effect (having edged highlights rather than round).

[David Kilpatrick]

I normally try to use all lenses like this around f8 when the light permits. Even the latest lenses can be pretty soft open, and some depth of field is desirable (remember f8 on full frame gives about the same depth as f4.5 on APS-C). However, my 28-105mm has so far proven sharp centrally when wide open, with a degree of softness and CA towards the edges. Checking out a set of images I find that I have just a few wide-open shots, most range from f6.3 to f13.

David

[lattiboy]

Well, I just picked one of these up for $103 shipped from my favorite ebay seller, so I'm excited to try it out on the a900. I've had quite a time finding a "walkaround" lens for this new beast of a camera. The 28-135mm is an amazing lens, but it has some practical limitations (LONG MFD, weight, flare) that make it a bit rough for non-landscape stuff. I cannot seem to find a reasonably priced 24mm zoom anywhere. The Sigma is way too big, the Tamron is apparently soft on FF, and the Zeiss cost as much as an A700+CZ16-80mm.

Sony really needs to get on a 24-105mm f/4 ASAP.