Lens review

[classiccameras]

Any one used the Konica Minolta AF 17-35 F/2.8 wide zoom and how did it perform. I already have the Minolta 24-85 and its a cracker, I thought the 17-35 would be a good partner. I have seen one going for under £200. kurt Munger review gave it a positive review.

Thanks
Peter

[redsim74]

Another 120 user reviews here:

http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/Min ... iew27.html

[bfitzgerald]

Be careful with Kurt's reviews he's been hit with iffy copies before so look around at other resources as well.
I just picked up the 17-35mm (Tamron) IMO for the outlay it's a useful lens (on both APS-C and FF)

[classiccameras]

Thanks guys

I just read the SLR Gear.com web site and the readers reviews give the Konica Minolta 17-35 'D' version 10/10 for image quality and 9 over all.

Yes, I have read some of Kurt's reviews and I am not totally convinced of his results and conclusions on 'some' reviews, in other words they are sometimes at odds with other well respected review sites.
I guess user reviews such as in SLR Gear are more real world and a good indicator of performance with the lens in question than endless lab tests .

Pete

[bfitzgerald]

You could read the Dyxum user reviews, they will vary though as do copies. Nothing wrong with Kurt's site he just tests what he gets it's worth a look.
In some cases though it might not be representative of what you get. I tested the Km 18-70mm v the 18-55mm SAM and the KM outperforms the newer kit lens (his review indicates otherwise), but I know how bad the Sony version of the 18-70mm was pretty awful the 2/3 copies I tried. Not that the 18-55mm is bad it's perfectly ok, I just got a mostly very good copy of the KM kit lens.

As far as I know the 17-35mm is a Tamron design re-badged for Minolta. Nice lens really not sure why Tamron stopped making it. (they have nothing to replace it for a FF UWA zoom)

[Old Hydro]

Any one used the Konica Minolta AF 17-35 F/2.8 wide zoom and how did it perform. I already have the Minolta 24-85 and its a cracker, I thought the 17-35 would be a good partner. I have seen one going for under £200. kurt Munger review gave it a positive review.

Thanks
Peter

I have the KM lens. Its pretty good for the price. However, I have found that anytime the sun is in the frame, the picture includes flares. If you send me your email address I will send an example.

Knowing this, I don't know if I would buy it again. I use it less then I thought I would because of the flare issue.

[classiccameras]

Thanks for that, since my last post I have got a mint 17-35 F/2.8-4 for just £129.
It came with no hood so I'm in the process of looking for a suitable replacement. Every one has been so helpful.
You are right about the flare, it needs careful use if the sun is coming in from the side. Perhaps a lens hood will help a little, although its been critisized for not being very effective.

I am very pleased with the lens as I took some Autumn shots in my local park of the lovely leaf colours/trees today and they have come out superb.

I was advised when using KM lenses on Sony bodies is to switch off the first curtain shutter as colours may be un balanced with it on.
Cheers
Peter

[David Kilpatrick]

It takes the same lens hood as the 11-18mm Tam/KM/Sony and you can get those new - so a replacement hood is easy enough to locate.

David