Photoclubalpha

How much difference are there in the two lenses. I have the 17-35mm G version which I like more than the D version I had. But is the 16-35mm worth going after?

Quite few Konica Minolta lenses including some CZ and Sony lenses are made by Tamron.

Kurt Munger's Sony/Konica Minolta review site found there was very little advantage in performance of the 17-35 F/3.5 G over the 17-35 F/2.8 D and he actually preferred the cheaper D lens. The Konica Minolta 17-35 F/2.8 is a re badged Tamron and I am pretty impressed with its performance considering the price.

I personally think your waisting your money as you are gaining no advantage in focul length range. I would prefer to look at the Tamron 17-50 as an excellent alternative to the 17-35.

Thanks. I'll save my pennies for something other than the 16-35mm. I would imagine its much heavier the the KM. I kind of disagree with Kurt on the D vers G though. I do have far less flares to deal with and less CA.
I really appreciate the input.

I bit the bullet and bought the 16-35, I already have the 17-35 KM lens. First thoughts were "it's damn heavy" but now I've used it for about a month I have to say I'm happy with the improved IQ. It is not that noticeable on a monitor but you you print over A4 size the benefits show. I considered the 17-35 G but decided if I'm going to put good $$$'s into new glass to get a current version.

Having sold my 17-35mm D after getting the A77 and stopping using the A900 much, I have just found another at a fair price (very few go for as low as I paid new for my last one) which I plan to use with the A99. I have been used the Sigma 12-24mm, but I need to change lenses too often. The 17-35mm D is much better than its price would ever indicate, and for my purposes it's better than the 16-35mm, weight and insured value when travelling, value in rough conditions.

They do vary so it's a risk, I may get a good one, I may get an ordinary one.

David

I have the KM 17-35 D on my A37, it gives sharp pictures and those superb Minolta colours. You have to be careful though as I have found out with flare If the sun is at an oblique angle. I'm looking for a lens hood as I mentioned on another thread. Kurt Munger also found it prone to flare if you didn't put a shadow over the front of the lens, so a lens hood for this lens is essential.

The KM 17-35 is in fact a Tamron lens made for KM as are one or two other Sony and Zeiss lenses. Kurt did mention in his review that its possible now and again to come across an average performer, but I guess that goes for most makes. He preferred the D model over the G model.
My favourite walk about/landscape lens is the Minolta AF 24-85. It is a cracking lens and I picked it up from a well known camera shop for £120 in mint condition and boxed with hood and caps.
I think we Sony users are quite lucky in having some superb KM legacy lenses to try out.

The one I've received is not as good as the one I sold last year on first 'EVF magnfiied' look. Just OK, but I'm not sure I'll keep it. Nice condition and I plan to shoot some raw files after doing a focus calibration, and check it after applying the profile I made for my last one.

David

David

I tend to use manual focus most of the time. MHohner suggested you should disable the first curtain on Sony Alpha cameras as the KM lenses are not telemetric, I think I got that right, if not, correct me.

I guess a good upgrade if you want a bigger focul range to the km 17-35 would be either the Sony 16-50 or the Tamron 17-50.
Quite honestly, if you can put up with the build quality and almost unusable manual focus which I don't like, the standard 18-55 SAM kit lens takes a lot of beating for IQ.

Pete

Hmm well the 18-55mm SAM is ok but I found it a bit unusual in that stopping it down does not really improve performance that much. And the centre never really gets much better, mine actually seems sharper on the edges. Don't get me wrong it's heaps better than the awful copies of the Sony 18-70mm I've had you can actually use this at it's max aperture across the focal range. Satisfactory enough for a kit lens, but I did a head to head v my Km 18-70mm and that defeated the Sony kit lens it's sharper and has better central and border performance (but with more CA)

Be in no doubts that the 17-50mm f2.8 and the 17-35mm will beat out an 18-55mm kit lens in their focal range.

Would you know if the latest Sony Alpha SLT cameras will recognise older KM lenses for distortion and CA control in the cameras firmware and correct it.
Also will the Tamron 17-50 be corrected or is it just Sony lenses.

My A57 is away for service but if I remember correctly then only Sony lenses work with the lens corrections in camera.
I can check when I get it back but I did try a few lenses and they did not have any options for lens corrections.

Saying that the database on the Sony bodies is pretty small right now (even for Sony lenses!)

The A57 (and presumably the other current SLT models) only provides lens compensation for the following 12 lenses. I assume more lenses will be added with the recently announced firmware update.

 The new 16-50 f/2.8 DT SSM “kit” lens (SAL1650)
 The older 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 DT SAM “kit” lens (SAL1855)
 The 55-200 f/4-5.6 DT SAM (SAL55200-2)
 The 18-250 f/3.5-6.3 DT (SAL18250)
 The Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 DT (SAL16-80Z)
 The 16-105 f/3.5-5.6 DT (SAL16105)
 The Zeiss 24mm f/2.0 (SAL24F20Z)
 The Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 (SAL-85F14Z)
 The Zeiss 135mm f/1.8 (SAL-135F18Z)
 The 70-300mm f/4.5 – 5.6 G (SAL70300G)
 The 35mm f/1.8 DT SAM (SAL35F18)
 The 50mm f/1.8 DT (SAL50F18)

Thanks for the info, very useful.

classiccameras - the lens is for full frame use, so the alternatives you suggest are not possible.

But in fact the poor performance of the 17-35mm at 17mm on full frame is better than the poor performance of the 16-50mm SSM on APS-C, wide open - and if you set the 17-35mm to 24mm, the focal length equivalent, it totally slaughters the 16-50mm which is a very compromised lens. I've had one and used three. It is of no interest to me, but might be useful for video.

David