Which one should I get?

[Javelin]

I can get one of these 3 lenses to replace my 35-70F4

28-85 <-- this is the better one of the ones revied on Dyxum
28-105
28-135

All vintage Minolta

[Dr. Harout]

I would pick the first.

[Javelin]

thought so. the dyxumers put them close together in reviews but some of the reviewers <people I know of> call it very close to the G versions in image quality.

Edit: the 135 I mean

You really think so Doc? the 85 is ver very common but reviews well. the 135 is a lot more rare which to me means people are hanging on to them

[Javelin]

Holy! I hope the guy who is selling it doesn't read that!

[01af]

Stay away from the AF 28-105 mm! Even though it's not bad, it's not up to the other two.

The AF 28-85 mm simply keeps surprising me, after 21 years of ownership. It's a stunning lens, and extremely versatile ... on 35-mm format (on APS-C, the wide-angle end is lacking). Many don't like the fact that the 'macro' function (max. magnification 1:4) is working at the short end of the zoom range. That may be awkward indeed if this happens to be your only access to close-up photography. But if you have more macro-enabled lenses at your disposal then this wide-angle 'macro' (sort of) definitely will open up new perspectives---literally. The regular (non-'macro') minimum focusing distance is 0.85 m (2' 8").

I don't own the AF 28-135 mm ... but I keep hearing---and seeing---wonderful things. This lens is built not very ruggedly; it contains several plastic parts in the zoom and focusing mechanisms, to keep weight and cost down. So it's a bit on the flimsy side, mechanically, and needs to be handled carefully. However if in good condition then it is able to perform on prime-lens level, despite its wide zoom range. It's incredibly sharp! The only drawback (besides bulk and weight) is the minimum focusing distance which is a longish 1.5 m (5 ft)---so this lens is hardly suitable for portraiture work.

Personally, I prefer the AF 28-85 mm, due to less bulk and better minimum focusing distance. But if the latter is of lesser importance to you then you may prefer the AF 28-135 mm's wider zoom range. Both lenses are very good performers ... I have no doubts they'll look fairly good even on the new 24.6 MP Sony DSLR-A900 camera.

-- Olaf

[Javelin]

Well it was an e-bay auction I won so i'm pretty happy about that. we will see when I get it. it was described on Dyxum as all metal so seeing your post I googled it and found that Dons favorite site (alphamountworld) actually did a review on it and he says all metal too (sorry I build machines for a living... Steel Brass and aluminum are my favorite things OOoh and Nickel plating! or hard chrome!) the minimum focus distance is quite long but with the macro switch engaged it's pretty good. I hope to use this lens for walk around shows and things along with my 17-35 and beercan or BBC depending on venue. my 35-70 was sharp but the range isn't great and the flare is insane. This lens should focus faster than the beercan too with 3 turns to complete a focus cycle where the beercan I think is 8

I think I got a bargain as I see the local camera theives sell this for 500 bucks and mine shipping in is under 300. the most recent sales were all over 300 where i've seen ads.

[Javelin]

HAHA too late .. auction ended

Give me the link, or a phone number, and I will take care of business on that one for you!

-Sonolta

[Vidgamer]

I picked up a 28-105xi for $19. I figured for that price, I can hardly go wrong. I love its size, and it's tuff. I also like the powered zoom, although I guess it's a bit gimmicky. I was hoping it'd be useful for something of a "walkaround" lens, perhaps in adverse conditions. No, the 28mm isn't as wide as I'd like, but I've used 28mm before, and it is a useful angle. But, I fear Olaf is correct -- the lens just isn't that sharp. The color is good. But even the bokeh isn't special enough to give weight to it. No, I'm not sure when would be a good time to use it.

So, having typed that, I decided I needed to go back and review some of the photos I took with it. Really, it's not so bad. Not RAZOR sharp, but not bad. And the color is really good. Hmm, a couple of these photos look pretty sharp. Looks like I had a bear of a time actually achieving the focus point at the subject! What a mess. Dang, if someone showed me a couple of these photos, I'd say it was a great lens....

But the bottom line is that at around 105mm, it isn't quite as sharp as my 55-200, but better than the 100-300xi, and probably the main thing keeping me from giving this lens a chance is that my 17-50/2.8 is so good. I mean, really, it's hard to compete with that.

I guess if I have a point it's that I'm impressed at how well these ordinary lenses have held up over time. Some of them may still be worth trying, even though they are not G quality. Sure, there are some that are truly not worth the bother, but on a budget, I think something like the 28-105xi is usable. I guess it goes back to what you need, and what your budget is.

I mean, come on -- $19. I'll put this up against any other $19 lens.

[Javelin]

part of it was accessability. Theres 28-85's everywhere. I haven't run across to many 28-105's or 28-75's this 28-135 came up and looked like it was being ignored (probably becauseof a chip in the paint near the filter ring) so it looked like a deal then I searched forwhatever else was forsale around here and on ebay (at about the same ime) and posted my list here for comment.

[01af]

It was described on Dyxum as all metal so seeing your post I googled it and found that [...] alphamountworld actually did a review on it and he says all metal too ...

It!? I assume you're talking about an AF 28-135 mm lens, don't you?

As already I said---lens reviews on Dyxum.com are not worth the time it takes to read them. Of course the AF 28-135 mm is all-metal on the outside. The plastic parts are where you can't see them.

Let's hope you got a good sample. Test if the zoom and focus rings turn smoothly, without undue play or uneven resistance. Also see if the aperture blades are snappy and if the lens' front part isn't loose or wobbly. If everything is in good condition then the lens should perform admirably.

-- Olaf

[Javelin]

I actually didn't mean to disagree with you. I've never seen one of these lenses up close but it looked like the same construction as my BBC and read that it was all metal in a couple places. if it works ok when I get it I won't be dissapointed by any plastic parts. If it doesn't well then the seller will refund it and i'll just pick up the 28-85 (as Don so eloquently put). and maybe i'll just grab one of those anyway. there only 60 bucks or so but it's a long drive to where they are all at (Toronto). . afterall you never know when a plastic part may fly off !

All my lenses except my beercan and MD mounts are from ebay, local shops or paper ads .. I can tell the good ones from the bad ones I just can't afford all new glass for a hobby that a year ago I was so unsure I wanted to get back into I carried my X700 around for 3 weeks to see if I could put up with all the hardware. Also i've set limits to what i'm going to spend on my kit. I will never have more than 2k worth of hardware for this unless something changes where I can dedicate more time to it. after my A200 and 3 lenses sell I'll be down below that because i've sold some prints which I'm considering as mitigating my investment and that way I can justify another flash.

Thanks for you comments and the help you provided with this decision

It was described on Dyxum as all metal so seeing your post I googled it and found that [...] alphamountworld actually did a review on it and he says all metal too ...

It!? I assume you're talking about an AF 28-135 mm lens, don't you?

As already I said---lens reviews on Dyxum.com are not worth the time it takes to read them. Of course the AF 28-135 mm is all-metal on the outside. The plastic parts are where you can't see them.

Let's hope you got a good sample. Test if the zoom and focus rings turn smoothly, without undue play or uneven resistance. Also see if the aperture blades are snappy and if the lens' front part isn't loose or wobbly. If everything is in good condition then the lens should perform admirably.

-- Olaf

[Javelin]

I received the 28-135. i9'm glad to report that it doesn't flare like my 35-70 :0 the colourseemsto be better too. it just seems to have a better clarity to them. I'e never had a rear focusing lens before and the ring near the body startled me at first. the zoom action is a little difernet than the beercan or big beercan and the macro mode haas a lockout switch that decouples the auofocus. it works pretty well. it's heavy but solidly built. and no play in the barrel. 28 is a little narrow but I have the 17-35 and the extra zoom is great .. I'll try and get out to make some sample pictures withit tomorrow. but so far i'm pretty pleased with it.

[Dr. Harout]

I received the 28-135. i9'm glad to report that it doesn't flare like my 35-70 :0 the colourseemsto be better too. it just seems to have a better clarity to them. I'e never had a rear focusing lens before and the ring near the body startled me at first. the zoom action is a little difernet than the beercan or big beercan and the macro mode haas a lockout switch that decouples the auofocus. it works pretty well. it's heavy but solidly built. and no play in the barrel. 28 is a little narrow but I have the 17-35 and the extra zoom is great .. I'll try and get out to make some sample pictures withit tomorrow. but so far i'm pretty pleased with it.

Congratulations and happy shooting.