Well I got my film back did a few scans now my power supply seems to have died on the scanner so I've ordered another one (I tested it no voltage coming through)
Anyway I saw enough to come to some conclusions about performance on 35mm
This is a test shot I took whilst driving through Wiltshire a typical farmland scene. I used a roll of the oddball super cheap "Tudor" ISO 200 film I picked up a few of those for very little so it's not the finest grain but seems ok for a normal ISO 200 film. As per normal I'm down to f11 on 24mm here
And this is what's going on in the extreme corners
Conclusions so far are:
It's capable of sharp results at the wide end and the corners are good stopped down
There is some vignetting even stopped down at the 24mm mark, at the tele end a bit at f4.5 though not as much and dropping it down a little vignetting is a non issue. So watch out for that wider end, it's not a hard edges vignette a creeping one that's fairly soft and correctable. Probably a design compromise as the lens is so small and compact. Tele end corners tighten up stopping down it's good in the centre at f4.5
Distortion is a moustache type at the wide end and the pincushion is fairly strong at 105mm. I'd find the tele end more troublesome but it's fairly easy simple distortion to deal with, at the wider end for some shots it won't really be noticed much.
On APS-C the vignetting is a non issue as it's cropped out entirely and you get a fairly handy 36-157mm with a very usable f4.5 tele end, the 18-135mm is at f5.6 at about 60mm if you're not in need of the wider end it makes for a pretty good APS-C lens too 36mm isn't that wide but it's wide enough in some cases and a better option than a 28-something on APS-C.
I've not seen major CA problems in fact not much at all really I know lenses can vary significantly on this
Compared to the 24-85mm sample I had the distortion and vignetting are less of an issue on that lens v the 24-105mm. I was fairly happy with the 24-85mm at the 24mm end stopped down the corners were decent (not tack but quite good) but the 24-105mm beats it here no question. Tele end the 24-105mm is much better than the 24-85mm which I found had veiling haze and needed stopping down.
For me anyway a keeper. At that price and a brand new lens the compromises are there but with some corrections vignetting and distortion there is no reason to doubt it should perform well on FF digital. The lens is ridiculously small for the range it covers quite a feat really and I'm sure the designers made some trade offs to get there. Still hard to complain about it, I showed it to a 24-105mm Canon owner and they were quite shocked at how small it is. I have been using the Canon 24-105mm L on a friends 5dMkII a few times that also has similar issues vignetting at the wider end is also a problem, distortion is quite similar on both lenses, the Canon's a touch soft at the tele end usable but a little vague at f4 105mm, leaving aside the build and sealing aspects optically the Minolta is not shamed by the Canon and is probably a touch better at the 105mm mark, stopped down wide end the Canon is a little better not a lot in it though.
I'm a bit surprised Sony discontinued the lens it was affordable and optically good for the range it covered, I'm sure with a bit of tweaking the vignetting and distortion could be tamed a little better in an updated design, even if they added an in lens motor with DMF it would likely still be fairly compact and a good normal zoom lens for FF users. Strange...
The marketing splurge I read on this lens suggested it was the first 24-105mm lens no idea if that's true but looking at the size of the Canon and Sigma 24-105mm's and their own compromises (which are similar to this but in a much bigger package) it seems the lens designer who worked on this Minolta was pretty on the ball
