Minolta 24-85mm RS f/3.5-4.5 on Full Frame

Started Feb 1, 2013 | Discussions thread
QuietOC
QuietOC Senior Member • Posts: 1,957
Re: FF sample Min 24-85 RS 24mm at f8

tqlla wrote:

Bosman71 wrote:

Still people using this lens? If so still happy? Let us see some shots .

I think the lens is good, but the 28-105mm RS lens was noticeably sharper, but on an APSC its not wide enough. IMO, both were better than the Sony 24-105mm lens.

So to summarize 28-105mmRS > 24-85mmRS > 24-105mm (D)

24-105 D, 24-85 RS, 28-105 RS sans hoods

I've tried a 24-85, a 28-105, a 24-85 RS, and a 28-105 RS on my A58.

I kept the 28-105 non-RS.

The Minolta AF 24-85 was $500 when released in 1994. The 28-105 was $320 in 1994. Both versions of both lenses I tested performed identically. What variation there is between samples is probably more than any difference between versions. The lenses did get much cheaper as time went on, and they got much closer in price. I don't have the numbers here in front of me, but you can Google old editions of Popular Photography to find old ads. It might be that the earlier one were built better.

The aperture blades are curved in all four lenses. The apertures are slightly different though--the earlier lenses seem to get little notches wide open, but they are definitely curved blades.

The 24-85 has a major problem. I'm not sure what it is, but pictures look hazy. I assume is either sensor refection or veiling haze. It does it indoors too. The 28-105 has a bit of the later wide open but it goes away stopped down just a bit.

The 24-85 has less distortion than the 28-105. I am beginning to think that might be why the more distorted 28-105 is sharper in the corners than the more corrected 24-85. I just tried SAL28F28 and it performs similarly to the 24-85 at 28 mm--except worse. For film and big pixel sensors the 24-85 may be the better lens.

I am a little curious about the original 35-105 which is rated even higher than the 28-105. I have also tried the 28-135 and have no desire to use that lens. The 24-85 is a pretty good lens, the 28-105 is just much better.

A quick survey of what these have recently sold for on eBay:

Range Released Weight Elements Filt MFD Price
18-135 DT 2012 398g 14/11 62 450mm $180-$300
16-105 DT 2007 470g 15/11 62 400mm $225-$300
24-105 2006 432g 12/11 62 500mm $225-$400
24-105 D 2000 432g 12/11 62 500mm $100-$210
28-105 RS 1997 485g 13/10 62 500mm $ 60-$105
24-85 RS 1997 415g 14/12 62 500mm $ 40-$130
28-105 1994 485g 13/10 62 500mm $ 60-$100
24-85 1993 415g 14/12 62 500mm $ 40-$110
35-105 N 1988 290g 12/10 55 850mm $ 20-$155
35-105 1985 485g 14/12 55 1500mm $ 25-$155 'hidden G'

 QuietOC's gear list:QuietOC's gear list
Sony SLT-A68 Sony DT 16-80mm F3.5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Sony DT 55-300mm F4.5-5.6 SAM Sony DT 16-50mm F2.8 SSM Canon PowerShot S1 IS +86 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow