Which 24-105 - KM or Sony?

[Amnon Duvdevany]

Hello,

B&H store have both KM and Sony 24-105(D). The Sony costs about 100$ more (about 430$ instead of 330$). Looking at the specs there are some differences (if cited correctly by B&H):

1. Minimum stop range - 37 for KM (?), 27 for Sony.
2. Minimum focus distance - 1.6' for KM, 1.7' for Sony.
3. Weight - 448 gr. for KM, 395 gr. for Sony (Why?).

Looking at the photos, they have different zoom/focus rings.

Regarding the optics (the most significant issue of course) it seems they are the same - 11/12 groups/elements, 2 aspherical lens elements, circular aperture, non-rotating front...

Any significant differences? Any reason to buy the Newer (and more expensive) Sony version?

Thanks.

Attached hereby are the features:

KM:

The AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5(D) is a compact standard zoom lens that offers an exceptional range. It provides excellent focusing operation and high-quality images throughout the zooming range.

During autofocusing, photographers can easily hold the camera in good balance thanks to Minolta's Auto Clutch Mechanism, which does not rotate the focusing ring during AF drive. There is no need to operate any switch to activate the mechanism. In manual focusing, the wide, well dampened ring is easy to control and rotates smoothly. The three aspheric surfaces (in two elements) reduce the total number of lens elements and thus shorten the length of the optical system. Optimally arranged, these aspheric lenses reduce spherical aberration, sagittal flare and coma. The result is a super-compact lens with high-quality images throughout the zooming range. In addition, this new lens features a circular aperture diaphragm for beautiful rendition of defocused image areas.

In combination with the Maxxum 7 (or newer cameras), the AF 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5(D) supports the ADI (Advanced Distance Integration) flash metering, by providing precise distance information utilizing its built-in distance encoder. Highly accurate flash-metering performance is obtained.

This lens comes standard with a large, petal-type lens hood for optimal light shielding.

Key Features

• Ultra compact 4.3x zoom lens

• Wide focusing ring for comfort and better control

• Non rotating front during Autofocusing

• Support Minolta's ADI (Advanced Distance Integration) flash metering.

(Minolta's new "D" lenses feature Distance Encoding that provides refined multi-segment metering for manual focus operation and depth-of-field display on Navigation Display with the Maxxum 7 as well as ADI flash functions with the new 5600D & 3600D flashes.)

Sony:

The Sony SAL-24105 24-105mm f/3.5-4.5 Lens is a compact standard zoom lens that covers the zoom range most often used for general-purpose photography. It provides excellent focusing operation and high-quality images throughout the zooming range.

During autofocusing, photographers can easily hold the camera in good balance thanks to its Auto Clutch Mechanism, which does not rotate the focusing ring during AF drive. There is no need to operate any switch to activate the mechanism. In manual focusing, the wide, well-dampened ring is easy to control and rotates smoothly. The three aspheric surfaces (in two elements) reduce the total number of lens elements and thus shorten the length of the optical system. Optimally arranged, these aspheric lenses reduce spherical aberration, sagittal flare and coma. The result is a super-compact lens with high-quality images throughout the zooming range.

Key Features

• Ultra-compact 5x zoom lens

• 2 Aspherical Lens elements to correct aberration

• Wide focusing ring for comfort and better control

• Non-rotating front during autofocusing

• Circular Aperture for pleasing defocused effects

--
AD

 

[bossie]

Not really a help for you , but since when is 105 / 25 five ? They sure are optimistic those people from sony .

 

[parallaxproblem]

Hi

My understanding is that the Sony lenses all have an 'anti-reflective' coating on the rear lens element which:
1. Supposedly reduces PF around blown-out portions of the image

2. Gives more consistent performance when using flash in terms of 'contrast-reducing' flare-effects (this is an effect which a friend of mine has actually observed when comparing 'digital' and 'non-digital' versions of the Tamron Macro lens)

Also I suspect the repair situation for the Sony version of the lens in a couple of years will be better than that for the Minolta... if you send the broken Minolta lens to Sony for repair in a couple of years they are very likely to say 'no parts', even though they are basically the same (parts numbers I believe are different - at least that is what they are telling me for my AF35/1.4 which I have been trying for the last year to get repaired!)

How much are these differences worth to you? For me they are certainly worth $50... $100? Only you can decide!

Regards!

 

[Buysrogge Paul L.]

Here is you will find some useful information. I don't see much difference between them.
http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/lenses.php?lang=e#zooms

 

[pvelz]

The only difference between these lenses is the look and feel. Sony have "repackaged" all the MInolta lenses that they wanted to continue. This is logical, with a minimum design effort they could transfer excellent Minolta lenses in look as Sony lenses.

The comparison of the previous poster demonstrates what I mean. Everything is the same, except for the outside of the lens. Apparently B&H have made a number of errors in their advertisement.

My experience is that lenses "never" break, unless you drop them (clear) or put them in the burning sun (oil from aperture blades drive smears the blades itself and causes sticking aperture blades). Finally, upon poor storage one can have trouble with fungus ion the glass elements. This is my experience, electrcial defects I have almost never seen.

So 100US$ more for the same lens, even if you have a longer availability of spares (which you would > 99% sure not need) is not an incentive for 100US$ more. UNless you fell the Sony lens looks better (I don't).

regards,

Peter

 

[parallaxproblem]

The only difference between these lenses is the look and feel. Sony
have "repackaged" all the MInolta lenses that they wanted to
continue. This is logical, with a minimum design effort they could
transfer excellent Minolta lenses in look as Sony lenses.
The comparison of the previous poster demonstrates what I mean.
Everything is the same, except for the outside of the lens.

And the digital coating on the rear lens element...

If KM bring-out a Full Frame body then for this reason (and the 'D' functionality) I personally will be happy to pay the extra $60 which the 50/1.4 now costs at B&H, over the quite reasonable $250 'last price' which the KM version of the same lens went for at the same shop just before the stock was exhausted

My experience is that lenses "never" break, unless you drop them
(clear) or put them in the burning sun (oil from aperture blades
drive smears the blades itself and causes sticking aperture
blades).

I beg to differ... seals and mechanisms - particularly on cheaper zoom lenses wear out, glued elements separate, internal parts break, electrical contacts rust, aperture blades work loose...

This is my experience, electrcial
defects I have almost never seen.

I have dismantled and occationally even managed to repair a number of lenses myself, and I have to say that I have definately found electrical problems caused by corrosion or sometimes dirt - not on Minolta lenses but certainly on several Pentax 'F' series, which are not that different in some respects

Whether it is worth paying for a repair to a 'cheaper lens' like the 24-105 is a different matter (unless it is under guarantee) but it is still something to consider

Regards!

 

[pvelz]

Hi Parallax, I have seen defective lenses at junk shops for instance, and there is a wide range of possible reasons for the lens to be defect, all the ones you mention I have also seen. But with my personal experience after 30 years of photography and taking good care of my (many) lenses, I have not seen anything else but a sticking aperture on one lens.

The number of lenses that show a defect in the first 5 years, going by my experience and all the"photographers" I know is very low, less than a few %, The most prominent failure mode (for the better quality lenses) is "own fault", i.e. leaving the lens in the sun for too long, so the grease smears aperture and lens elements. This is what prompted me to make the earlier remark. And thus my view on Sony versus KM lenses.

regards,

Peter