Lens: Equiv to minolta 24-85f3.5-4.5 zoom

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Camera Equipment : One Thread

Well from the question you can tell I am certainly not a pro so please be gentle. I was recently shopping for a camera and after reading a number of lens reviews (photodo, photozone, camerareview, ...) it appears from all ratings this lens is significantly better than either canon (24-85,28-105) or nikon (28-105) offerings.

My question(s) are as follows:

1) Has anyone actually used a couple of these lenses who have any comments on their performance (sharpness/contrast)

2) To someone looking at a slide (kodachrome 25 or 64) projected on a wall (say 11-14 to 16x24) would you notice an obvious difference between this lens and the others.

3) Assuming the answer to #2 is yes -- does canon, nikon, tokina or anyone else have a lens that performs nearly as well -- at this WEIGHT (i.e. canon 28-70 2.8 might be a good lens but at 2x the weight).

Thanks

-- Alan Krantz (atk@arctic.org), February 01, 2000

Answers

The Minolta 24-85 is a very good lens. I have shot with each lens mentioned. They all will give you good results. If I had to pick I would select the Minolta's 24-85 for sharpness. Downside is the at the wide end there is some moderate distortion. Between 50 and 70mm I would give the edge to the Canon 24-85 and Nikon 28-105 at F8 or F11. Otherwise they would be difficult to pick them out in side by side comparisons.

-- Gary Wilson (gwilson@ffca.com), February 01, 2000.

Before buying, you should have a look at the whole system of a camera brand. In the unlikely event you only need one lens then stay with the Minolta option if you like. But if you're planning to built a fairly common set-up (e.g. 24-85 + 70(80)-200 + 300 + flash), I advise you to have a look at the major brands and compare them. It will save you a lot of money (and disappointments) in the longer run. Ivan

-- Ivan Verschoote (ivan.verschoote@rug.ac.be), February 02, 2000.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ