Tsja's reviews

  • Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 D AF

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Fast, swift AF, sharp, size, weight, perfect people lens
    A tad long for my general purpose needs

    == Contrast ==
    Excellent contrast, except maybe at f2.8 and longer focal lengths, but this is excellent for people most of the time anyway.

    == Flare ==
    Very flare resistant

    == Sharpness ==
    28mm > Very sharp troughout the f-stop range
    50mm > Very sharp from f4.0 and on, slightly soft at f2.8
    75mm > Very sharp from f4.0 and on, slightly soft at f2.8

    == Build ==
    I actually like the build. Very solid for the weight and price. I think this size and weight is ideal for a normal sized DSLR like the KM 5D. The rotating MF ring doesn't bother me at all.

    == Purpose ==
    I like it very much as a "people lens". So portraits, candids in available light. I use it more often for indoor sports however. The AF is fast enough and the quality combined with the high ISO's of the KM 5D is sufficient for largish webdisplay and certainly 13x18cm prints (haven't printed larger prints yet from indoor sports).

    == Price/perfomance ratio + Conlusion ==
    For the price I paid, it's pretty hard to beat. I love the size, weight, perfomance and price! I hope the new 17-50 f2.8 is about the same and I can get it for the same price, then I will have my general-purpose-zoom-needs filled. Highly recommended!

    reviewed May 31st, 2006
  • Konica Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4 D AF

    9 out of 10 points and recommended
    Very sharp, even wide open, decent size and weight, reasonably flare resistant, cheapish, great team with the equally good 28-75 2.8
    limited zoomrange, too short on the long end

    == Contrast ==
    Excellent contrast, on all focal lengths and all appertures

    == Flare ==
    Unfortunatly a little less flare resistant then the 28-75, or it is just that I take more pictures with this lens where this could be a problem. Overall reasonably flare resistant

    == Sharpness ==
    My copy is pretty sharp at all appertures and all focal lengths. Stopping down one stop improves image quality just a hint, but I don't hesitate to use it wide open.

    == Build ==
    I actually like the build, very similar to the 28-75. It extends very little while zooming. Very solid for the weight and price. I think this size and weight is ideal for a normal sized DSLR like the KM 5D. The rotating MF ring doesn't bother me at all.

    == Purpose ==
    I don't use it as often as I thought. It's just a little short on the long end to be a true general purpose lens (I like the range of the kitlens more and use it actually more often on holidays etc.). However, teamed with the 28-75 2.8 it makes a great duo for high quality shots, where I have the time to change lenses every couple of shots. A great landscape lens and does well at indoors and nightphotography as well.

    == Price/perfomance ratio + Conlusion ==
    For the price I paid, it's pretty hard to beat. I love the size, weight, perfomance and price! I just wish it was a tad longer. I'm actually looking at selling in to purchase a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5, but I'm just waiting to see what Sony rolls out. If you think you like the zoomrange it is highly recommended however!

    reviewed May 31st, 2006
  • Konica Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 D AF DT

    7 out of 10 points and recommended
    light, extremely cheap, perfect zoom range for me, decent quality, did I say light?
    Slow (apperture), feels cheap (because it is), I like a little larger and heavier lens, needs to be stopped down for decent quality

    == Contrast ==
    Moderate contrast wide open, okay when stopped down 2 stops. Not the same league as 28-75 or 17-35.

    == Flare ==
    The hood is pretty nice as it is included and more effective then those of the 28-75 and 17-35 because it is optimized for DT and not 35mm. Wide open it is a little suspect to veiling flare.

    == Sharpness ==
    Well, when stopped down it is decent. Wide open it is not to good at longer focal lengths. At shorter focal lenghts it only needs one stop down for reasonable sharpness. Not too good, but not entirely shabby either.

    == CA ==
    CA can be a problem with this lens, in contrast to the more expensive 28-75 and 17-35. It can be easily fixed in software.

    == Build ==
    The build is too light for my liking. The front rotates while focusing, but I don't mind, just as I don't mind the extremely shabby focusring. It's simply not important for how I use this lens (travel and general purpose use). I always AF and don't use a polarizer with this lens. It's rather anoying that the maximum aperture is already f5.6 at 28~35mm.

    == Purpose ==
    I use this more often than I like, having also the excellent 28-75 and 17-35. It especially keeps the 17-35 more in the bag than it should. This is mainly because the focal length range is perfect for my travel and general purpose needs.

    == Price/perfomance ratio + Conlusion ==
    It takes decent pictures, so for the price you pay second hand or in a kit, it's just perfect! However, I like my lenses a little heavier, a little better build and a lot more consistent throughout the zoom- and apperturerange. I simply don't like stopping down for image quality, for depth of field yes, for image quality no. So I'm looking at replacing this and my 17-35 for a Tamron 17-50 2.8 or Sigma 17-70 2.8-4.5. For the price and as a place to start/beginnerlens it's pretty perfect! Recommended!

    reviewed May 31st, 2006