|
Here's a brief look at the Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 (D) lens. Scroll down for the review.
|
Lens
|
Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 (D)
|
|
Box contents
|
Front and rear caps, hood, and a users manual.
|
|
Cost
|
$250-$300 on eBay
|
|
Build quality
|
Good
|
|
Additional information
|
No longer produced and no Sony equivalent yet.
|
|
Specifications below
|
|
|
Optical configuration
|
14 elements in 11 groups
|
|
Angle of view
|
104°-63° full frame, 69°-42° APS-C.
|
|
Aperture
|
7 blades, circular
|
|
Full frame and APS-C
|
Yes, made for full frame. APS-C equivalent, 25.5-52.5mm
|
|
Depth of field and focus scales?
|
Just focus scale
|
|
Minimum focus, image plane to subject
|
13" (330mm)
|
|
Minimum focus, end of lens barrel to subject
|
6" (152mm)
|
|
Hard stop at infinity focus?
|
No
|
|
Length changes when focusing?
|
No
|
|
Focus ring turns in AF?
|
Yes
|
|
Filter size
|
77mm
|
|
Filter ring rotates?
|
No
|
|
Distance encoder?
|
Yes
|
|
Max magnification
|
0.19x
|
|
Min. F/stop
|
F/22-32
|
|
Sony teleconverter compatible?
|
No
|
|
Length changes when zooming?
|
Yes
|
|
Dimensions W x L (my measurements)
|
3.3" x 3.5" 83mm x 88mm
|
|
Maximum extended length (my measurements)
|
3.8" (96mm)
|
|
Weight bare (my scale)
|
15.2oz (431g) 16.04oz (466g) with caps
|
Requisite product shots.
|
| Front |
|
| Box and lens |
|
| Backside |
|
| Side shot fully extended |
The Sony A700 and Sony A900 were used for this review. Go to the bottom of the page for full frame results. For a better understanding
of my review methods and terminology, go here. The Konica Minolta 17-35mm F/2.8-4 (D) is very similar to
the KM/Sony DT 11-18mm F/4.5-5.6. They're both about the same size, same weight, same basic front element and filter,
and they perform alike. The barrel extends out 1/4" (6mm) when zooming. This lens can be used on a full
frame or film camera, unlike the 11-18mm which is for APS-C cameras only. The focal length scale is marked at 17mm,
20mm, 24mm, 28mm and 35mm. The lens is matte black, and looks to be made of a mixture of metal and plastic, with a
good build quality. It has no focus distance window but has the distance scale in FT/M. It has a metal mount.
The lens says Japan so I assume it's made in Japan. The "D" means it has a distance encoder for ADI flash
metering, most Sony lenses have this, but not all. Konica Minolta claims the use of aspherical and AD glass in the lens,
no word on how many each. I believe Tamron made this lens for Konica Minolta. Filter
size is 77mm, which is the same as the Sony 70-200mm, 24-70mm, CZ 135mm, and 11-18mm.
Zooming. Nice and easy, just right. The focal length marks don't correspond exactly
to the index marks in the EXIF data. If the lens marks read close to 29mm-30mm, the EXIF data would show 28mm etc.
No big deal.
Focusing. Auto-focusing is pretty quick and accurate, manual focusing
is OK to good. These less-expensive lenses aren't really made to be manually focused, especially
on a wide angle. There is sufficient rotational movement (1/4 turn) for an accurate focus though. Coma.
Moderate to strong with the aperture wide open, at both ends. Not really noticeable at F/5.6. Color
looks the same as the newer Sony lineup. Lateral color fringing. Control
here ok, not great, very similar to, and slightly better than the KM/Sony 11-18 DT lens. Stopping down does
nothing. Pretty common results among super-wide zoom lenses. Bokeh.
Not too bad in the centers, but on the image periphery it can be harsh. I prefer the stopped down look as it is more
consistent throughout the image. Overall, smoother towards wide angle. See crops below.
Aperture/focal
length guide for the Konica Minolta 17-35mm F/2.8-4 (D)
|
Maximum aperture
|
F/2.8
|
F/3.2
|
F/3.5
|
F/4
|
|
Range
|
17mm-18mm
|
20mm - 24mm
|
26mm - 28mm
|
28mm - 35mm
|
The numbers above are pretty normal, the overlapping 28mm on the end is also normal and depends on tiny rotational
movements of the zoom ring.
Lens distortion below.
|
| Barrel distortion @17mm. |
|
| Pincushion distortion @35mm. |
Distortion. Moderate to strong barrel distortion at 17mm, by 22mm it's flat,
then pincushion starting at 26mm, though pretty mild to 35mm. Very good from 20-30mm.
Example of ghosting below
|
| Green blobs in left center at 17mm, F/8. |
Lens Flare/Ghosting. The KM 17-35mm F/2.8-4 does a decent job with flare, but ghosting can
be strong at times around 17mm, with a long line of green blobs from the sun. The F/8 shot above was taken in the
morning, with the sun just out of the frame. Veiling flare is controlled well. F/2.8 shots were very similar to
F/8, except the green blobs are more diffused as you open the aperture. The lens comes with a plastic petal type hood,
but doesn't help with the problem above. Use your hand for much better control. Do not use this lens if you like
to take pictures with the sun close to the center of the image. Dead center shots look terrible, see below. Things
look marginally better as you zoom in.
Random samples.
|
17mm, F/3.5 sun centered
|
17mm, F/22 sun centered
|
|
|
|
|
17mm, F/2.8
|
17mm, F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
35mm, F/4
|
35mm, F/5.6
|
|
|
|
These 100% crops were taken from the center of the image where bokeh looks best, towards the periphery,
things get a bit busy, especially on the wide end. I happen to like the stopped down look best, because the blur shape
stays more consistent throughout the image. The 17mm crops come from the center background about 8ft (2.4m) behind the
close focused subject. The 35mm crops also come from the center about 15ft (4.6m) behind the subject. Light
fall-off below.
Actual results below with real subject. 17mm @ F/2.8
When you look at the 17mm test charts above, light fall-off appears moderate, stopping the lens down a stop
or two eliminates most of the issue. There's an overall darkening of the frame at 35mm and F/4, but one stop
down and it's mostly gone. You can also see by the real picture directly above that Light fall-off is not really
noticeable, a good reason not to trust test charts.
Next we'll check out the center sharpness.
| |
17mm real centers.
|
|
F/2.8
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
The centers using the usual US stamp.
| |
17mm US stamp centers.
|
|
F/2.8
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
|
The 17mm centers on the Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 are pretty sharp wide open, but there are slight benefits to
stopping down. F/5.6-8 is the peak of sharpness when focusing close. F/8 up -close doesn't show any sharper
than F/5.6 in my opinion. The real centers at infinity focus appear sharpest at F/8. The postal stamp shows
little difference between F/2.8 to F/5.6.
Corner sharpness.
| |
17mm real corners.
|
|
F/2.8
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
US stamp corners.
| |
17mm US stamp corners.
|
|
F/2.8
|
|
|
F/4
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
The US stamp corners show a big improvement at smaller apertures, peaking at F/8-11, but real shots
are a bit less dramatic, but worth noting anyhow.
Next we'll check out the 35mm
center sharpness.
| |
35mm real centers.
|
|
F/4
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
The centers using the usual US stamp.
| |
35mm US stamp centers.
|
|
F/4
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
The 35mm centers are nice and sharp wide open at F/4, actually falling off at one stop down, but not by much as
you can ascertain from the image crops above. Very good performance here. The real centers showing no difference
except DOF, but the cactus is the subject, not the wall in the background. The stamp crop sharpness difference is tough
to make out too. Again, that's good.
Corner sharpness.
| |
35mm real corners.
|
|
F/4
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
US stamp corners.
| |
35mm US stamp corners.
|
|
F/4
|
|
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
F/8
|
|
The 35mm corners are soft at F/4 and F/5.6. You'll get a big sharpness gain by stopping down
to F/8. Again, really not a big deal. On a side note; all images above are 100% crops of the original image.
Close focus image next.
Below, check out the maximum magnification sample. This shot is a 100% cropped portion of the full size picture.
The sample shot was taken with the Sony A 700 12.2MP camera. The subject is a standard US stamp, 1"x 3/4" or 25.4mm x 19mm. Also, note the macro shot
was taken as close to the subject as focusing allowed; In this case 6" (152mm), measured from the front of the lens barrel to
the subject.
|
| Close macro. F/8. click for full size crop. 192kb. |
This isn't the best lens for close-up type shots, but it actually produces a decent reproduction
ratio, and a sharp one too.
Full frame results using the Sony A900 below. Check out
the differences when using a film or full frame camera below. I'm only pointing out the noticeable issues as compared
to the APS-C bodies, so if I don't show it here, the results are not significantly different enough to warrant posting
an additional set of images in this section. Light fall-off
|
17mm F/2.8
|
17mm F/4
|
|
|
|
|
17mm F/5.6
|
17mm F/8
|
|
|
|
|
35mm F/4
|
35mm F/5.6
|
|
|
|
Light fall-off is worse than the APS-C crops shown earlier. At 17mm, F/2.8 it shows heavy, and
rolls off hard. There are still some dark corners past F/11. See real 17mm, f/2.8 image below. At 17mm,
F/2.8, regular UV filters cause slightly more light fall-off in the corners, and regular polarizers cause even more.
Zoomed out to 35mm, there's nothing to be concerned with. Random shots from A900
below.
|
Ghosts at F/11
|
Light fall-off at 17mm, F/2.8
|
|
|
|
This lens produces some harsh flare and ghosting sometimes with a full frame camera. The sun doesn't
have to be very close to the image to cause noticeable ghosts. Use your hand to shield the sun, the hood won't help
much. When the sun is in the image, you're going to have some problems depending on the sun location within the shot.
The shot on the left looks much worse enlarged. The right image illustrates light fall-off with a real picture taken
at 17mm, F/2.8. 17mm corner samples next.
|
F/2.8
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
F/8
|
F/11
|
|
|
|
The corners are softer than the APS-C crops show. Things sharpen up slightly at F/5.6, (I omitted
F/4 as it was the same as F/2.8) then look better at F/8, F/11 is best. The exposure differences are from light
fall-off. When shooting landscape scenes, don't be afraid to use F/11, it looks fine with the A900.
35mm
corners below.
|
F/4
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
|
F/8
|
F/11
|
|
|
|
The 35mm corners look all-around better than the 17mm crops, they're much sharper wide open.
Things sharpen up a little each time you stop down until F/11. There isn't much difference between the images above,
and the APS-C shots in my opinion. Distortion next.
|
| Barrel distortion @ 17mm on A900 |
|
| Pincushion distortion @ 35mm on A900 |
There is moderate to heavy distortion at both ends on the A900, but it wouldn't be all that noticeable
unless you like shooting horizons or buildings close to the edge of the frame. Coma results
with full frame.
|
F/2.8
|
F/5.6
|
|
|
|
This is coma @ 17mm on the A900. It look rough, and doesn't go away until late in the game,
like F/11, though this lens is not the worst offender at coma. At 24mm, F/5.6, no problems, same at 35mm. |
Now for the conclusion.The Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm super wide angle lens
turned in a pretty good performance, especially for $300. It's really more appropriate for a full frame camera.
The APS-C equivalent is 25.5-52.5mm. Let's look at the high points. It's fast wide open, and pretty sharp, and
the corners look good a couple stops down. Cranked out to 35mm, the centers are sharp even at F/4, though the corners
benefit from closing the aperture by two stops. A couple of downers are; distortion is about average for a super wide
on an APS-C camera, and color and contrast are lacking compared to other full frame super-wide zooms, though you'll only see
this by comparing other lenses using 100% crops--- see comparison review. CA is a about average for a super-wide zoom, but only noticeable is you're looking very close. So who would buy this lens? This might be a very economical super-wide choice for people
with a film or full frame digital camera, it performs similarly to the Sony 16-35mm F/2.8 when stopped down some and viewed at normal sizes. If you have an APS-C Sony, and don't plan on upgrading to a
full frame, I'd just get the more useful 11-18mm F/4.5-5.6, or the Sigma 10-20mm F/4-5.6, both reviewed here. |
