Interactive Lens Reviews and Opinion.
Digital Camera Reviews

Reviews Views Date of last review
3 27633 12/29/2010
Recommended By Average Purchase
100% of reviewers $60.00
Reader Review Rating Averages
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
Overall Rating

Keywords: Konica Minolta Wide Mid Tele Zoom DT APS-C


Registered: December 2010
Posts: 22
Konica Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 D AF DT review by Beachrider
Review Date: 12/29/2010 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $55.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: Small and light, good zoom range for price point
Cons: Plastic lens mount

Bought it used. Replaced with 18-55 SAM. Still share it with young-shooters. Nice lens. Zoom-range and f/stop are limited by low price point.

Registered: December 2006
Posts: 1
Konica Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 D AF DT review by llinkawa
Review Date: 12/12/2006 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: $65.00| Rating: 8 

Pros: Somewhat a wider zoom kit compare with compatiters
Cons: Seems blur at tele end

-A plastic mount kit lens with wide range zoom 18-70mm
-Excellent image quality compare with the same grades
-I don't like that's no focus meter for beginners study
-Fast focus speed motored by Alpha 5D
-Great package with lens hood included
-Architectured with an AD glass

Registered: May 2006
Posts: 3
Konica Minolta 18-70mm f/3.5-5.6 D AF DT review by Tsja
Review Date: 5/31/2006 Would you recommend the product? Yes | Total Spent: None indicated| Rating: 7 

Pros: light, extremely cheap, perfect zoom range for me, decent quality, did I say light?
Cons: 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!


This document copyright © 2009-2015,, all rights reserved.