|
Reviews
|
Views
|
Date of last review
|
|
1
|
11568
|
11/24/2006
|
|
|
Recommended By
|
Average Purchase
|
|
No recommendations
|
$60.00
|
|
| Reader Review Rating Averages |
Readers' rating for
Construction Quality
|
Readers' rating for
Image Quality
|
Readers'
Overall Rating
|
|
2.00
|
2.00
|
3.00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xavier
Registered: November 2006
Posts: 12
|
|
Konica Minolta 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 D AF review by xavier
|
|
Review Date: 11/24/2006
|
Would you recommend the product? No |
Total Spent: $60.00| Rating: 3
|
|
Pros:
|
cheap, light.
|
|
Cons:
|
(absence of) image quality, poor construction.
|
|
This was my first SLR lens, bought with a Minolta 404 Si, a few years ago. Sold as part of a kit, it was quite cheap.
When I compare this lens with my newer lenses, I am amazed with how light this one is. It really weights close to nothing, even compared to the Minolta 24-105 (even though these two lenses have almost the same size).
However, it turns out in this case that you get what you pay for (both in $ and in weight).
The image quality limits its usefullness to 4x6 prints (where it can do fine, if used well). I can see the optical issues even when looking through the viewfinder: bad distortion in the wide end, chromatic aberrations, heavy distortion, lack of sharpness in the corners. I cannot find the image quality acceptable below 35mm or beyond 70mm, so this lens should be considered a 35-70 if you plan to print beyond 4x6.
The construction of this lens is quite poor. It is made of average quality plastic not very well assembled. I am not so much concerned with the ability of the lens to survive a fall (I do not expect any lens to survive a fall onto hard concrete without damage), but with how the lens will sustain use and how precise the alignment of the elements is or will remain. When it extends, I observed the end of the lens vibrates or shakes. This may explain that the image quality is kind of ok only in the middle of the range (where it is not extended).
Overall, I cannot really recommend this lens. I would probably skip it and look at a lens somewhere in the 250 or 300$ range, where you can find some decent alternatives (like a used tamron 28-75 or similar).
|
|
|
|
|
|
