Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 D AF

Konica Minolta 28-75mm f/2.8 D AF User Reviews

• 8 out of 10 points and recommended by Rover (13 reviews)
  sharp, well built but compact

  not exactly good range on a D-SLR

  I had this for awhile on a KonicaMinolta 7D. Great sharpness, excellent vivid colors, very pleasant to use. Build quality was good though not spectacular.
  
  But after some time I found that I didn't use it all too often - a wide angle and tele lenses saw the light of day far more often. Guess it depends on what type of shots you're after.

  reviewed July 28th, 2008 (purchased for $450)
• 9 out of 10 points and recommended by Nikola_Konsulov (10 reviews)
  Sharp, fast AF, constant f2.8 aperture, well dampened Focus and Zoom Rings, pleasant bokeh, build and finish

  Really none to mention

  This lens can really deliver. Since I bought a Sigma 100-300 F4 EX DG my other lens was just sitting around (Sigma 135-400 f4.5-5.6). I was at a camera show/swap near my home so I went with my gear. I came across this lens and traded it for the Sigma 135-400 lens plus $100. I am happy that I did. This lens is great. At f2.8 it can occasionally be a mixed bag. It tends to front focus at times when at f2.8 only. However, when AF gets it right it is sharp. I confirmed this by manually focusing the lens. By f4 the lens is sharp straight across the frame. I have not noticed any AF issues beyond f2.8. It has fast AF and a rather nice bokeh. Image quality is surely there. The build is of quality also. Though, more metal would have been nice. The focus and zoom rings are pretty good; well dampened. The zoom ring has a consistent feel of friction to it. However, there are lenses that are better dampened (Ex. Sigma 100-300 f4 - Silky Smooooth).
  
  I like this lens a great deal. Though, I would have liked it to be a 24-85 f2.8. But, I am not going to complain about a few millimeters. I do have, afterall, a Sigma 10-20 to give me my required wide angle range and I do not lose much if anything on the 75mm end.
  
  This lens is highly recomended if you can get one. If you can not get the KM version get the Tamron version. Afterall, this is basically a Tamron lens with Konica Minolta adjustments/tweaks so to speak which is mainly external appearance and possibly lens coatings. AF gearing is the same at 3-1/3 screw turns if anyone was wondering. Also, just to add, this lens definitely lives up to the testing that was made on the Tamron version of this lens. Look in the Tamron section and see the sharpness test. This lens (and Tamron version) beats out the Canon 24-105 f4 L and 24-70 f2.8 L at less than half the cost based on these optical tests at SLRGear. True that the build is lesser in quality, but it is still quality nonetheless and it is not worth the extra expense to be sure. Sorry Canon;-(

  reviewed January 24th, 2008 (purchased for $440)
• 9 out of 10 points and recommended by Tsja (3 reviews)
  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
• 9 out of 10 points and recommended by nowake (2 reviews)
  Compact, light, razor sharp, and cheap for a 2.8

  Just a tad soft at the extremes when at 2.8...but that's to be expected with any zoom.

  A great lens that ends up staying on my 7D more times then not. When I was buying, I looked at both this copy and the Tamron version and thought the images overall were slightly better with the Minolta, so its worth the few extra bucks. For a lens that produces sharp pictures with great color at its price point, it can't be beat, even when compared with the 28-70.

  reviewed March 8th, 2006 (purchased for $400)