Forum AlphaDxD

Kurt a écrit :Final thoughts.

The Sony is a very good lens, and it out performs the other lenses in almost all areas tested above. The only deficiencies of the Sony are color fringing and distortion, and the Minolta G is the best in those areas, but not by much. The Konica Minolta turned in good results also, and you'd be hard pressed to see the differences between the Sony and KM unless looking at 100% crops side-by-side. The Minolta G is a good lens, but is lacking in a couple of areas, especially ghosting, where control is poor; the corners are decent, but not quite as sharp as the much less expensive KM when stopped down at the widest focal lengths.

In a nut-shell, the Minolta AF 17-35mm F/3.5 G seems a little dated. It's built well, and I like the way it feels and handles the best of all three, but due to poor ghosting control, and mediocre corner sharpness, I'd pass on this lens, especially since it sells on eBay between $1000-$1500, that's just too much money based purely on optical performance.

The Konica Minolta does a very good job, when stopped down and viewed at normal sizes, you may not see the difference between it, and the Sony. The selling price For the Konica Minolta AF 17-35mm F/2.8-4 at the time of this review is about $300 on eBay, That's a real good deal, and $1600 less than the Sony!!

The Sony Carl Zeiss 16-35mm F/2.8 is a great lens, and very expensive. The color and contrast are superb. If you make a living using this focal length, I'd go ahead and pay the retail price of $1900, it's worth it. If you're an amateur with a bunch of money, and demand top-notch image quality, get this lens.

ear_78 a écrit :En tout cas si après ce test quelqu'un loue encore le 17-35 D en le trouvant 'très correct' dans les angles sur l'Alpha 900...

vince a écrit :Mon slip, ressaisis-toi...