Minolta AF 24-85mm or 24-105mm??

[Skeez]

Hi all,

thinking of getting one of the above lense for outdoor and portrait shot.
Want to bring for travels too.

From some of the threads, 24-85mm seem to produce sharper pictures but slightly more expensive.

Not sure which would be a better choice. Anyone want to comment on any of the above lense? :embrass:

Thanks.

 

[frisky]

The 24-85 is a very good lens indeed. I used to have one and it is by far my most frequently used lens, very sharp, but when you stack filters you'll get vignetting in the corners........

A friend had the 24-105, which also gives good pics. It is slight smaller, which I like.

I guess it boils down to which is more important, quality or size/range.
Both are quite close I must say.

 

[andylee]

I've use the 24-85 for wedding with 400 and 800 ISO films and it still delivers the results. If you are into focal length, then the 24-105 is good for you. me currently using 24-50 f4. wonderful pics and the filter is 55mm 0nly....

 

[Skeez]

frisky & andylee,

Both of you, thanks for commenting.
It's still hard to decide. The 24-85mm being slightly sharper and the 24-105mm for its longer focal length, lighter and shorter barrel. :think:

The 24-85mm certainly looks tempting :bheart: but i will go for the 24-105mm for its longer focal length - more versatile.

 

[andre]

24-105 is D lens...which The lens has more function with new minolta model. and with 24-105 you can get more shooting zone from wide to zoom. Quite good if you want to go travelling.

rgds,
Andre

 

[forbytes]

I am using 24-85 on D7.

 

[andylee]

I am using 24-85 on D7.

nice combo there,forbytes.

me using 700si with AF 24-50 f4. it's my wide cum standard lens.

It makes me go nearer to my subjects & i love the minimum focusing distance:0.35cm

 

[forbytes]

I agree with the focal length benefit. sometimes 0.5 on my 24-85 is just not short enough. want to see things BIG BIG. :bsmilie:

 

[andylee]

I agree with the focal length benefit. sometimes 0.5 on my 24-85 is just not short enough. want to see things BIG BIG. :bsmilie:

Minimun focal length is important to me because i like to compose with a strong foreground & play with the depth.

 

[frisky]

Minimun focal length is important to me because i like to compose with a strong foreground & play with the depth.

If you really like to go near, I guess nothing beats reverse lens...... :bsmilie:

 

[andylee]

If you really like to go near, I guess nothing beats reverse lens...... :bsmilie:

Wanna try that for close up but then the depth too shallow...

 

[frisky]

Wanna try that for close up but then the depth too shallow...

Tell me about that; when I focus on the body of an ant, the legs are out of focus!!!

 

[forbytes]

If you really like to go near, I guess nothing beats reverse lens...... :bsmilie:

I always in doubt of what is to shoot reverse le ns? does that mean that the lens contact is not in contact with the body. and you physical hold the lens in the opposite direction and shoot? Please advice. THanks.

 

[alvin]

Hi try this URL?

http://www.mplonsky.com/photo/article.htm#rev