The SAL 3.5-5.6/18-70mm DT wasn't that good at it's long end (f=70mm). At f=35mm however the small, cheap and light-weight lens performs very well, given its price tag. The centre image quality is comparable to both the professional MinAF 28-135mm and the MinAF 2.0/35mm when using the same aperture (at f5.6 and f8). Of course the zoom is one stop faster (f4.0), and the prime even three stops faster (f2.0).

Border image quality of the SAL 18-70mm at f=35mm is surprisingly good as well: Less details than the two other, more professional lenses - but much better compared to its rather disappointing quality at f=70mm. While the 2.0/35mm displays more details at f2.0 than the 18-70mm at f8.0, the differences are not as pronounced as they were at f=70mm. Remarkable: the 18-70mm has no problems with koma at all, probably due to its rather unspectacular max. aperture (5.6 at f=35mm) and the use of AD (anomal dispersion) and aspherical lenses.

Again, as in all previous tests, these are "neutral" jpgs directly from the alpha 700. No PP applied, just cropping.

Link to the corresponding test at f=70mm

HERE AGAINA FEW REMARKS

		Sony SAL 18-70mm DT @ f5.6/35mm (wide open)
		Sony SAL 3.5-5.6/18-70mm DT @ f8/35mm
		Minolta AF 2.0/35mm @ f2.0 (wide open) Some problems with koma, otherwise even the corners (not shown here) are very good
		Minolta AF 2.0/35mm @ f4.0 Almost perfect.
		Minolta AF 2.0/35mm @ f5.6 At f5.6 the detail resolution is at its maximum.
		Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm @ f4.0 (wide open)
		Minolta AF 4-4.5/28-135mm @ f8.0