Full size jpeg samples so be wary of size please.

Carl

copy of the Minolta original version?

I had an opportunity to get one for around $75 a few months back; then lucked into the 20mm for $60 heh heh...

Based on what you discovered in you use; if that same source has the lens still, I would probably pick it up. If the price has gone up some (likely) what price would you go to before deciding on the Sony version?

Again; an informative, fair, engaging review.

Thanks - Hapster

I think the only real difference between the Sony and the Minolta version are going to be digital coatings on the Sony vs. no digital coatings on the Minolta (may not make that much difference overall), and being brand new with a warranty. I think this can be applied basically to all the Sony carried over Minolta designs, unless otherwise stated by Sony.

Glad you liked the review. :)

Carl

Carl thanks for such a great review. Such a great article and photos. Although I don’t have the Sony 28 f/2.8, I do have both copies of the Minolta 28 f/2.0 and one copy from Minolta in the 28 f/2.8. The Minolta 28 f/2.8 never ever leaves my camera bag. I really have a great love of this lens. One of the things I like most about this lens is its ability to control spherical aberrations & minimized sagittal flare. Sometimes halo can be a problem in certain light, I still favor this lens as the best of the wide-angle lenses Minolta made.
When I try to compare this to some of Leica’s Summicron f/2.0 ASPH ($ 2100.00US) it give it a run for its money on a properly focused Alpha 700. Optimum performance on the Summicron is at 3.5 and Minolta at 5.0, but who takes landscapes photos at less than 5.6+?
I highly recommend the Minolta 28 f/2.8 and if the Sony is a copy, most of you guys need one!!!!!!!!!
Thanks again Carl,
AJ

There's an awful lot of used Minolta 28's out there for half the price of the Sony or less. Did Sony make this into a D lens, or is it still 5-contact?

I've got a Minolta one of these (for eBay prices, I might as well) but found it didn't really outclass my Tamron 17-50 sufficiently to justify mounting it much. For prime-only streetwalking I picked up a Minolta 24mm that's noticeably sharper, and I'm keeping an eye out for a 20mm, I always find myself wanting wider. How would you say this lens competes with the Sigma 28/24/20 f/1.8 primes?

Assuming some still want a brand new lens, it is still a very good value.

Don't know about the sigmas, don't own them nor will Sigma get back to us about an exchange/review program.

Carl

I would tend to agree, that the 28mm is better than it gets credit for.

It's a decent price, and a fine lens in it's own right. It's less interesting on APS, due to the crop factor, but still worth looking at. The simple case with WA lenses, is that you need to stop them down more, for edge to edge sharpness prime or zoom. Certainly the case on a film body.

Minolta made two 28mm f/2 (1986 & 1999) and one 28mm f/2.8 (1985) and Sony produced the 28mm f/2.8 (2006). Biggest difference in these lenses are that the 1986 and 1999 28mm f/2.0 had 9/9 Elem,/groups and all others have 5/5 Elem./groups. The 1986 and 1999 28mm f/2 also takes a 55mm filter and the others are 49mm.

The Sony is supposed to be a direct copy of the 1985 version from Minolta. It is by far my choice of wide angle produced by Minolta for many reasons.

I can see very little difference in the 20mm f/2.8 (1986) and 20mm f/2.8 (1993) lenses used with film or digital, other than the crop size of the aps-c sensor.

Both of the Minolta 24’s are great lenses and may be slightly sharper wide open than the 28. If you test this lens in Full Frame, i.e. with fine grain film below 50 ISO, use a tripod and look directly at the film with a good magnifying loop, you will see more chromatic/spherical aberration and halo. I think this is why Sony duplicated the Minolta version of the 28 f/2.8 from 1985. Full Frame lenses are in the future of Sony, and I think your going to see some really good wide angles in the near future. I’m hoping for a 20 out of Carl Zeiss!!!! Hey, it never hurts/or cost to want! LOL

I sure do hate to sound like the Devils Advocate, but may of us, myself included, are going to see how bad some of our lenses really are once the full frame comes out.
Thanks for letting me share/rant!
AJ

In response to the last comment, I would expect a FF sensor to be more demanding than film on the edges.

UWA lenses are a challenge on 35mm, in the extreme corners..due to the strong angles of light..and of course optics always perform better in the centre. A 24mp sensor is going to test optics a good bit more than a 12mp FF one. It will be intersting to see how the FF camera stacks up. This has been raised before, in that the coating on film sits on the surface, and a sensor has small pits in it, which does appear to make a difference to the performance. I think it could be a bit of a shocker, and at wide angle it will show up more.

In agree, UWA Lenses are a challenge on the 35. I agree with that 100 percent. I think at wide angle at 24mp with any and all of the Minolta/Sony will be a challenge. It is truly a misfortune that Minolta only made one lens capable of controlling some of these aspects in the corners. The 85 Limited.

The front element(s) are enlarged to achieve under-compensation for spherical aberrations & minimized sagittal flare & flare on film plan region. That's why it is 215 grams heavier over the "old" design (& bigger too).

By doing this, the lens renders higher contrast, vivid colour for in-focus area, while out-of-focus area much softer & smooth compared with the "old" design. (also partly due to nearly complete elimination of halo.) It can be taken as a continuous pursuit of excellent out-of-focus rendering after 135STF.

The following is a google translated page on the 85LE

http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.xitek.com%2Fxitek-lab%2Fminolta85f14.htm&hl=en&ie=UTF8&sl=zh-CN&tl=en

I do not know how this lens will behave on the FF Sony sensor! It could be a total disaster!! LOL! It is my intent to do a post on most of the popular and best liked lenses Minolta made once the A_9 is released.
AJ

A900 24MP density is only equiv to a 10MP (or less) APS-C sensor. Therefore the lenses attached to it only have to produce an image that can out resolve a 10MP APS-C sensor throughout the frame to get a sharp picture on the 24MP FF. Even so, how many need the sharpness of full 24MP to print except for the studio workers who print up to 100" wide? might as well downsize it to 17.5MP or some sort to make the photo look sharper and less noise.

"To me it is a lens that any photographer should have in their bag, simply when you cannot decide which prime to use, you just slap on your 28mm and go. I was surprised to find that this lens grew on me." These could be my words also, after few weeks of use, I'm still very excited about this lens. I heard also some negative things before I bought it, but so far I've had no problems with this lens. It's sharper than zoom -lenses, also it provides nice colors. It could have a larger aperture, like F1.7 or even F1.4, but it's now already ok with 99% of situations I can think about. When I want to shoot sharp color pictures I set the aperture to F4-F6.3, but when shooting bw pictures, I prefer to use it wide open, it gives that nice touch to the photos that, they will look like taken with a film slr, and that's not a bad thing. Similar thing that one can listen lp -records through a good vinyl player and tube amplifier, techno freaks don't like it, but those who can enjoy life, certainly will. :D

Thanks Carl, great job again.

How is this fast SSM lens compared to Sony prime 28/f2.8?
Carl, You done both reviews.. can you please advise? Thanks

This lens (the 24-70 2.8) is probably second overall in terms of speed at the wide end and even very very fast at it's telephoto. While the screw drive of the 28mm 2.8 is zippy and instantaneous (on the A200-700), the 24-70 2.8 is nearly as fast but ultra silent and precise. It's a different feel, but you won't have any troubles locking on with this lens in a hurry :). Hard to compare the two, but they are very close in terms of speed. Both can lock on in almost an instant in decent light.

Hope that helps.

Carl

Cross_Lane,

Although the pixel density might be much the same as a 10mp APS camera, the downside is that the lenses have to be able to resolve this detail out to the extreme edges. This is a lot harder than most people think, on an APS camera the lenses have it a bit easier as they use the sweet spot. On the A900 they won't have this luxury!

Andrew

I have to say with the 10 or so quick, real quick, snaps, I think this might be a real gem...

Very tight and well constructed, very quick focus, sharp and the bokeh is really great (at least on the LCD)

I picked the Minolta version used for $50...I can't wait to play with it this weekend, hopefully I will get the chance.

Hope everyone is well and have a nice weekend!

Hapster

I'll not be weary of this review but will be wary of big jpegs!

of my spelling skills! :) Thank you for pointing this typo out.

Carl

Hi. I was just wondering what your thoughts are of the 28mm 2.8 prime image quality compared to the minolta 28-75mm 2.8 @ 28mm?

Assuming you were asking me, I don't know. I don't have a 28-75 Minolta to compare (yet). Maybe others here who have both could sound off for ya.

Carl

I have the old Minolta 28/2.8. I've read online time and time again about this being a bad lens, avoid, etc. But why? Yes, at wider apertures, it's soft on the edges (as Carl's test shots show), but then, you get this with many lenses. So I'd have to ask, what are we going to compare it to?

A while ago, I found a review site that had rated this lens, and the impression that I got was that it might be near the bottom of the Minolta primes, but is still better than most zooms. I can live with that.

What is nice about the lens is that it is just pleasant to use. It focuses quickly, has good bokeh, lightweight and small.... and even pretty sharp.

What I think is a problem is that 28mm is an odd FOV. Sometimes it's not wide enough. (I think Carl may have gotten it wrong in his review though -- it's a 42mm equivalent, not 44mm.) But then again, this is not a bad angle. Many fixed lens cameras have been made in the 40mm to 45mm range, so this FOV is not unheard of or that unusual.

The best thing about the Minolta version is that since it's been talked-down so much, it tends to be affordable. But perfect, it is not. As for myself, I'll take the bang-for-the-buck lens.