A900: Minolta AF 2.8/20mm, 3.5/17-35mm G, and 2.8-4/17-35mm (D)

Photography

In this little test we have alpha 900 test shots of the Minolta 2.8/20mm, the Minolta 3.5/17-35mm G and the Minolta (Tamron) 2.8-4/17-35mm. It is well known that the superwide lenses have their specific problems on full frame DSLRs. After looking at these test results we are quite curious about the forthcoming Zeiss 2.8/16-35mm lens.

Test @ 17mm (for test results @ 20mm including the Minolta 20mm f2.8 please scroll down)

Minolta AF 3.5/17-35mm G

@ 17mm f3.5

At 17mm and wide open both lenses have a very good detail resoltion in the center; the 3.5/17-35mm G has a slightly better contrast compared to it newer (and much cheaper) Tamron/Minolta counterpart. The corners however are quite bad.

Minolta AF 2.8-4/17-35mm

@ 17mm f2.8

Very good center resolution even wide open, but the worst corners of all the > 30 lenses I have tested on the alpha 900.

Minolta AF 3.5/17-35mm G

@ 17mm f5.6

Stopped down to f5.6 the center resolution and contrast are at their best. The corners have improved, but they are still much worse than e. g. the corners of the Minolta 2.8/20mm at f 5.6.

I wonder how the Zeiss 3.5/18mm would perform ...

Minolta AF 2.8-4/17-35mm

@ 17mm f5.6

Center resolution at its optimum, and the corners improved, but still not acceptable for high-quality architecture photography

Minolta AF 3.5/17-35mm G

@ 17mm f11

While the corners are still improving, the center is already deteriorating because of diffraction effects. Nevertheless f11 is recommended for optimal "over-all" quality

Minolta AF 2.8-4/17-35mm

@ 17mm f11

Minolta AF 2.8/20mm

@ f2.8

Compared to the two zoom lenses the prime has quite good detail resolution even wide open and in the extreme corners. Vignetting, hovewer, is pronounced. If necessary it can be corrected using e. g. photoshop.