|
The test of seven different Minolta lenses with 35mm focal length has shown that primes are not necessarily better than zooms, even if the prime is a well-known performer such as the Minolta 35mm/2.0. The lenses tested are:
Minolta AF 35mm/2.0
Minolta AF 17-35mm/2.8-4 (re-badged Tamron lens)
Minolta AF 24-50mm/4.0
Minolta AF 28-85mm/3.5-4.5 (first generation)
Minolta AF 28-135mm/4-4.5
Minolta AF 35-70mm/4.0
Minolta AF 35-105mm/3.5-4.5 (first generation)
The 20 year old 28-135mm/4-4.5 zoom is a stellar performer. Built in the same Japanese factory as the well known Minolta "G" lens line, it outperforms even the 35mm/2. Wide open (at f4) this zoom delivers more detail than the prime at f5.6! There's not much to add - you can download the pictures and check them yourself.
The newest of the tested zooms, Minoltas 17-35mm/2.8-4 (a re-badged Tamron) has much more difficulties - in fact, it is the worst lens of all lenses tested here.
The other lenses are somewhere in between - the 24-50mm/4 very close to the top, the cheap 35-70mm/4 more at the bottom. The two "classics" (28-85mm/3.5-4.5 and the first version of the 35-105mm/3.5-4.5) have characteristics similar to the "beercan" 70-210mm/4, Minoltas most famous AF lens: They are quite sharp in the center, but have distingushed CA's at the corners. A Zeiss 16-80mm/3.5-4.5, for instance, will be much, much better in detail resolution, contrast, and color rendition.
The test was made with a Sony alpha 700 (firmware 3.0 for improved detail resolution). All pictures shown here are 100% crops from high-resolution jpegs (4272 x 2848 pixels, usually 10-11.5MB) directly from the camera, without any further modification. The camera's sharpening was set to "0", no SSS was used, and to avoid any problems from the mirror I used the 2s self-timer and "mirror-up function" combined with remote control.
The tripod used was the Manfrotto 055C with professional 3-way-head manfrotto 410.
The left image is from the edge of the APS-C sized sensor, the right image is straight from the center.
 |
 |
Minolta AF 35mm/2.0 @ f2.0
- Center: almost no difference between f2 and f5.6 (no difference in resolution, slightly more contrast at f5.6)
- Edge: not as sharp as the best zooms wide open, but remember - we are talking about f2.0! The resolution at f2 is still much better that the 17-35mm/2.8-4's resolution at f8 ...
- Very little CA's and not much color fringing, even at f2 (only the 24-50mm and the 28-135mm are comparable)
|
 |
 |
Minolta AF 35mm/2.0 @ f5.6
- the best Minolta zooms from the first AF generation (28-135mm/4-4.5 and 24-50mm/4) are slightly sharper wide open (f4) than the prime at f5.6!
|
.jpg) |
 |
Minolta AF 17-35mm/2.8-4 @ f4.0
- worst resolution of all lenses tested
- typical "watercolor" effects if used wide open (f4)
|
.jpg) |
 |
Minolta AF 17-35mm/2.8-4 @ f8.0
- at f8 the center resolution is comparable to the other zooms (slightly better than the 35-70mm/4 and 35-105mm/3.5-4.5, slightly worse than 28-135mm/4-4.5)
|
.jpg) |
 |
Minolta AF 24-50mm/4.0 @ f4.0
One of the test surprises - even though the lens often is said to be worse than the previous MD 24-50mm, it is a real performer. Probably its "plastic" exterior made people thinking that the lens is "lower quality" ... optically the lens is outperformed only by the 28-135mm.
- Wide open (f4) there are more details visible than with the 35mm/2 at f5.6! A real surprise...
- almost no CA's (similar to 28-135mm/4-4.5, 35-70mm/4.0 and 35mm/2)
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 24-50mm/4.0 @ f8.0
- Contrast in the edges can be slightly improved by stepping down to f8
- Otherwise not much difference
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 28-85mm/3.5-4.5 @ f4.0
- Center: very high resolution, better than 35mm/2 at f5.6; comparable to 28-135mm/4-4.5
- Corners: detail resolution OK, but not as good as 24-50mm/4 or 28-135mm/4-4.5
- strong CA's (stronger than any other lens tested here)
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 28-85mm/3.5-4.5 @ f8.0
- Improved corners, now similar to 35mm/2 at f5.6
- CA's still very pronounced and disturbing
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 28-135mm/4-4.5 @ f4.0
"Simply the best" of all lenses tested here - as long as you don't need f2 or even f 1.4.
The stunning sharpness and detail resolution of the lens - even wide open, even at the corners - is one of the most surprising facts of this test. It seems to outresolve even the 12MP sensor of the alpha 700.
- The lens is sharper wide open (f4) than the 35mm/2.0 prime at f5.6.
- However, the contrast is slightly flat (it's a 20 years old construction with 16 lenses), especially when compared to the Zeiss lenses, and especially wide open.
- Virtually no CA's (similar to 24-50mm/4 and slightly better than 35mm/2.0 |
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 28-135mm/4-4.5 @ f8.0
Incredible detail resolution, no CA's, just a bit sensitive to flare - the best result of any lens of this test.
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 35-70mm/4.0 @ f4.0
- Center resolution quite OK (slightly less sharp than the 35mm/2 at f2.0)
- Corners are very sluggish and soft; only the 17-35mm/2.8-4 has a similar low quality, all other lenses tested are better.
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 35-70mm/4.0 @ f8.0
Stopping down brings a remarkable increase:
- Center is comparable to 35mm/2 at f5.6, but clearly less details than with the 28-135mm/4-4.5
- Corners have dramatically improved; now with similar details as the 35mm prime
- Virtually no CA's (along with 24-50mm/4 28-135mm/4-4.5 and 35mm/2)
|
 |
 |
MinAF 35-105mm/3.5-4.5 @ f3.5
Be aware - there are different Minolta AF lenses with the "35-105mm f3.5-4.5" specification. Here we are talking about the "beercan generation" full metal lens which was built between 1985 and maybe 1990. The later plastic versions are optically different and generally considered to be a mixed bang, probably less good than the lens tested here.
- Center performance quite good, but not as crisp as the 24-50mm or the 28-135mm.
- Corners are soft (only the 35-70mm/4 and the 17-35mm/2.8-4 are worse)
- not much CA's
|
.jpg) |
 |
MinAF 35-105mm/3.5-4.5 @ f8
- Center and corners don't improve much
|
|