Photoclubalpha

I have the Minolta 20mm 2.8, and seem to feel it's not as sharp as the CZ2470. When Sony implemented the Sony 20mm 2.8, did they by chance improve upon the sharpness of this lens overall?

The Minolta 20mm was $599, and I see the Sony 20mm is also $599. Would it be a meaningless move to sell/trade in the Minolta for the Sony, in hope of gaining more sharpness?

Thanks for any input,
Dave

No, it is exactly the same lens. When the A900 was launched I was able to make comparison shots on the 20mm f/2.8, the prototype 16-35mm, and my 17-35mm KM D lens. I was not permitted to publish any of these. As a result of my tests, I decided to keep the 17-35mm and not worry at all about wanting a CZ 16-35mm, or getting a 20mm. Nothing I have seen since has persuaded me the decision was wrong, but if I had a load of cash, I'd probably get the 16-35mm and 24-70mm just for the SSM.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:No, it is exactly the same lens. When the A900 was launched I was able to make comparison shots on the 20mm f/2.8, the prototype 16-35mm, and my 17-35mm KM D lens. I was not permitted to publish any of these. As a result of my tests, I decided to keep the 17-35mm and not worry at all about wanting a CZ 16-35mm, or getting a 20mm. Nothing I have seen since has persuaded me the decision was wrong, but if I had a load of cash, I'd probably get the 16-35mm and 24-70mm just for the SSM.

David

I found a difference in the quality of image from the Old Minolta compare to the RS version. On the RS version I found that the only advantage of this lens compare to Zoom was the corner to corner detail going very good from F/11 to F/14. Where you are lucky, you can find this lens in uses condition for ~225-275$ US. And this is only if you really need 2.8 aperture and better quality for large landscape picture with the A900, I see no advantage outside Full frame sensor.

Regards,

Frank