Jump to content

Recommended Posts

This was originally a post on my blog: 2.8/20 comparison review: Minolta MD vs Canon FD but I thought you guys might like to read it here

I have owned the Canon FD 2.8/20 for about a year now and I am mostly happy with it’s performance. Now I got the chance to test it against the smaller and lighter Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8. So, how do they compare?


MinoltaCanon.jpg

 

Specifications   CANON FD 2.8/20 MINOLTA MD 2.8/20 Length 62mm 44mm Diameter 78mm 65mm Weight 305g 240g Filter Thread 72mm 55mm Aperture Blades 6 6 Short focusing distance 25cm 25cm

Size, Weight and Handling

The Minolta is pretty similar in size and weight to your usual 1.4/50mm lens. The Canon is noticeable bigger and heavier, most notable is the wider diameter.

Both lenses are well balanced on my Alpha 7, the Minolta lens a little better.

The Canon FD 2.8/20 has a much longer focus throw (about 160°) than the Minolta MD 2.8/20 (about 80°) and I the focusing is a bit smoother with it.

The aperture  ring of the Canon  is a bit hard to turn and I prefer the Minolta here. Both stop down in half steps to f/22.

Both lenses are mostly built from metal and feels solid but there are manual lenses which feel a bit nicer.

 

16490118649_2d90311a7d_o.jpg

 

16674893201_b2678e5464_o.jpg

 

 

Performance Flare Resistance

 

Both lenses flare easily but I find the Minolta’s flares a bit less obnoxious and it has nicer sun stars.
I don’t own a lens hood for either lens so I can’t tell you if it would improve the performance.

16036575603_e03fb54556_c.jpg

 

bad performance from the Minolta

 

16655081411_e57c079da0_c.jpg

 

and worse from the Canon

 

Distortion

 

haven’t checked yet

Vignetting

 

At f/2.8 both vignette a lot and you will notice it in almost any shot. By f/8.0 the Canon’s vignetting won’t be noticeably. The Minolta though shows noticeable vignetting even at f/11. This is the first lens were I ever noticed vignetting at f/8 ot even f/11 in my actual pictures.

Bokeh

I think the Minolta’s bokeh is lousy and the Canons bokeh only bad.

16437598645_bf1f04c7e0_c.jpg

 

Minolta MD 2.8/20: very nervous bokeh at f/2.8

14191568677_123e1ca3b4_c.jpg

The Canon is a little better but not by much

Sharpness

 

Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8 infinity test series (link)
Canon FD 20mm 1:2.8 infinity test series (link)

At infinity both lenses are sharp in the center from f/2.8 with lots of coma and low contrast in the corners. But while the Minolta is really sharp only in the very center the sharp area of the Canon is much larger.

By f/5.6 the Canon shows very good sharpness across 95% of the frame with a very notable drop in the far corners.
The Minolta shows an unusual behavior: While the corners are about as good as those of the Canon the midzones are much less sharp.

At f/11 the Canon is sharp across the frame, only the last few pixels are soft. It also shows a bit of field curvature but in my experience that works in my favour more often than not.

The Minolta though has still very weak midzones while the corners are possibly even a bit bitter than those of the Canon.

Lets have a closer look at those midzones. For this image I focused on a tree about 40m away from the camera. The center and corners are pretty much indistinguishable so I don’t show them  but you can click on the image to see them in full resolution.

16037344593_533ddc3f52_c.jpg

For the Canon image click here.

16469043757_a56137fefb_o.jpgmidzone by reevedata, on Flickr

The tree in the distance is quite sharp when we look at the Canon but soft when we look at the Minolta. A detail less than 2m away from the camera shows only a little advantage for the FD 2.8/20. So field curvature plays a role in the Minolta’s bad performance.

Other 16656221562_8d12b633a1_c.jpg

 

notice the blue blob in the center

From time to time I have noticed a hotspot in images with my Canon FD 2.8/20, it was only in a very few images mostly at sunset but it can be a bit annoying.

Conclusion

To be honest: I was quite disappointed by the Minolta. My first impression was quite positive, it is small and light and even the corners were good. But the really bad performance in the midzones makes it hard to recommend.

The Canon isn’t perfect either and it is one of the bigger 20mm lenses of it’s era but all in all it is a very solid performer and I can recommend it.

 

Alternatives

I have no personal experience with other 20mm lenses but from what I have read online these lenses have a good reputation:

  • Olympus Zuiko 3.5/21  it is very small and users report good across the frame sharpness at the expense of a little less sharp center.
  • Voigtländer 3.5/20 It is another very small lens with good performance at f/8 and because it is a modern lens it seems to be very flare resistant. I plan to test one in the future but it is a bit more expensive  than the FD.
  • Zeiss 2.8/21 a legend of a lens with excellent across the frame sharpness from f/2.8. It is large heavy and expensive though.
  • Sony FE 4/16-35 unlike the FE 4/24-35 it is a very good performer it will be sharper than the FD with better flare resistance and OSS. But it is also very expensive and rather large.
 

For more posts about the a7 and mostly manual lenses pleas visit my blog

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip,

 

As always, interesting and enlightening.  Thanks for the trouble.

 

I myself use a Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D on the A7; I'm very pleased with it.  My only comparison was with the Zeiss 18/3.5, and it defended itself very nicely.  But this was not rigorous testing; furthermore, that Zeiss lens is one of the weakest from the Zeiss catalog.  Nevertheless, the Nikon is quite tiny and light.

 

I noticed a minor typo in your text, towards the end.  You say "Sony FE 4/16-35 unlike the FE 4/24-35...".  You meant to say "unlike the FE 4/24-70...".

 

Thanks again.

 

Marc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phillip,

 

As always, interesting and enlightening.  Thanks for the trouble.

 

I myself use a Nikon 20/2.8 AF-D on the A7; I'm very pleased with it.  My only comparison was with the Zeiss 18/3.5, and it defended itself very nicely.  But this was not rigorous testing; furthermore, that Zeiss lens is one of the weakest from the Zeiss catalog.  Nevertheless, the Nikon is quite tiny and light.

 

I noticed a minor typo in your text, towards the end.  You say "Sony FE 4/16-35 unlike the FE 4/24-35...".  You meant to say "unlike the FE 4/24-70...".

 

Thanks again.

 

Marc

How do you like the manual focusing on the Nikkor?

 

Thanks for pointing out my mistake.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • The shutter is always open on mirrorless. The first or front curtain closing starts the picture taking process, the second or rear curtain completes it. There is no 'shutter slit' That's why your A7 IV has the option to close the shutter on power-down. Shooting electronic shutter is handled 100% by the processor telling the camera when to start saving what the sensor sees and when to stop, in simple terms. I've shot SLR, DSLR, SLT, and mirrorless, and mirrorless is by far the best. I shoot film from time to time and still have a couple of old DSLRS, a Minolta Maxxum 5D and a Sony A350. I have gotten to seriously dislike optical viewfinders. I would never shoot SLT again. It may have been the predecessor to mirrorless, but it wasn't great technology.  The AF issue aside, I think you just need to spend more time with the mirrorless. I know a few guys who went back to DSLR for similar reasons, but they eventually ended up back in mirrorless. Since DSLR is going the way of the dinosaur, your options aren't many. Shoot older cameras or mirrorless.   
    • Maybe could help but I doubt that the camera will drive the lenses better. from fw 3.2 the AF was spectacular even with the Minolta 80-200, not even close to a77ii but i was expecting it to be quite lackluster. It was snappy and tracked cars moving at 30kmh towards me without an issue. It was when I updated to 4.0 when I felt like i had to get the Sigma lens, which offers roughly the same experience: good autofocus on slow objects, stays in place or back focused (especially back focusing) most of the shots. I've tried to see if you can downgrade the firmware, but I've seen negative results. ISO1250 and that's overexposed, iso800 and the detail remains. could be, since it's no SLT either you also need the shutter slit to be wide enough to let the sensor do autofocus. all in all I believe mirrorless cameras are a step back from dslr and SLT cameras The SLT A99II has proven to be the best autofocusing camera in the world and it still is, it's just that the gimmick of the mirrorless cameras can detect the eye of the subject and promise to obtain better action portraits because they focus on the eye or cockpit of the subject. Because of this I was going to go full onto the A7CII but when I read it can only do 1/4000 and has a single shutter curtain I really felt like that was two fundamental deal breakers. The lack of joystick also made me quack off but the A7IV joystick isn't joyful either, all in all I have realized that going from the A77II to the a7iv had just a single point for which was clear photos at iso 3200, because everything else is a serious downgrade: the battery life, the ergonomics, the button layout, the autofocus responsiveness, the shutter cycle duration (3ms for A77II and 5ms for A7IV) etc. I wanted an A99II (thus paying only half of what I had to pay to convert to E mount) but all the ones I've seen were outside the EU or in poor condition.
    • Man, that stinks. I still wouldn't give up on settings though. Have you tried doing a factory reset and starting from scratch? What about all of the firmware updates on the camera?  One other thing, you say you're shooting f/4 and 1/5000. That's pretty quick. What kind of ISO does that result in? These cameras need light to AF so they can see contrasts. Have you tried dropping the shutter to 1/2000, or even 1/1600? You'll gain a couple stops of light to the sensor. 
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...