Skip to content

LensWars: Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.0 vs. MD 28mm f/2.8 7×7 vs. MD 28mm f/3.5

Comparison of lenses Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm 1:2.8 (AE) vs. Minolta MD 28mm 1:2.0 (MD III) vs. MD 28mm 1:2.8 7×7 (MD III) vs. MD 28mm 1:3.5 (MD III)

This article was made specifically for this Carl Zeiss because Minolta 28mm lenses have already been enough studied and the site contains a lot of materials about them.

Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm 1:2.8 (AE) for the test was provided by Egor Nikolaev (Егор Николаев) – many thanks and greetings.

CZ
28mm F/2.8
MD III
28mm F/2.0
MD III
28mm F/2.8(7×7)
MD III 28mm F/3.5
Serial: 6631574 1103621 8072626 8009035
Optical Condition: Near Mint Very Good Near Mint Near Mint
Mechanical Condition: Near Mint Very Good Near Mint Near Mint
Cosmetic Condition: Near Mint Very Good Near Mint Near Mint

This comparison is correct only for conditions and equipment used for tests. Test results can differ if any element is changed.

Tested lenses reviews:

CZCY2828__AvatarReview_.png
AvatarReview_MD2820.png
AvatarReview_MD2828_a7x7.png
AvatarReview_MD2835.png


Long distance – sharpness:

Test description: Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. Targets (buildings) were fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters. All shots were made with apertures from fully opened and up to F16. ISO-100. Shutter Speed – depends on light (camera A-mode). SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot to exclude focus-shift.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cut into 300×200 px elements (100% crops), combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.

Notes:
  • Sunlight has been changed during the session.

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 (7×7) long distance

Scene preview:

CZCY2828__e_far_preview

Test results:

Battle_CZCY2828_vs_MD2828a7x7_long.jpg

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/3.5 long distance

Scene preview:

preview_Battle_CZCY2828_vs_MD2835_long.jpg

Test results:

Battle_CZCY2828_vs_MD2835_long.jpg

Short distance:

Test description: target is a 10×15 cm picture (printed, glossy photo paper), fixed on the wall by scotch. Distance – 1.7m. Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) was fixed on the tripod and managed remotely with computer display as a viewfinder. All groups of shots were repeated 3 times for every target position on all apertures from fully opened up to F16, ISO-100, WB – same for all shots. SteadyShot – OFF. Focus was manually corrected for each shot. After all needed shots have been taken for one target position – I moved the target to the next place. Main idea – to exclude the field curvature affect on so close distance. Of course, I can’t be absolutely accurate, but test results looks correct.

Finally, pictures were converted from ARW-files in Capture One with default settings (Some single files have a slight light correction, for better visual convenience in comparison), then cropped for 300×200 px elements, combined into diagrams and exported into JPEG-files.

Original target image (printed in horizontal orientation on 10cm X 15cm glossy photo paper)

Azusa Nakano 15_2print

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.0 short distance

Scene preview:

CZCY2828__b_res_close_previewNEW

Test results:

Battle_CZCY2828_vs_MD2820_short.jpg


‘What does it mean?’ – my conclusion:

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.0 – Minolta has a more advanced scheme and one-stop faster – this battle is not fair and Minolta won easily on the short distance:

  • Center – Both lenses are the same in this position
  • Middle – Zeiss shows better results in the middle position at F2.8, but from F4 up to the end both are the same
  • Corner -Minolta is better at any aperture

Note: I am very upset, but… unfortunately, the long-distance test was ruined. This happens (rarely) – several takes were spoiled at one time. When this became known, I already didn’t have a lens. That’s why I can demonstrate only a test at a short distance.

For myself, I can conclude which lens is better on the long-distance – based on tests between Zeiss and Minolta 28/3.5 and also between Minolta 28/3.5 and Minolta 28/2.0 – any of readers can do it of course too. I just avoid posting conclusions here because I can not attach simply understandable diagrams.

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 (7×7) – independently of the fact that this battle is fair, it was very easy to predict who would be a winner because the Minolta 28mm 1:2.8 with 7 elements in 7 groups optical design is the weakest 28mm Minolta’s lens from MD III era.

Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/3.5 – another unfair battle, just now Zeiss has an 2/3 stops advantage. Zeiss is the winner – no doubts, both lenses give a similar IQ at F8.0. Yes, I always recommend 28mm Minolta with F3.5 as an economy wide-angle lens, and yes – I consider that Zeiss is worth its money too.


CZCY2828_MD2828a7x7_MD2820_MD2835_Battle__Avatar.png

 

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: