Carl Zeiss CY vs Minolta MD – 28mm lenses – comparison
- Carl Zeiss Distagon 28mm 1:2.8 CY (AE)
- Minolta MD 28mm 1:2.0 (MD III)
- Minolta MD 28mm 1:2.8 7el7gr (MD III)
- Minolta 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.
|MD III 28mm F/3.5|
|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
Carl Zeiss vs Minolta 28mm comparison – sharpness/resolution
Long-distance test description
- Camera Sony A7II (24mpx, full frame) – RAW (ARW), tripod, A-mode, ISO 100, WB fixed, SteadyShot OFF, manual focus correction for every shot
- Targets (buildings) – fixed by gravity power on the distances in more than 200 meters
- ARW post-processing – Capture One, default settings, 100% crops 300×200 px
Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.8 (7×7) long distance
Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/3.5 long distance
Short-distance test description
- Target: 10-15 cm picture, printed on glossy photo paper
- Distance: 1.7m
- Camera: Sony A7II (24mpx, full-frame, tripod, remote control). M-mode, ISO fixed, WB fixed, SteadyShot – OFF.
- The test was repeated for every F-stop on every focus position with manual focus adjustment for each shot. That is to avoid the effect of field curvature.
- RAW processing: Capture One, default settings. All quality settings – 100%. Crops – 300×200 px
Original target image (printed in horizontal orientation on 10cm X 15cm glossy photo paper)
Carl Zeiss 28mm f/2.8 vs. Minolta MD 28mm f/2.0 short distance
Carl Zeiss vs Minolta 28mm comparison – final conclusion:
Carl Zeiss C/Y 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
This is another unfair battle, just now Zeiss has a 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.