Minolta  AF 20 F2.8  reviews

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Mark_k   review date: January-20-10  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

20-35/3.5-4.5

price paid:

360

positive:

Light weight, sharp and the sharpest wide angle prime I have

negative:

Flare

comment:

A much sharper lens the the zoom version. In fact used Nikon 20/2.8 first.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: derekw   review date: December-07-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta 17-35 f2.8-4
Tamron 20-40
Tokina 20-35

price paid:

£211

positive:

Sharp
Typical Minolta colours
Well built but not heavy
Minimal distortion compared to zooms at similar focal length

negative:

Nothing to speak of

comment:

Expensive but well worth the money.

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: Deasy   review date: December-06-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

price paid:

£275 used

positive:

Ligtweight
Sharp
Great field of view on FF

negative:

Nothing really!

comment:

I bought this a few months ago and only just got round to using it. I really like it. It's a lot like my previous Minolta primes (24/2.8 and 50/1.7) it's light, compact and performs very well.

I had wanted something wider than my CZ 24-80 for a while, though as it will only be used occasionally couldn't justify spending a lot of money. This little lens fits the bill nicely!

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: DarkScribe   review date: December-06-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta 28mm F2.8 RS, Minolta 20mm F2.8, Minolta 28mm F2

price paid:

Bought new in 80's

positive:

Without a doubt one of favourite primes - I never go anywhere without it. Very sharp from F2.8, quick focusing, great colour, very well engineered. Very low distortion if used properly. A very good street lens on a crop body.

negative:

Aside from the fact that you need to replace the hood with a collapsible rubber hood right from the start - there are no negatives.

comment:

This is one of my "magic" lenses - it never fails to deliver. It is among my top five favourite lenses of all time - one that I would be very saddened to lose. I have had it since new, mid eighties, and it has never let me down. It has performed well on Minolta 5000, 7000, 9000, and my Sony A100 and A700. It is brilliant on an A900.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: AllAboutAlpha   review date: July-29-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Min. 24/ 2.8
Min. 28/ 2.8

price paid:

265 € (new)

positive:

very sharp, nice colours

negative:

nothing till now

comment:

Very nice lense for landscape, architecture.

sharpness: 3,5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 3 

user: JPA15   review date: June-18-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta 24/2,8
Sigma 24/2,8
Minolta 28-85/3,5-4,5

price paid:

120 USD

positive:

Wide angle

negative:

Not so sharp

comment:

Expected a fixed focal lens to be sharper.
AF quite fast.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: apras   review date: April-08-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

minolta af 28mm f2.8
minolta af 28-135mm f4-4.5

price paid:

350 usd used

positive:

Sharp, good build quality, good colour.

negative:

big filter size, sometimes backfocus, hard to grip the manual focus ring. huge lens hood.

comment:

i haven't use the lens for an architectural photo, so i cannot comment on the distortion. i found this lens is quite sharp, sharper i feel than the 28mm, but less sharp from the 28-135mm. used it in some wedding photos, nice to have f2.8 at 20mm.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 3 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: 6tyNine   review date: April-08-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta 24mm ƒ/2.8 Original
Minolta 28mm ƒ/2.0 Original
Minolta 35mm ƒ/1.4 G RS
Minolta 50mm ƒ/2.8 Macro RS
Minolta 58mm ƒ/1.2 MC Rokkor PG
Minolta 85mm ƒ/1.4 G RS
Sony 18-70mm ƒ/3.5-5.6
Sony 75-300mm ƒ/4.5-5.6

price paid:

$370USD, Sept 2007

positive:

Colour transitions
Resolution on full frame
90 degree field of view on full frame
Relatively cheap second hand
Decent autofocusing

negative:

Bulky wide in the bag
Short barrel combined with wide field of view makes it difficult to hold steady and not have edge of hand palm or edge of sleeve in the shot
Distortion
Flare
Vignetting if attaching a slim circular polarizer on top of a standard UV filter
Non-circular aperature blades
No centre-pinch cap
Soft wide open

comment:

I was never really impressed with this lens when I had the α100 but on the α900, it really comes into its own. On crop sensor, it's never quite wide enough and never quite tack sharp ever but somehow that all goes away on full frame. This concept has been confirmed by some reviews:

mhohner's review on crop sensor:
http://www.mhohner.de/sony-minolta/17-35.php

Stevemark's review on full frame:
http://artaphot.ch/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=53

This lens is a landscape lens through & through. I use it @ f/8.0, ISO-200 with a tripod and remote cable release probably 75% of the time. If I didn't always autofocus to infinity, I would say the thin focusing ring is useless. Sometimes distortion can creep in excessively in cityscapes. If I were going to stick to a crop sensor body, I would probably get a 24/2.8 RS and call it a day. I just wish I got the RS version with circular aperature blades.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Pascal78   review date: March-11-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Zeiss 16-80mm
Minolta 17-35mm D
Sigma 18-50 DC f/2,8

price paid:

250 euros

positive:

Very good control of everything (sharpness, distortion,vignetting...).

negative:

Nothing, as long as you accept to have a fixed focal wide-angle, which is not always easy to use (ex: landscape)

comment:

Use mostly for lanscape and travel photography.
Very good lens. The zeiss 16-80mm is sharper but doesn't have the same control of distortion and vignetting. The 20mm give very usable picture straight from the camera. Good sharpness, specially when you stop it down.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Micholand   review date: January-31-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

positive:

- solid yet lightweight
- little distortions
- great colour balance and contrast
- internal focus

negative:

- internal focus clonks when reaching the limit
- even though flare control is good, aperture ghosting can be a problem at certain angles when shooting into the sun

comment:

You can become addicted to this one. The Min20/2.8 is a wonderful lens, great for architecture, interiors as well as for landscape. Very little distortion and seriously sharp from f4 onwards right to the edge. It is my most commonly used lens and I wouldn't travel without it.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Remko   review date: January-27-09  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Sigma EX 17-35 f/2.8-4
Minolta AF 24-50 f/4

positive:

Size

negative:

weight

comment:

I love this lens, though relatively heavy compared to for example the 28mm f/2.8. But great for film. I have to admit I either hate the 1.5x crop (it somehow f*cks up the quality of these great lenses), or digital is really worse than film.
Even scanned slides look much better (color, sharpness, etc.) than my digital images.

Anyway a great lens, a lot smaller and lighter than my Sigma EX 17-35 f/2.8-4. I take it with me when I go on holidays or for landscape pics. I love the original Minolta colors. Sigma, Tokina, Tamron and so on can't match up with that.

Can't wait till I own a Alpha 900 (which will be in at least 5 yrs or so :( )

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: Jamesb-59   review date: December-11-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

positive:

Excellent for film or A900

negative:

comment:

Had this lens for several years with X-700, 9xi and Maxxum 9. Traded in when I went digital. Great lens for full frame, much better than 24 or 28mm.

sharpness: 3,5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: ilipin   review date: November-11-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Sony 17-70 F3.5-5.6
Minolta 28 F2.0

price paid:

300USD (used)

positive:

Light
FF (for A900 in future)

negative:

To soft at wide open
Sharp from 5.6

comment:

This lens in my bag always. After purchase this lens I do not use kit. I Use it for landscapes, interiors & amazing portraits.

I test sharpness of lens, in wide open (F2.8-4.0) it like kit. Only after 5.6 Minolta F20 wins. In result sharpness rating 3.5.

Minolta AF 20 F2.8 needs a A900 :)

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: arpictures   review date: October-09-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

price paid:

350 (used)

positive:

sharpness
light but solid build

negative:

manual focus ring small

comment:

This is my wide angle lens on holdiays and if I need to get exxtra wide at weddings.

As stated by many users the focus ring is rather small. Once you can get round this then I've found its a great wide angle lens to use on holddays. Of late I have been using this on my A100 so the 1.5x focal distance makes it wide enough for most subjects. Attach this lens to a film body and a A900 (not tested yet) and its back to the normal wideness normally associated with this lens.

Colours are great with this lens and wide open I find that its sharp enough.

I purcahsed this lens 8yrs ago and for the cost its was a bargin. I can't wait to try this out on the a900.

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: superx2won   review date: September-16-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Kit len
T17-50/2.8
M50/1.7
Beercan

price paid:

200 USD (Used)

positive:

Light weight
72mm filter ring for pro
fast focus

negative:

hard to do manual focusing

comment:

When you attached the len+hood to the 5D, you really look pro.

This len is light weight compare to my Tamron and beercan.

The focusing is superfast and it uses standard 72mm filter ring for pro. Cost saving for me to get the filter. Filter can be share with other len.

Due to it design, manual focus is a bit hard as the focusing ring was small.

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: MartinM   review date: May-31-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

24/2.8
24/2.8 RS
50/1.7
50/1.4
50/3.5 Macro

price paid:

220

positive:

Wide Angle
Sharpness
Flare Control
IQ

negative:

Not f1.4

comment:

I previously had the 20mm RS. Unfortunately i sold it too early. I made some test shots and i didn't like the IQ compared to the 24/2.8RS. Meanwhile i got another 20/2.8 and i was able to do extended testing. This lens has become one of my favorites in my setup.

The IQ at low light is excellent. Not as sharp as the 50/1.4 but my impression is that it beats the 50/1.7

The sharpness is not as great as the one of the 24/2.8 or the 50/1.4, but certainly good enough.

If you can find one at a low price and you want to do panorama pics at low light, this is your choice.

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 4 

user: hotwire   review date: February-08-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

17-35/2.8-4
24/2.8

price paid:

$300 CAD

positive:

Wide angle, metal construction

negative:

Focus clunks at infinity
Hood very finicky when reversed

comment:

I like this lens, but need to get out more with it. As a wide it can flare a bit.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: polyglot   review date: January-06-08  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Sigma 10-20/4-5.6
KM 17-35/2.8-4(D)
KM 28-75/2.8(D)
Takumar 50/1.4.
Minolta 28/2

price paid:

USD315

positive:

- quite sharp from f/3.2
- smallish
- fairly close minimum focus
- fast focus even on A100

negative:

- f/2.8 looks bad
- not that small
- barrel distortion

comment:

I bought this due to dissatisfaction with the 17-35 and it cost me about $80 to upgrade. I haven't regretted it for a second; the quality from this lens is just that one step better.

Sharpness is decent even in the corners (APS-C, admittedly; 135 performance is unknown to me) from f/3.2 though f/2.8 is notably bad. Resolution across the frame is great from f/4.

Haven't noticed flare, but can't say I've pushed it hard (update: it's pretty immune to flare). Colour and contrast are fine. There's lots of barrel distortion, so you need to be aware of that particularly with architecture or post-process to remove it where necessary.

Build quality: it's plasticky, but very solid-feeling plastic. Focus ring is annoyingly narrow and hard to find blind. Lens cap interferes with adding and removing the hood, and the hood makes polariser use fiddly. The hood's pretty useless anyway, designed for the wider FOV on 135 and providing very little shelter.

Bokeh is OK but nothing to write home about. Being 20mm, you need to focus on something REAL close to get any at all.

Update with A700: limited resolution is definitely becoming visible, so I no longer use the lens with a larger aperture than about f/4 and f/5.6 is where it really starts to get good. If you're not a pixel-peeper then f/2.8 is quite usable but you have to be pretty careful with the focusing as it can look good in the VF and be wrong.

The 28/2 makes it look blurry, though it's still sharper than the 28-75/2.8(D). Streets beyond the 10-20 in sharpness and low-light ability - about a 3 stop advantage for similar sharpness; less distortion and better colour. I usually take the 20/2.8 and leave the 10-20 at home.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: bender21   review date: December-04-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

24/2.8
24/1.8 EX DG

price paid:

$450 (new)

positive:

Compact
Good IQ
Good value used

negative:

Small MF Ring
Awkward due to size/dimensions
Distortion
Sharpness at large apertures

comment:

I always loved the FOV of this lens on film, but I hardly ever took it out of the bag. It just didn't do much for me, and it felt very awkward for me to use. It has great colors and nice IQ, but sharpness only really gets good stopped down, like any lens, and the distortion seemed high. I think the real gems are the lenses that are sharp from the get-go. I sold this and bought the better performing 24/2.8, especially in the corners. The size of the 24mm made it extremely handy to use as well. Then, I sold that for the superior IQ of the Sigma 24/1.8, which is an absolutely fantastic performer!! Albeit at the cost of compactness...

sharpness: 4,5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: jtjo63   review date: November-26-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

18-200 Tamron
11-18 Minolta

price paid:

forgot

positive:

great wide lens, excellent result with nights shots

negative:

One size does not fit all

comment:

Great lens for landscape. Has excellent results with it when shooting in low light conditions with long exposures.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: eccl   review date: September-16-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

17-35G
17-35/2.8-4

positive:

Very Sharp
Good flare control
Good distortion control

negative:

comment:

This is Minolta widest prime lens and it is very sharp. if you like wide prime this should be on your list. On a DSLR it is only 30mm and may not be wide enough so it is best to use on film or wait for the flagship (FF).

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: napo   review date: May-20-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

price paid:

300Euro (used)

positive:

Sharp, light, nice colors, fast

negative:

comment:

Very nice lens for landscape or when shooting in the city. Sharpness could be better , but when stopped down its performance is very good.
When travelling I use this lens a lot. For me it has the right angle on APS sensor. For wider needs I use the 11-18mm which is also very good lens.

sharpness: 5 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: The Shoeman   review date: April-14-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

price paid:

212.00 USD (used)

positive:

Nice and sharp. Acceptable field of view on 1.5x crop.

negative:

Could be wider. Not much else.

comment:

I had this lens most of last year and sold it to fund a Minolta 300/2.8 HS G. I missed it ever since I shipped it. My 35/2 just isn't wide enough. WOW, that was a long 2 months without this 20/2.8

I'm so glad I found another one.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: DavidB   review date: March-27-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta AF 24 2.8

price paid:

Forget

positive:

Compact, light weight, excellent for interior, architectural work, reasonable sharpness across frame

negative:

Some barrel distortion. Vignetting at wide apertures. CA and colour fringing in bright lighting

comment:

I like this lens when a real wide angle perspective is needed with FF, and it is my widest lens- not great that way for 7D.
With very straight horizon lines (ie a water horizon) placed quite high or low in the image, there is a noticeable distortion (barrel) of the line; this can be corrected in Photoshop. Vignetting is also apparent, especially when placed against a dark background, with certain subject matter.
I bought the 24 as an alternative for these situations fairly early in my film career.
Overall, a pretty good lens.
Examples can be found at; web.mac.com/davidbannister
(They will have been corrected in Photoshop for barrel distortion; the vignetting is visible on some.)

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Reto   review date: March-25-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Sigma 12-24 EX DG
Minolta 28/2

positive:

Very little vignetting to be seen. Sharpness loses little at f2.8.

negative:

Overall sharpness could be better, especially for a fixed focal lens. A bit suspectible to lens flare, as is generally common with wide angle lenses.

comment:

As I'm not too much of a wide angle user, I use the lens more often then the Sigma 12-24.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: mortenva   review date: March-19-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Sigma 10-20
KM 18-70

positive:

Light, well built, great colours, good sharpness, fast

negative:

comment:

I got this lens after purchasing the Sigma 10-20, and for some reason the Sigma lens is left back home very often and the 20mm is attached to my 7D. I haven't made a thorough investigation of the sharpness at corners wide open, but after stopping down a step it performs really well.

sharpness: 3,5 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: MostlyHarmless   review date: March-14-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

KM 17-35 2.8-4 D

price paid:

339 USD (used)

positive:

Compact
Durable

negative:

Expensive (compared to Sigma 20 1.8 EX)

comment:

Compared to the 17-35 2.8-4 it replaced, it is much more compact and thus came with me on more shoots. It also balances a lot better on my 5D.

Even used copies of this lens are pricey, given that a new Sigma 20mm 1.8 EX can go for around US$400 but I bit the bullet because the Sigma was simply too big. If size isn't a concern, the Sigma does seem like a great buy especially with the 1.8 aperture.

The lens is sharp enough to be usable wide-open but nothing to write home about. Holds its own against the 17-35 it replaced, but can't compete with lenses like the 28/2 or the 100/2.8mac in my lineup.

A note on durability: in a recent trip to China, this lens fell out of my pocket and onto the hard stone road at the Ming Tombs outside Beijing. A small dent in the filter ring was the only physical damage that I could immediately notice and the damn thing worked like a champ when I mounted it on my 5D.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Maffe   review date: February-07-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Minolta 16/2.8

positive:

Great colors, light, fast AF

negative:

one or two stops faster would be nice=)

comment:

Great lens for landscape and city photo.
Light and fast.

sharpness: 3,5 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: Kiklop   review date: January-25-07  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

KM 17-35D
Sigma 12-24
Sigma 10-20
Sony 11-18

price paid:

200 USD (used)

positive:

Sharp
Excellent angle of view on APS-C
Light

negative:

Original hood too short
Sounds that produces in AF

comment:

Quite surprising performance on digital; unlike many other old lenses this one has lost nothing when used on digital sensor, I just love it. Moreover, APS-C coverage is minimizing distortion and is using the sweet (sharp) part of the frame.
Flare resistance is quite solid (for a 20mm lens) which can be further improved by using alternative hood (like generic rubber hood).
Compared to other lenses in this range optical performance is excellent IMHO.
**Full frame**
As with most primes, this lens will no doubt be "rediscovered" again if used on FF (a900). Performance across the frame is solid with getting better at aperture f5.6 and smaller.
On FF, a wave-like distortion (harder to correct) is more evident but i can live with that.
Currently i don't think we have anything better in this range.

sharpness: 4 

color: 4 

build: 5 

distortion: 5 

flare control: 5 

user: DcapVividOptic   review date: November-23-06  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

Min 20/2.8 MinO & MinRS, Sig 24/1.8 EX DG, Min 24/2.8 MinO & Min RS, Min 28/2 MinO & MinRS, KM 17-35D, Canon AF 20/2.8 & 24/2.8, Voigtlander 21/4 (Bessa)

positive:

- size for focal length
- AF

negative:

- non circular aperture
- price compared to Sig EX DG (new)

comment:

This is really a joint & comparison review with the other version (MinO & RS)

The MinRS gets the edge over the MinO due to the circular aperture.

Its sharp enough, but could be sharper, colors are slightly better on the MinO version I think

Distortion very well controlled.

Build is the same, although I prefer the MinO by a touch, feels just a little bit more solid. The manual focus ring is more user-frienfly on the MinRS, but certainly still very good on the MinO - don't let the manual focus put you off, its one of the better ones.

I would recommend a good hard look at the Sig EX DG range if you are looking for a 20/24/28 prime. I've had the lot and the Sig EX's get the edge on several counts: manual focus ring, 9 blades. But if you absolutely must got Minolta, I think the MinO is better value for money

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 4 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 5 

user: taomeister   review date: July-09-06  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

24-50/4,50/1.7

positive:

Price used, range, good metal construction.

negative:

Preferably use slim filters to avoid vignetting.

comment:

This lens is great on a 7D with the 1.5 crop. On film slight vignetting does occur on the corners of the negative, but is cropped when developed. I only noticed this when scanning my own negatives.

It's decently sharp wide open, but seems a tad softer stopped down (past 14 or so, past its sweet spot). On FF/film the barrel distortion is noticeable, but can be used to great effect on landscapes. It's a lot more fun on a film camera. Flare is decently controlled with no substantial loss of contrast.

The only reason I gave a 4 for build is because the plastic ring behind the MF ring can get stuck, jamming the MF ring itself if it becomes loose (caused by rotating it all the way towards infinity). Only an issue if you twist that plastic part too hard.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: nathan_68   review date: June-21-06  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

price paid:

250 Euro (used)

positive:

Fast focus
Light
Sharp

negative:

None so far

comment:

I'm using it with a full frame camera (the wonderful Dynax 7) and it's a real nice wide angle lens.
For a so wide angle, there is little distortion and the results are amazing. Colour and sharpness are also outstanding.
I cannot see any vignetting in all my pictures.
I took some pictures at the sunset with the sun touching the horizon and the light reflecting on the lake surface and I didn't have any flare at all.

So far I've had only one issue. The hood can make a shadow using the flash attached to the camera (I have a 3600 HSD). This problem can be easily solved raising the flash and using the wireless option.

Extremely recommended lens for landscaping and for creative images.


Now I'm using it on my new A100 and I'm very pleased with the results.
The only thing that I can complain is that I have lost the wide angle effect. On A100 this lens is equivalent to a 30mm, and it's not so wide like a real 20mm.

It's a pleasure to use it with A100. Pictures are plenty of details and colours. Sharpness is very good to excellent for a so wide angle lens.

I've noticed that the lens is more flare prone with the A100 than with film camera. Because usually I don't see any flare in the viewfinder, I suspect that flare is caused by the absence of a specific coating for digital cameras.

sharpness: 3,5 

color: 4 

build: 4 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 3 

user: oliphoto   review date: June-08-06  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

positive:

negative:

comment:

[Note: Performance judged on usage with a full frame camera]

I avoid using this lens below f:4, because the vignetting is pretty bad, and the sharpness is not really good (corners/center).

However, I like this lens when used at f:5.6 - f:11. At these apertures, it is perfect for cityscapes, and landscapes. The sharpness is very good. I realize that although this is not the best lens I own, I end up using it a lot for its wide angle (FF) and it's very good performance in good lighting conditions. It's my number one lens for super wide stitched panoramic pictures. It's a fun lens to use for indoors with a tripod.

Now, it definitely looses a bit of its appeal on a 1.5 crop camera.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 3 

flare control: 4 

user: recnahne   review date: April-21-06  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

KoMi 2.8-4/17-35

positive:

Good sharpness wide open, built to resist

negative:

CAs, distortions!

comment:

In the beginning I was rather disappointed: center sharpness is not significantly superior to the 2.8-4/17-35, even wide-open! But then I looked at the corners...
I like the sharpness wide open, the excellent build quality and the compact size. But I really expected less distortions for a fixed focal length. Unfortunately, there are also clearly visible CAs in the corners which can of course be easily corrected.
If you have the 2.8-4/17-35 and you're not into available light wide-angle photography, you probably won't need the 2.8/20. Anyway, it's a good lens.

sharpness: 4 

color: 5 

build: 5 

distortion: 4 

flare control: 4 

user: kleptolux   review date: November-26-05  

    tested on film camera:

    tested on APS-C:6MP; 10MP; 12MP; 14MP:

    tested on full frame:25MP

compared to:

17mm Sigma
18-35 Sigma

positive:

Super colors
Easy manua focus
Low distortions
Easy to remove the cap with hood on

negative:

Internal focus clonks when reaching the limit

comment:

This is the lens I carry when I travel light. It is well suited for bot street photo and landscapes. As compared the the Sigmas it has a very nice color rendition.