minolta 28-70G vs zeiss 24-70 test shots

As some people ask about the pros and cons of the minolta 28-70G and the zeiss 24-70 and which one to buy, I did some test shots with Desmond, my favorite model (she doesn't talk). Hope it helps in making your choice.

This is a side by side comparison between both lenses.
It is nor a scientific test neither a high level a la Kurt Munger test (this guy does a great job btw and deserves our respect).
It's just a representation of how each lens capture a portrait scene in the same conditions of exposure.
All images are rendered raw from lightroom without any adjustment.
The camera is a sony A77 set with aperture priority, spot metering, face detection auto focus, shade WB and ISO 100.
Both lenses were set at 50mm.
The camera was standing on a tripod with steady shot off.

Important: I didn't attach the original hood to the minolta because it's useless. As a matter of fact, it's a shame providing such a bad hood with such a nice and expensive lens.
Instead I mounted a Visionaer EW-78D for canon lens which fits well albeit wobbly when mounting reversed for storage.

Pictures were shot during a sunny caribbean afternoon with some clouds at around 3:20 pm. Desmond stands in the shade of the house.

No animals were harmed during this session.
Thanks again Desmond for your patience.

As english is not my native language, me being short of vocabulary for making nice description so you adding comments please.


The first set is Desmond standing in front of a mid tone background. The sun light comes from the right side.

At f2.8 the zeiss is sharp with a pleasant bokeh. The minolta produces a softer image with a creamy bokeh.




At f4 both lenses render the scene almost the same way though the zeiss is of course a bit sharper.




At f8 the bokeh is more pleasant with the minolta.




You may notice that global contrasts and micro contrast are better rendered by the zeiss.



The second set presents a back lit Desmond.





At all the apertures tested on this set, the minolta fails unless you like this hazy style. The zeiss does well on this difficult lighting.


The third set shows our model with a contrasted background. Sharpness and bokeh behaviors are quite the same as for the first set.






The last comparison is for showing the width you may gain at 24 mm over 28 mm.



Both lenses have quite the same great color rendition (a bit warmer for the minolta). Both have a high quality build.
Both produce pictures of great IQ. It has to be pointed out that Zeiss's barrel extends while zooming.
The autofocus is often hunting with the minolta where the zeiss seldom miss the shot, is waaaaaaaay faster and super silent (a great advantage when shooting video).

So, how to make up your mind ?

If you're not obsessed by sharpness at wide aperture and are not afraid to struggle with focus inaccuracy and lack of fastness, you may get the minolta particularly if you are on a budget. Using focus peaking may help you shooting great portraits.

On assignment like shooting wedding or birthday party with kids running everywhere, the zeiss will live up to your expectations but you'll have to put more money out of your wallet even to buy a used one.

Please feel free to add your comment especially if you own or have owned both lenses.

Edited by Lesuave - 24 January 2013 at 12:48

Zeiss is sharper and more contrasty right from 2.8. I rented this lens and at f5.6 it is prime like sharp, easily out resolving A900. Another dark horse is Tamron 28-75, it is sharp but not like zeiss and also lacks the micro contrast of Zeiss.

Thanks for the comparison.

There are an awful lot of photo opertunities that are backlit. Especialy birds and trees. Glad to see you test for it.

addy landzaat wrote: Well, some remarks. The model isn't the best. The unatural color doesn't do the Minolta justice imho.

Yes you're definitely right. Meanwhile, as I wanted the pictures to have the same appearance for both lenses at all aperture I chose this model. But for sure, its skin has a slightly olive tone.   

addy landzaat wrote: The Minolta bokeh is clearly better, or, more accurate, more to my liking.

Yes but the zeiss bokeh is also good with the lens wide open. Not as excellent as the minolta but quite good.

addy landzaat wrote: Why did you do this at 50mm? Also, these 50mm are not equal.

I didn't want to spend so much time doing that test at several focal length. So I picked up an arbitrary, intermediate length.
May be I set the zeiss at a bit less than 50mm or the minolta a bit more or both.

addy landzaat wrote: The color of the Minolta at the contrasted background set is much better - it doesn't show in the other sets as much, so there probably was something wrong with the settings with the Zeiss.

Now as you mention it, I think the zeiss was under exposed but I don't know why. May be there was a cloud shading the sun at this moment and the metering screwed up.

addy landzaat wrote: So, the results are as I always knew: The Zeiss is the better lens overall, sharper and better handles flare. The Minolta has lovely OOF to me. And what you can't see from these pictures: I like the Minolta colors better (but the Zeiss colors are still very good) The total rendering of the Minolta is nicer to me. So, I don't feel I need to upgrade, the Minolta still is a great lens!

I agree with your conclusion. If you're fine with your minolta, just keep going with it. I chose to upgrade because I was fed up dealing with the messy auto focus.

May be at the end of this week, I'll make some shots with a living model. Just tell me what focal length would be more accurate than 50mm.

To all: thanks for your comments and to addy landzaat thanks for your analyze.

Other than the colour tone and internal zooming mechanism. The Zeiss wins all the way. I got 3 Zeisslenses, but all of them stays in the dry cabinet. Prefer my sigma 50, tamron 28-105 f2.8 and 80-200 G's colour tone right now.

I do think that minolta is showing its age here and I am not convinced the problem is soluble with a better black coating to the internal sides. I think modern lens coatings are the explanation. The old coatings alter the color tone at the expense of contrast.

Is it really not possible to get the color tone you like with filters, camera customized colors or PP?

The Zeiss clearly has inferior bokeh but that is the price always paid for wide open sharpness.

All told I think the Zeiss a more usable lens. It justifies its price tag as a professional fast lens for indoor functions. Stoped down there are more economical options.

Very good comparison, actually the best i've seen so far. Agree with Addy for the colors. For me/my 28-70G the differences at f/2.8 seem less, but still there. The contrast in back lit situations has been touched by me a long time ago. This is where the Minolta goes down. Unless - as you rightfully mention - if one like the hazy look.
Relevant link
Relevant link 2