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

This is an update as someone wanted to see some pics with a real model.
Same remarks about bokeh (minolta wins) and sharpness (zeiss wins). Colours are quite the sames.

Thank you wife and son.









A few more natural portrait:

Minolta @ 3.5


Zeiss @ 3.5


Zeiss @ 3.5

MichelvA wrote: 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

Thank you.
I read the first thread you linked on. An old one. What I understand is that the coating seems to be the explanation of flare issues with the minolta.
I had read already the second thread before buying the minolta in order to replace the junk hood as soon as I could get the lens. Not sure but I think I stole the idea to mount the canon hood on the Sony minolta French forum. I remember I also was amazed by all the efforts you deployed to tinker a decent hood.

ifreedman wrote: Nice comparison! Both lenses produce lovely pics, but this makes me admire the Zeiss all the more. FWIW, Kurt Munger looks like he's limiting the lens reviews he does, and lenses like the Zeiss might not be reviewed in the future: From his site: "On another note; it looks like I might be soon finished with Sony full frame Alpha lens reviews. There isn't much interest anymore, most of the pageviews here are split between the DT and NEX stuff. I might be coaxed into reviewing the new Sigma 35/1.4 or another FF lens or two, but since time is precious right now, I'm going to concentrate on the more popular products as I just mentioned, plus the exciting micro 4/3 lenses." Ian

Too bad. The dyxum database and Kurt's reviews have always guided my choice for buying a lens so far.

Blame wrote: Sorry if I sound stupid but how can you print in 3D?

With a 3D printer

It's a bit like a single nozzle inkjet, except that instead of ink it exudes melted plastic. It positions a blob then moves a bit and positions another blob. It carries on until it's laid down a 0.3mm thick layer of plastic onto the 'stage'. It then moves the print head 0.3mm up and repeats the process to lay the next layer of the object being printed.

RepRap

H

niji wrote: ... I toyed with a 3D printer to make a 28-70G hood at one point

Did you succeed to get a useful one ?[/QUOTE]

No, in the end I decided even if I did buy a 3D printer, my skill with the a modelling package would fail me. link

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

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.