![]() ![]() The Zeiss has 7 elements in 5 groups with 3 aspherical elements to reduce aberrations and imperfections in the image, while the Minolta uses a rather barebones 5 elements in 5 groups structure. When used with an adapter, the Minolta is quite a bit less compact than the Zeiss, as you would expect. The Zeiss is super easy to slip into a bag as an extra lens, and I have taken it to many places even though I didn’t use it all the time, it is nice to have as a “backup” lens and is the smallest lens you can buy for the Sony -E-Mount system. However, the Zeiss also has an autofocus motor and does not extend when zoomed, where the Minolta does extend slightly as you zoom in and out. The Zeiss and Minolta are about the same size, with the Minolta only being a couple mm taller and thicker. The filter thread on the lens hood is 40.5mm, an unusual size which is why I rarely used it. The Zeiss also has a weird lens hood that is extremely compact. The one complaint I have about the Zeiss metal used on these lenses is it is SUPER easy to scratch and nick, where the Minolta metal is honestly pretty solid and doesn’t show wear very easily. The lens appears, at first glance, to be all metal, however as is common with most modern lenses, it is really just a sleek metal shell with all plastic internals, which helps keep it light. It has no aperture ring or anything on the barrel except that signature blue Zeiss badge. It basically feels like you are just holding the camera with no lens attached at all and feels very well balanced. It weighs only about 120g in total, making it almost half the weight of the Minolta. The E-Mount system was actually based off of Minolta’s Alpha line of cameras that Sony acquired in 2006, so it is possible this lens could have incorporated some of the design from its ancient predecessor. The Zeiss 35mm was one of the first lenses released for Sony’s new E-Mount system. It balances very well on a Minolta camera, but is slightly front-heavy on a Sony with the adapter. I also very much like the orange “Rokkor-X” lettering engraved on the front. This particular copy is in great condition, with hardly any scratches or dust, and seems minimally used. Nonetheless, the aperture ring clicks nicely in place and feels fairly solid. ![]() The earlier “MC” version of these lenses had all-metal construction, this is the later “MD” version which was the beginning of more plastic being used in these lenses. The only plastic part is the aperture ring, which is unfortunate. There is often an association between weight and quality, and this lens is made entirely of metal. The Minolta 35mm has a very solid heft to it, weighing in at about 208g, it feels quite sturdy. How far has lens technology come in the past few decades? Build Quality The 35mm & 50mm lens are probably the two most common focal lengths, as both offer a normal perspective without the complications involved with making super wide-angle or telephoto lenses. the $800 Zeiss 35mm f2.8, released 38 years later in 2015. In this comparison, we will be comparing the Minolta 35mm f2.8 lens, now sold for only about $50 on ebay, vs. I often hear people talk about how sharp modern lenses are, but I question if lenses of the past were really that bad. 38 years is a long time, particularly in the world of cameras where every year the sensor resolution seems to double and the technology gets exponentially better. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |