Minolta SR 20mm vs AF 20mm w LA EA4

Started 4 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Tim Crammond Senior Member • Posts: 1,011
Re: Minolta SR 20mm vs AF 20mm w LA EA4

Volker G wrote:

Tim Crammond wrote:

That being said, if they're optically identical, I'm certainly not going to pay a premium for an older MF lens when the AF version is still a very solid lens.

The two lenses are definitely not identical, even though both have 10 elements in 9 groups. The older, MD, version has a more compact design with a smaller front lens while the newer, AF, version has a prominent front lens.

Strangely, though that was my first thought at as well, for some reason I thought I'd researched that and found they both had the same diameter filter thread. They don't, of course.

I've got no clue regarding differences in optical performance but I guess that the AF has less vignetting (bigger front lens...) and most likely a generally improved sharpness throughout the frame.

Which brings me back to why are the old SR MF models bringing substantially higher prices?

It wouldn't be the only time this has happened. The old Rokkor 35-70mm seems always to be in demand, whereas you can hardly give away the Minolta AF version. The Rokkor was slightly faster (f3.5 vs f4) but I gather the optics were significantly different, and were reputedly used by Leica.

There doesn't seem to be any particular reason attached to why the 20mm Rokkor is generally so much pricier than the AF version, though. At least that I've found.

(incidentally there's nothing wrong with the f4 Minolta 35-70, other than it being a bit of a meh FL on APS-C)

 Tim Crammond's gear list:Tim Crammond's gear list
Sony SLT-A57 Sony a77 II Sony a7 III Sony a6600 Sigma 10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM +28 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow