Here’s a brief look at the Sony 20mm F/2.8 lens. Scroll down for the review.
Lens
|
|
Box contents
|
Front and rear caps, carrying pouch, hood and a users manual.
|
Cost
|
$748 brand new
|
Build quality
|
Good
|
Additional information
|
Re-badged Minolta lens from the 1990s, which dates back to the mid 1980s. No distance encoding.
|
Specifications below |
|
Optical configuration
|
10 elements in 9 groups
|
Angle of view
|
94° full frame, 70° APS-C.
|
Aperture
|
7 blades, circular
|
Full frame and APS-C
|
Yes, made for full frame. APS-C equivalent, 30mm
|
Depth of field and focus scales?
|
Yes and yes
|
Minimum focus, image plane to subject
|
9.6″ (244mm)
|
Minimum focus, end of lens barrel to subject
|
5.6″ (142mm)
|
Hard stop at infinity focus?
|
Yes
|
Length changes when focusing?
|
No
|
Focus ring turns in AF?
|
Yes
|
Filter size
|
72mm
|
Filter ring rotates?
|
No
|
Distance encoder?
|
No
|
Max magnification
|
0.13x
|
Min. F/stop
|
F/22
|
Sony teleconverter compatible?
|
No
|
Dimensions W x L (my measurements)
|
3.1″ x 2.1″ 78mm x 54mm
|
Maximum extended length (my measurements)
|
3.1″ (78mm)
|
Weight bare (my scale)
|
9.9oz (280g) 11oz (312g) with caps
|
Bulging front element |
Box contents with no box |
Front again |
Backside |
Mounted on Sony A700. |
X-ray view, Sony MTF chart |
All testing done with the Sony A700, and Sony A900. For full frame results, go to the bottom of the page. For a better understanding of my review methods and terminology, go here.The Sony 20mm F/2.8 (made in Japan) is overall, a compact lens, with the body about as small as the Minolta 28mm F/2.8, and a front element the size of the Minolta 28-70mm F/2.8 G. It looks cartoonish, that’s why I put the side view mounted on the A700 in the last product shot above. This lens was designed back in the mid 1980s by Minolta, and was re-styled in the early 1990s, adding a better manual focusing ring and a circular aperture. Sony stamped their name on it in 2006, but it looks identical to the Minolta re-styled version, and probably performs the same, though I haven’t had the chance to review that lens. Also, this is one of very few lenses from Sony’s current lineup where distance encoding is not used, typical of a carry-over from the 1980s. Sony claims no aspheric elements are used in the construction of the lens. Box contents include a hood, and a cloth type carrying pouch, which is the only one I’ve seen that isn’t made of black vinyl.
Sun centered, F/5.6
|
Sun in shot, F/5.6
|
Bokeh, F/2.8
|
Bokeh, F/4
|
Coma, F/2.8
|
Coma, F/4
|
The top left shot shows how the lens handles the sun when it’s smack dab in the middle of the image, and it does a good job, no rings or color blobs. The right shot shows the sun at an angle, with an orange ghost below, which shows up in most shots, regardless of angle. The upper blue ghost is very dependant on angle, and mostly shows up using a full frame camera.
The middle crops are bokeh at F/2.8, and F/4. Busy and harsh at F/2.8. I like the look of F/4 better, which is slightly smoother in my opinion.
The last row are the results of coma, which looks rough in this extreme corner sample at F/2.8. One stop down at F/4 and things look good. The points of light are supposed to be round and very small. This wouldn’t really show up in a normal picture, so don’t worry about it if you’re a fair weather photographer.
Distortion below.
Barrel distortion. |
Distortion is moderate to light, and corrects easily with standard lens correction tools in your photo imaging software.
Light fall-off.
F/2.8
|
F/4
|
Shot at F/2.8, no adjustments. Light fall-off in real images is not noticeable on a cropped sensor camera.
How sharp the corners are?
F/2.8
|
F/4.0
|
F/5.6
|
F/8
|
These crops are from the extreme bottom left corner. Things look rough here at F/2.8, and the corners definitely respond to stopping down. F/5.6 is a little better, and I think the sharpest comes at F/8 or possibly F/11. Exposure differences are from light fall-off at F/2.8
How sharp are the centers if the image is enlarged to a staggering size?
F/2.8
|
F/4.0
|
The center sample crops above show F/2.8 and F/4 to be very similar is sharpness, though it appears the lens is at its sharpest at F/4.0, (due to contrast loss or spherical aberration) but not by much. Look along the wall on the extreme bottom of the image. There isn’t a whole lot of change as you can ascertain, and it’s hardly noticeable cropped and displayed side-by-side. This lens shows center sharpness improvements by short focusing. If you want to “short focus” for sharper shots with this lens, check out my article which explains this focusing method.
Sony 20mm, @ F/2.8
|
Sony 18-70mm, 20mm @ F/4.0
|
Full frame results using the Sony A900 below. Check out the differences when using a film or full frame camera below. I’m only pointing out the noticeable issues as compared to the APS-C bodies, so if I don’t show it here, the results are not significantly different enough to warrant posting an additional set of images in this section. Light fall-off
Light fall-off is worse than the APS-C crops shown earlier. At F/2.8 it’s heavy, and noticeable in real shots, but one stop down and things change dramatically for the better. It doesn’t get much better by stopping down past F/5.6. Full image from A900 below. The dark corners are not very noticeable here, it all depends on subject placement and background. This shot was F2.8, ISO 200, 1/2500sec. As always, try and avoid shooting normal daylight scenes at F/2.8. Corner samples next.
The corners are softer than the APS-C crops show, by about one stop. Don’t concern yourself with this as normal daylight shots would be F/5.6 or smaller, and low light shots would probably hide soft corners depending on subject matter. The corners are their absolute best around F/11, but not that much better than the F/8 crops. The exposure differences are from light fall-off. Distortion.
The distortion amount is about the same as the APS-C crops, but full frame coverage results in a complex signature. There’s a gentle rise in the middle, then it drops and flattens out towards the outer central area, and finally points up at the edges of the frame. This is tough to correct in post processing, but isn’t noticeable unless straight lines are near the frame edges. Coma results with full frame.
This is coma on the A900. It’s very heavy at F/2.8, and creeps well into the sides and middle regions of the image, even on a small photo. It lightens up at F/4, and stopping down to F/5.6, coma is barely noticeable. This lens handles coma about the same as the Minolta AF 28mm F/2. Keep in mind the samples above are 100% cropped portions of the original image, if you printed the whole image out as you might see it on your computer screen, it would measure 65″ (1.9m) wide using the A900. |
Check out the full size samples below. Note: these images were not intended to be viewed in their entirety, I was showing crops at the time, and this set was for the ‘center’ crops in a comparison review.
Click the yellow buttons for full size versions from the full frame Sony A900.
There are currently no auto focusing equivalent lenses in the Sony ‘E’ mount line-up; however, if you prefer a manual focusing modern equivalent, be prepared to pay $1500 for the Zeiss 21mm F/2.8 (B&H Photo, Amazon, eBay), $800 for a Tokina Furin 20/2 (B&H Photo, Amazon, eBay), or $600 for a Rokinon 20mm F/1.8 (B&H Photo, Amazon). If you have the Sony 28/2, you can get the converter for an ultra wide angle 21mm.
The Minolta/Sony versions of this lens would be an affordable way to get an ultra wide angle lens for your Sony ‘FE’ camera using an adapter. For the smaller Sony ‘E’ mount APS-C camera bodies, Sony makes a pretty good 20mm F/2.8 pancake type lens that I would recommend.