raid
Dad Photographer
I wonder whether there is a huge difference in optical performance between the old Minolta Rokkor 28mm/2.8 and the older Canon 28mm/3.5. I know, I should know, since I own and use both lenses, but I find both to give me beautiful results. The costof the Rokkor is quite high in very clean condition (without white spots) whereas the Canon can be found at 1/3 or 1/4 the cost.
Here are some results for the Minolta Rokkor:
I find the images sharp and pleasant overall. The Rokkor lens is very small and built very well.
Here are some results with the Canon lens:
Again, I find the results excellent overall. Maybe you can see more than I can or you have either lens or both and have your own opinion. I am using photobucket.com to host the images.
Raid
Here are some results for the Minolta Rokkor:
I find the images sharp and pleasant overall. The Rokkor lens is very small and built very well.
Here are some results with the Canon lens:
Again, I find the results excellent overall. Maybe you can see more than I can or you have either lens or both and have your own opinion. I am using photobucket.com to host the images.
Raid
Last edited:
erikhaugsby
killer of threads
Is it just me or is the bench in the last picture slightly red?
Regardless, I love my Rokkor (spots or no spots) but it really seems to me like the Canon is sharper. Maybe shooting both lenses in B&W or Color exclusively would aid in comparison.
Regardless, I love my Rokkor (spots or no spots) but it really seems to me like the Canon is sharper. Maybe shooting both lenses in B&W or Color exclusively would aid in comparison.
raid
Dad Photographer
erik: I used Ilford XP2 Super, so a color shift may be possible. The Canon was used when the sun was shining in the early afternoon, so I may have used f 11 or so. The Rokkor was used in the late afternoon with a larger aperture.
Raid
Raid
