All ratings are based on my experience with these lenses on my fullframe Sony Alpha 7.
Minolta MD FISH-EYE Rokkor 16mm 1:2.8 (3-3.5/5)
f/2.8: The center is excellent, and most of the image sharp enough, midframe sharpness is actually lower than near corner sharpness wile the far corners are unsharp. Vignetting is surprisingly low.
f/5.6: noticeably better than f/4, most of the image is very sharp, only the far corners are unsharp
f/11: very good sharpness across the frame. Flare resistance is average and CA pronounced.
A rather heavy lens with integrated filters and lens hood. Built quality is excellent
Fisheye lenses are very hard to master, I wasn’t really succesfull at it. But this is a good lens, so good in fact that it also came in Leica R-mount and the same optical design is still used by the current Sony 2.8/16 Fisheye.
There is a younger MD version which is supposedly not as good.
I have owned the Canon FD 2.8/20 for about a year now and I am mostly happy with it’s performance. Now I got the chance to test it against the smaller and lighter Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8. So, how do they compare?
After I published the Minolta List several kind people offered to lent me Minolta lenses so I had a MD 2/85 and MC 1.7/85 plus several of my own lenses and made this test to see where the strengths and weaknesses of each lens are.
All ebay links are affiliate links and it is appreciated if you use them, it helps me to keep this site running.
I also tested foreground bokeh but the differences here were less noticeable The reason might be that my test setup wasn#t very good. You can find it here.