{"id":527,"date":"2015-02-27T00:01:11","date_gmt":"2015-02-26T23:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/?p=527"},"modified":"2026-01-14T08:52:14","modified_gmt":"2026-01-14T07:52:14","slug":"minolta-md-20mm-vs-canon-fd-20mm-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/phillipreeve.net\/blog\/minolta-md-20mm-vs-canon-fd-20mm-review\/","title":{"rendered":"Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8 vs Canon FD 20mm 1:2.8 – comparison review"},"content":{"rendered":"

I have owned the Canon FD 2.8\/20<\/strong> for about a year now and I am mostly\u00a0happy with it’s performance. Now I got the chance to test it against the smaller and lighter Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8<\/strong>. So, how do they compare?<\/p>\n


\n\"MinoltaCanon\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Specifications<\/h1>\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t
<\/td>Canon FD 2.8\/20<\/th>Minolta MD 2.8\/20<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Length<\/td>62mm<\/td>44mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Diameter<\/td>78mm <\/td>65mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Weight<\/td>305g<\/td>240g<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Filter Thread<\/td>72mm<\/td>55mm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aperture Blades<\/td>6<\/td>6<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Short focusing distance<\/td>25cm<\/td>25cm<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n\n

<\/p>\n

The Minolta MD 2.8\/20 at\u00a0\u00a0at ebay.de<\/a> | ebay.de<\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links)
\nThe Canon FD 2.8\/20 at ebay.de<\/a> | ebay.com<\/a>\u00a0(affiliate links)<\/p>\n

Size, Weight and Handling\"MinoltaMD20mmf2p8\"<\/strong><\/h1>\n

The Minolta is pretty similar in size and weight to your usual 1.4\/50mm lens. The Canon is noticeable\u00a0bigger and heavier, most notable is the wider diameter.<\/p>\n

Both lenses are well balanced on my Alpha 7, the Minolta lens a little better.\"CanonFD20mmf2p8\"<\/p>\n

The Canon FD 2.8\/20 has a much longer focus throw (about 160\u00b0) than the Minolta MD 2.8\/20 (about 80\u00b0) and I\u00a0the focusing is a bit smoother with it.<\/p>\n

The aperture \u00a0ring\u00a0of the Canon \u00a0is a bit hard to turn and I prefer the Minolta here. Both stop down in half steps to f\/22.<\/p>\n

Both lenses are mostly built from metal and feels solid but there are manual lenses which feel a bit nicer.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00a0Performance<\/h1>\n

Flare Resistance<\/h3>\n

Both lenses flare easily but I find the Minolta’s flares a bit less obnoxious and it has nicer sun stars.
\nI don’t own a lens hood for either lens so I can’t tell you if it would improve the performance.<\/p>\n

\"Minolta<\/a>
bad performance from the Minolta<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"Canon<\/a>
and worse from the Canon<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Distortion<\/h3>\n

haven’t checked yet<\/p>\n

Vignetting<\/h3>\n

At f\/2.8 both vignette a lot and you will notice it in almost any shot. By f\/8.0 the Canon’s vignetting won’t be noticeably. The Minolta<\/strong> though shows noticeable vignetting even at f\/11<\/strong>. This is the first lens were I ever noticed vignetting at f\/8 ot even f\/11 in my actual pictures.<\/p>\n

\u00a0Bokeh<\/h3>\n

I think the Minolta’s bokeh is lousy and the Canons bokeh only bad.<\/p>\n

\"Winter<\/a>
Minolta MD 2.8\/20: very nervous bokeh at f\/2.8<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

\"Untitled\"<\/a><\/p>\n

The Canon is a little better but not by much<\/p>\n

Sharpness<\/h2>\n

Minolta MD 20mm 1:2.8 infinity test series<\/a> (link)
\nCanon FD\u00a020mm 1:2.8 infinity test series<\/a> (link)<\/p>\n

At infinity both lenses are sharp in the center from f\/2.8 with lots of coma and low contrast in the corners. But while the Minolta is really sharp only in the very center\u00a0the sharp area of the Canon is much larger.<\/p>\n

By f\/5.6<\/strong> the Canon<\/strong> shows very good sharpness across 95% of the frame<\/strong> with a very notable drop in the far corners.
\nThe Minolta<\/strong> shows an unusual behavior<\/strong>: While the corners<\/strong> are about as good as those of the Canon<\/strong>\u00a0the midzones are much less sharp<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

At f\/11\u00a0<\/strong>the Canon is sharp across the frame<\/strong>, only the last few pixels are soft. It also shows a bit of field curvature<\/strong> but in my experience that works in my favour more often than not.
\nThe Minolta<\/strong> though has still very weak midzones<\/strong>\u00a0while the corners are possibly even a bit bitter than those of the Canon.<\/p>\n

Lets have a closer look at those midzones<\/strong>. For this image I focused on a tree about 40m away from the camera. The center and corners are pretty much indistinguishable so I don’t show them \u00a0but you can click on the image to see them in full resolution.\"Minolta<\/p>\n

For the Canon image click here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"midzone\"
100% crops, same distance from center<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

 <\/p>\n

The tree in the distance is quite sharp when we look at the Canon but soft when we look at the Minolta. A detail less than 2m away from the camera\u00a0shows only a little advantage for the FD 2.8\/20. So field curvature plays a role in the Minolta’s bad performance.<\/p>\n

Other<\/h2>\n
\"Canon<\/a>
notice the blue blob in the center<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

From time to time I have noticed a hotspot in images with my Canon FD 2.8\/20, it was only in a very few images mostly at sunset but it can be a bit annoying.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Conclusion<\/h1>\n

To be honest:\u00a0I was quite disappointed by the Minolta.<\/strong>\u00a0My first impression was quite positive, it is small and light<\/strong> and even the corners were good.\u00a0But the really bad performance in the midzones<\/strong> makes it hard to recommend.<\/p>\n

The Canon isn’t perfect <\/strong>either and it is one of the bigger 20mm lenses <\/strong>of it’s era but all in all it is a very solid performer <\/strong>and I can recommend it<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The Minolta MD 2.8\/20 <\/strong>at \u00a0ebay.de<\/a> | ebay.de<\/a><\/strong>\u00a0(affiliate links)
\n<\/strong>The Canon FD 2.8\/20 <\/strong>at ebay.de<\/a> | ebay.com<\/a>\u00a0<\/strong>(affiliate links)<\/p>\n

Alternatives<\/h1>\n

I have no personal experience with other 20mm lenses but from what I have read online these lenses have a good reputation:<\/p>\n