In my experience with several copies of both, the AF 28/2.8 is a bit better optically than the AF 24/2.8 at least on Sony sensors. One advantage of the 24mm is that it is a rear focus lens, while the 28mm is a unit focus design. The 24mm has a little removable petal hood, while the 28/2.8 just got a tiny built-in circular one. The 20/2.8 is better than either of those--perhaps why Sony is still selling it new. Sony didn't take on the Minolta 24mm design. They did rebadge the 28mm and even gave it Lens Compensation, but they dropped it fairly soon.
(The manual focus Minolta 24mm primes are unit focus designs and sell for more money. I kinda wish I had bought the VFC version that I tried.)
The AF 28/2 is worse than the FE 2/28 that everyone pooh poohs. The AF 35/2 is not very good either, maybe better than the MF 35/1.8.
Even the 2/24 ZA SSM is pretty mediocre. It's weird focal plane curvature might be worse on film.
I don't recommend the rebadged Tamron zooms like the 17-35D and 28-75D.
Tamron has a 15-30mm F2.8 USD that will AF on the LA-EA3 and Sigma has three HSM zooms wider than that.
Oct 13, 2021 at 09:24 PM
Previous versions of QuietOC's message #15734748 « Best of the Minolta wide angles? »
