sammm Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 The 28mm seems to have three variations: the current restyled lens, and earlier version, and the "XX" version. I've read the differences between the restyled and earlier version, but haven't found anything useful on the different features of the XX version. Also, does anyone have experience with more than one of these lenses, and any recommendations or thoughts based on your own experiences? Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael_hohner Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 First, there are two different 28mm, the 28/2.0 and the 28/2.8. Of the former one, there are two versions. The "XX" version just has a different logo and was only made until Exxon cried "trademark infringement". The newer version has a circular aperture, otherwise the optics of both versions are identical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_bolden Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 Th XX lenses are lenses that Minolta produced with with the XX's in Maxxum crossed. Some camera's also had this logo. However Exxon sued them because Exxon uses the crossed XX's in their logo. Minolta had to change the logo to have Maxxum printed on current lenses. So the lenses are comparable to the ealier version lenses, but have the collectiblilty of the crossed XX logo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seth_hosler Posted February 18, 2004 Share Posted February 18, 2004 I have the newest incarnation (with circular aperture) of the 28mm f/2.0. It is, in a word, GREAT. Very sharp, distortion virtually nil, small and light. Works great in available light with high speed film--due to the wide angle and wide aperture, I've done hand-held shots in dimly-lit bars at 1/30 second with ISO 1600 B&W that look GREAT. 28 is also a very useful angle--less "vanilla" than a 35, but doesn't give you that "wide" feeling you start to get around 24. (as an aside, for that very reason I don't usually use 24 or 35--I just go for 20 when I want wide, 50 when I want normal, and 28 when I want "wide-normal".) The most remarkable thing about this lens is the lack of vignetting. Whereas the 28-70 f/2.8 seems to have vignetting built-in at 28mm, making the use of filters practically impossible, despite the 72mm diameter--the 28mm f/2.0 has no vignetting even when stacking filters, despite the small 55mm diameter. Physically remarkable. I say go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now