Sony 28mm F2.0

Marc Heijligers, 06-02-2016
The 28mm F2.0 is known for good centre sharpness, and also reasonable corner sharpness when stopped down. The first version I did have of this lens however did have terrible blurring on the corners, not in line with the reports I did see about this lens. I therefore asked another copy, which indeed showed that the first lens was flawed. The new lens has a decent performance, which fully matches its price of €449
For the bookshelf, I forgot to put the ISO fixed on ISO100, so the photos for the second sample are more grainy for f5.6, but the difference in sharpness is still obvious. For the bookshelf, in the centre both lens samples are sharp (the second sample is a bit sharper than the first sample, where the first one also shows some hazy color fringing). The difference between the corners is huge, showing a huge problem with the first sample.

For the cityscape, in the centre both lenses are similar sharp (there were some variations due to different weather conditions, so the samples have some different contrast and color temperature). It is obvious that especially on the corners, the first sample is bad, and stays blurred at an aperture of 5.6 (and higher). There is obviously a structural problem with this sample. I brought it back a kept the second sample.


The two samples do differ a lot, with the first sample being inferior to the second sample. As one can see is that the borders of this lens at open apertures are in general somewhat weaker (especially on the right side), but when stopped down the second sample shows good performance. The results are summarizes in the tables below.
Stacks Image 902
Stacks Image 904

Detailed examples

Use the filter button below to select which cases you want to see and compare in detail (the buttons will limit the selection), and use the slider to compare the 2 lens samples.
  • Centre @ f2.0 - sample 2 is sharper overall, and the purple fringing reveals itself as a haze on sample 1:
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Centre,f2.0
  • Centre @ f5.6 - no difference (besides additional noise due to different camera settings):
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Centre,f5.6
  • Left-Bottom @ f2.0 - sample 2 is much sharper, sample 1 shows a blurring haze:
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Left,f2.0
  • Left-Bottom @ f5.6 - sample 1 still shows blurring (see the “National Geographic text”)
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Left,f5.6
  • Right-Top @ f2.0 - an unacceptable amount of haze and blurring in sample 1
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Right,f2.0
  • Right-Top @ f5.6 - sample 1 is still a bit blurred compared to sample 2
    Scene Bookshelf,Position Right,f5.6
  • Centre @ f2.0 - not so much difference in sharpness, the brown wall is darker in sample 1 (weather conditions), where one could confuse it with lack of details:
    Scene City,Position Centre,f2.0
  • Centre @ f5.6 - Similar to f2.8, equally sharp, and most differences are due to the varying weather conditions.
    Scene City,Position Centre,f5.6
  • Left @ f2.0 - The first sample shows unacceptable blurring on the left side. This specific crop triggered me to do further investigation on all my lenses:
    Scene City,Position Left,f2.0
  • Left @ f5.6 - The first sample is still a bit blurred compared to the second one (look at the balcony of the brown building, or to the street lights):
    Scene City,Position Left,f5.6
  • Right @ f2.0 - The first sample shows unacceptable blurring on e.g. the window shades. The solar cell on the right side is surrounded by halos.
    Scene City,Position Right,f2.0
  • Right @ f5.6 - Better, but the first sample still a bit blurred compared to the second sample.
    Scene City,Position Right,f5.6