Timmy Mac

I've owned both systems, so feel I can make a fair comparison...which is stay with Minolta - you won't notice a difference..

The only way you would notice any difference is if you bought a 24/1.4L - this is an impressive lens wide open, and fantastic stopped down. But it is a large lens..and still an expensive lens..

I would generally agree with hpulley's appraisal of Canon's lenses - most of the f2 lenses were sharper than the f2.8's, although I found the 24/2.8 was every bit as sharp as the f2 version. I wasn't that impressed with any of the versions of the 28mm (f2,2.8 and 3.5) that I owned. And yes - the 35/2 is an outstanding lens - it was probably my standard lens for most applications..

The Canon Ultrawides were all had their problems...

The 20-35L was a fascinating design - you either got one that was sharp across the entire field of view, but vignetted terribly, or you got one that didin't vignette, but was very soft at the edges...

I never really saw a sharp 17mm either - although the Old FD ones seemed sharper than the NFD ones..

NFD 20mm? Again I never found them to be that sharp...

If you want a really sharp Canon wide angle you can look at the 14mm/3.5L. Amazing lens - sharp, but so wide you can do a full length portrait of someone from 3ft away...

Have fun with whatever lens you decide on

Andrew

PS - these opinions were formed based on lenses I owned, and/or got to test while I worked as a camera technician for Canon Australia in the 90's...I was lucky enough to use almost every FD lens Canon made :-)