Minolta? The 2.0, that's why I sold my 2.8.

Well, I have both.

The 24 is tack sharp, one of the sharpest lenses from the whole Minolta line. It's a design shared with Leica.

The 28 is a tad softer, but sometimes I need the extra stop.

What's wrong with those?

I switched from older Leica (M) lenses to Contax Zeiss and love them, currently I own the 28mm 2.8, the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.4. Wonderful glass! Still trying to chase down a 35mm 1.4, but they are difficult.

I got rid of the Leicas because M (rangefinder) lenses are too small for cine accessories and the widest ones have difficulties with electronic sensors (short flange distance). Leica-R is the cure for this, but I could never afford a similar set of Leica-R instead of the Contax glass. Well, maybe prices are different over here, but the same set of Leica-R would have cost me about twice as much, people started to hunt them down when RED One became popular. C/Y Zeiss lenses are still considerably cheaper.

The Zeiss' offer great micro-contrast (aka 3D pop) and most nevertheless have a pleasing bokeh. Plus, I think they breathe a bit less than their Leica counterparts. Build quality is perfect with both brands, for sure. If there is anything to differentiate them image wise, I'd say Zeiss images are a bit more "into your face" while Leica (and the Minolta counterparts) are a tad creamier. But you'd be hard pressed to see such minor differences in cinematography with 1920 x 1080…

Yes. Contax C/Y version.

Never used that one, why should I run around with such weight? It's so rare you need that length on MFT.

There is an excellent Minolta 200mm 4.0 – much cheaper, lighter and very good. There's a test here, commentary is in German, but you can still see the pics and names: http://artaphot.ch/sony-nex/altglas/328-nex-5n-und-200mm-teleobjektive

Scroll down a lot, the modern version is the only one you'll want. The last prime before the zooms is the one I recommend.

You can find that Rokkor for around 50 U$…