Is the 24mm f/2.8 sigma lens really better than the Minolta version?

I had written earlier that Sigma's 24mm f/2.8 autofocus lens was sharper than Minolta's, relying on, among others, photodo.com's tests. Someone (I forget who) corrected me, saying that while Sigma was sharper at the center, Minolta was sharper at the edges. I went back to photodo.com and checked the two. Looking carefully at every single measurement for both lenses, I must report that the graphs show the Sigma lens to be sharper than the Minolta at ALL areas of the lens at f/8. At f/2.8 the lenses are closer, but Sigma's is still sharper at every point on the negative. Remember, this test is of resolution only, and says nothing about color, contrast or bokeh. Still, I would like to give credit where credit is due. Photozone.de 's lens survey (not the reader survey, but the average of the magazine reviews) also rates the Sigma ahead of the Minolta version. Lens tests abound, especially on the internet. They can be subjective, a sort of write up/near advertisement, or objective, such as sharpness, and distortion (a la photodo.com).

I should note that samples vary considerably among Sigmas. The good ones are very good, but there are quite a few lesser examples floating around as well. Test any lens you are considering before purchase (or after purchase, and then sell it quick on eBay if it doesn't measure up).