Minolta 24mm vs 28mm 2.8 vs 2.8mm 2.0. Advice?

So I want a wide prime to supplement my 18-70 kit lens and 28-85 zoom.

The 24mm 2.8 is the widest, has good reviews, and is sorta pricey used.

The 28mm 2.8 is not as wide, but has the same reviews and is CHEAP.

The 28mm 2.0 has the BEST reviews, is no more pricey than the 24 (and even well priced when new), but loses the 4mm.

Advice? I'm thinking I could get the cheap lens and see if I like it and THEN decide if i need more wide (24) or more clarity (28 2.0). But then...I'll have ONE MORE too many lenses. ;-)

Thanks,
Greg

Damn, what about the 20mm? ;-)

I would decide purely based on focal length that you like (or use most frequently). IMO the 28/2 is a super-gem but having a super sharp lens that is of the wrong focal length (for yourself) will not be very useful~

--
Bernard

AS rocks!
lens reviews and more on dyxum.com!

Bernie,

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, I actually have dual needs. I was trying to use my wife's interior design work as justification, but in that case, I think the 20mm is MUCH more suitable. The 28mm would be more as a replacement for my 50mm 1.4 for groups and candids outside this summer.

So if I get a 20mm, then maybe I can justify a 28mm 2.8 as WELL, but I doubt a 2.0. Not that rich yet.

Greg

I'm not sure if even the 20mm would be wide enough for interior shots but if it is, another lens to consider would be the Sigma 20/1.8. I have the lens and while soft at 1.8, it sharpens up quickly when stopped down and is KM D compatible. I also have the Minolta 28/2RS and it is excellent as others have said.

Thomas

I have the 24mm 2.8 and it is a very nice lens, internal focussing, sharp across the frame at f3.6, quite sharp in the middle wide open, but falling off a little in the corners... I think the thing to think of here is a comparison of a 36mm and 42mm (equiv) lens - not a lot of difference - niether is properly 'wide'. The f2.0 gains you a stop, but that is not a vast difference either... if you do not need the extra width that the 24/36 would give you, and can ramp up the ISO rating/take multiple shots to guard against shake/use a tripod, the 28mm 2.8 could be fine.

Bob

do you think it is worth to get 28/2.8, if someone already has 17-35/2.8-4?

It is redundant.

If you want a NICE, SHARP 35MM equivalent, the old sigma 24mm f2.8 macro super wide 11, is a nice sharp lens- much sharper than the minolta 24mm 2.8. It can focus as close as 18mm. It makes a bit of noise focusing and flares a lot into the sun, otherwise it's a great little lens. I loved the wide 24mm view but if you want the 35mm, this is a good lens.

HotDuck said:

I'm not sure if even the 20mm would be wide enough for interior
shots but if it is, another lens to consider would be the Sigma
20/1.8. I have the lens and while soft at 1.8, it sharpens up
quickly when stopped down and is KM D compatible. I also have the
Minolta 28/2RS and it is excellent as others have said.

Thomas

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. Yeah, 20mm on a APS sensor will give us 30mm, which is not superior, but it seems about the limit for lenses that don't go fisheye or get super expensive. A cheaper solution would be to buy a cheap film camera to get all the use of the lens when necessary.

D compatible...hmm, interesting. I try to avoid flash whenever possible, but have noticed that D helps with people. With room pics, I'll probably never use the flash, or TTL will be fine.

Prices seem similar on the Minolta vs. Sigma. After having Sigma be a bit lacking on shipping me the right parts for my 70-300, I'm thinking I'll avoid Sigma. (Ha, like it'll be any BETTER with a nonexistent KM, but it's the POINT of the matter.) ;-)

Greg

I have the 24/2.8, it's a great little lens, I much prefer 24mm to 28 but on digital I have no idea what the difference would be like.

I have the 28mm F2.8 in the older cross xx version. I find it to be tack sharp smooth focus witout hunting in low light. I have not used the other lenses your thinking about but this one works well for me. I think of it as my normal lens when I want to go with a fixed focal length lens that's sharp enough for me to count on. I would like to try out the 24mm F2.0. I think this is the lens that I may like even better then my 28 do to focal length and speed it has ove my 28 2.8.. as long as it was just as sharp. I would bet it is!
--
George
5D
Gear is listed under my Profile.

Takes A series cokin filters or very cheap 49mm filters. A set of ND / polarizer / grads for the larger filter size would cost more than the 28/2.8.
Its also very pocketable with a built in hood (even if its not a great hood).
Same filters will fit the 50/1.7 also.

Andrew

Wow, yes it is very sharp. Its suprisingly bad right in the corners on a 1.3x crop camera but really good in the center.
A 7D would use the best part of this lens and look super sharp.
I have it on the 1D and will look out for one for the 7D.

A couple from the 1D:







Andrew

I have the Minolta 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8 and 28mm f2.0. I recently bought a second hand 24mm cheap for use as a standard lens on my 5D as I found 28mm too close and 20mm always too wide. Just my preference here and I always favoured a 35mm standard lens on film. For a 5D or 7D therefore, my first choice would be the 24mm.

Now, regarding the question is it worth getting if you already have a zoom in the same range - answer, unequivocably, Yes.

I did a shoot recently with the 17-35G before I had the 24mm. A while later, I did the same material again in near identical conditions with the 24mm, using the lens mainly to test it out as I had just got it. When reviewing the shots later as a mixture rather than in sequence, I kept noticing how one set was clearly sharper and more detailed than the other. I checked the data and it was the 24mm out-performing the G zoom. As I said, conditions for both shoots were almost identical, lighting, subject, ISO, tripod and post-pro.

I have also done some rudimentary lens testing with my models of the 20mm f2.8, 28mm f2.0 against the 17-35G and 28-70G lenses. Again, the pattern was the same with the fixed focals out performing the zooms on resolution and contrast.

To my logic, this shouldn't be a surprise given all the inherent benefits of a single focal length design against a zoom, even "best of breed" zooms like the G versions.

Make the most of your 6MP, get one of the fixed focals.

Ed

Ed,

Thanks for the input. Yeah, just saw some photo tests that agreed with yours: the 24mm was more precise than either the zoom or the 20mm. Of course, it's subjective and/or variable, because some reviews say both the 20mm and 24mm have some distortion. One man's distortion may be another's artistic wide angle POV, or maybe just reality.

I decided to go with a 20mm...for $250 with filters. This is more than I'd have paid for either a 24mm or 28mm 2.0, so I just blew my own budget. But...I convinced myself I'd be frustrated without the wide angle.

When I recover from sticker shock, I'll try to pick up a 28mm 2.8 for $70 for "normal" shooting. That'll be three primes including my 50mm 1.4. Zooms will be 18-70mm kit lens (as a backup to the 20mm), 28-85mm 3.5-4.5 for normal outdoor walkaround, and either a 75-300 or 70-210 f4 as my head-cracking beercan telezoom.

When the f4 arrives, I'll put them to a head-to-head test and sell the loser. The 75-300 seemed pretty damn clear in preliminary testing, and didn't seem to show any CA. I'll have to do the tree test. If the f4 isn't any better, I'll ditch it and keep the extra reach.

Oh, and I have a 100-200 to sell. No use for a 2x zoom, even one that light. I don't hike that much, and I figure I'll be forever wishing I had the extra zoom and clarity from the heavy lens I left at home.

Whew, too many lenses for a one month user, eh? ;-)

Greg

The super wide II was also rebadged and sold as the Quantaray Tech-10 this was Ritz camera's house brand but it's the same lens as the Sigma. It is a sharp lens and very nearly as sharp as my Minolta 50mm 1.4, works great on my 7D. even wide open.

Tim

andrewD2 said:

Wow, yes it is very sharp. Its suprisingly bad right in the corners
on a 1.3x crop camera but really good in the center.
A 7D would use the best part of this lens and look super sharp.
I have it on the 1D and will look out for one for the 7D.

Click to expand...

If you can find one, these go for cheap and are much sharper than the comparable Minolta version.

See http://www.photodo.com

I have one and it really is a stellar performer.

jt

Greg,

Where did you get your 20mm from? I may not have read the posts correctly, but it seems like you got the Sigma; the cheapest I can find the 20mm 1.8 is in the $350 range. (I'm assuming you didn't get the Minolta 20mm since that retails for over $550)

I laughed when I read your original post because I'm going through the exact same issue in deciding between these three focal lengths. I decided on the 20mm because of the crop factor--28mm is my photographic sweet spot, and I can't seem to find a lens with a focal length of 18.66666667mm for my 5D. So an equivalent 30mm will have to suffice.

jon