Reading mode: Light Dark

DOF - Minolta 24mm f2.8 vs Sony 24mm f2 SSM CZ

Go to last post
D

domk81

Member
Messages
37
Reaction score
1
Location
Singapore, SG
I love to take shots with shallow depth of field.

I currently own a minolta 24mm f2.8 on a A850, which I used often for close up wide shots portrait of my kid.

How shallow depth can the Sony 24mm f2 produce compared to the minolta f2.8?
Its only one stop difference, is it a lot?

I'm also hesitating between 35mm f1.4 G and 24mm f2 SSM CZ.

Since I have a 24 f2.8 already, would it be better off to invest in a 35mm f1.4 G.
 
domk81 said:
I love to take shots with shallow depth of field.

I currently own a minolta 24mm f2.8 on a A850, which I used often for close up wide shots portrait of my kid.

How shallow depth can the Sony 24mm f2 produce compared to the minolta f2.8?
Its only one stop difference, is it a lot?
Click to expand...
Try a DOF calculator to get the difference in spatial dimensions, do not forget to enter the crop factor (do you shoot APS-C or FF)?
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html
domk81 said:
I'm also hesitating between 35mm f1.4 G and 24mm f2 SSM CZ.

Since I have a 24 f2.8 already, would it be better off to invest in a 35mm f1.4 G.
Click to expand...
The answer is not only shallow DOF IMHO, it is the combination of shallow DOF and good 'bokeh'. The optical impression of shalow DOF can be quite significantly spoiled if the 'bokeh' is harsh, busy, unpleasant to look at.
Kurt Munger discusses bokeh basics here:
http://kurtmunger.com/bokeh_samplerid22.html
He also discusses the bokeh quality of all three lenses in his reviews:
http://kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_24mm_f_2_8_reviewid218.html
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_24mm_f_2_ssm_carl_zeissid125.html
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_35mm_f_1_4_gid271.html

.. and check out the 35/1.8SAM....
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_dt_35mm_f_1_8_reviewid235.html

Assuming you shoot APS-C, I would take a really good look at the SAM lens, it can't be beat for price vs. value.
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/
 
domk81 said:
I love to take shots with shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...
Just a question: if you need shallow depth of field, why do'nt you consider a longer lens?
50 mm?

--
jvb
 
I have a 50mm f1.4. Looking for a new wider angle prime.

I also used to have 84 f1.4 CZ. Sold it because it was under utilised. This lens gives great bokeh.

I think I'm a wide angle person, but I kind of miss my 85mm sometimes.
janvanbogaert said:
domk81 said:
I love to take shots with shallow depth of field.
Click to expand...
Just a question: if you need shallow depth of field, why do'nt you consider a longer lens?
50 mm?

--
jvb
Click to expand...
 
Well, the zeiss tele primes are good for portraits for sure, but they are useless in smaller rooms since they are too long. My experiences with children in rooms are that sometimes you benefit from tele, but more often wider angles are useful. the 35mm SAM is good, but on aps-c a little too tight when shooting indoor scenes where more than a persons head needs to be captured. I therefore also considered the zeiss 24 f2, but went for the 16-50 f2.8 since its as fast as older Minolta primes, and it is more versatile.

For good bokeh or shallow DOF, telelenses are usually better than the fastest wide-angles. The distance between you and the subject plays also an important role.

You have to make a compromise for indoors shooting between focal length, DOF and bokeh quality. However, I am quite satisfied with the 35mm f1.8 with respect to bokeh quality and DOF.
 
The answer is dependent on your working distance. You say you like using the lens for portraits so you are probably working around 2 meters away from the subject. At that distance the difference between shooting 2.8 and 2.0 is about .4 meters. It also however depends on what size you intend the image to be viewed. You can use a depth of field calculator to play around with the numbers. There are plenty of free sources for your computer or smart phone. IMHO, you would be better off with the 35 on a FF. 24 already seems wide to me for portraits, but I understand what you are doing. Traditional portrait focal lengths can be a challenge (even impossible) indoors. I have seen very nice portraits using the 35 G.
--
Zeiss taste...Beercan budget!
 
I did (using A900), always had kind of mixed feelings for the 24F2.8 (compared to the better 35F1.4 and 28F2.

Got a good deal, and the SSM is usefull on the Nex platform

Jakob
 
Thank you guys for your views.

After a good thought, I leaning more towards sony 24mm CZ

I have a FF and APS-C.
With 24mm f2 - I can have wide close ups shots on A850.
I can also use it on my A33 with 36mm view.... SSM is useful for videos.

A 35mm G on A850 would be nice, but I read lots of bad reviews about it, doesn't seems to worth its price tag. Ancient minolta 35mm f2 is sharper.

I have 35mm DT f1.8, it is sharp! but a pity that I can't get 35mm view on A850.
 
Go big or go home! Get the sony 500mm. Just kidding, from my experience if you're using FF then a 50 should get you in a good range in terms of not too long of a lens, but you can still get a very shallow depth of field. If thats still too long for you, then go with a 35mm.
 
jadgl968 said:
Go big or go home! Get the sony 500mm.
Click to expand...
Actually, that is not as crazy as it sounds - I use to use a Minolta 300mm f2.8 before I sold it (REALLY bad move!) and it gave superb results.

Here are two pictures taken with a Minolta 7D and a 100-300mm zoom and the 300mm. The railing in the shots is about 3 ft behind the cat and, as you can clearly see, the DOF difference between a 100mm at f3.5 and a 300mm at f2.8 is huge.







 
domk81 said:
I love to take shots with shallow depth of field.

I currently own a minolta 24mm f2.8 on a A850, which I used often for close up wide shots portrait of my kid.

How shallow depth can the Sony 24mm f2 produce compared to the minolta f2.8?
Its only one stop difference, is it a lot?

I'm also hesitating between 35mm f1.4 G and 24mm f2 SSM CZ.

Since I have a 24 f2.8 already, would it be better off to invest in a 35mm f1.4 G.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 24/1.8 may be a good option for you, a lot cheaper than the CZ and a tiny bit faster as well. Very good lens, if a bit weird focus clutch mechanism.

Though the 35/1.4 is a stop faster yet and the longer FL will give even narrower DOF. Not sure if you really need a 35 and 50 1.4 though, I prefer 24/50 myself.

But really, its very easy to see the difference between a 2.0 and a 2.8, simply shoot your 24/2.8 at 2.8 and 4.0 with the same subject and compare the results, thats the same difference you can expect going another stop faster.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top