Reading mode: Light Dark

Looking for a 24mm Zeiss alternative – Use a lens turbo?

Go to last post
C

Cyberratchet

Member
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
Location
Vienna, AT
Hi everyone,

I’m an owner of a Sony NEX-6 for about 2 months now and I really, really like it so far. The next two lenses I will buy are the SEL-55210 and an UWA lens (probably the SEL-1018, it’s expensive but there’s no real alternative).

Beside this two lenses, I’m thinking about a “walk around” lens. The new Zeiss 16-70 f/4 looks very nice and I would probably look over its high price tag, but I think that f/4 is just too slow for low light situations.

The most common FLs for such kind of lens are probably 24mm(35 FF) or 35mm(50 FF). I’ve tried both on my 1650 and 50mm FF are often too narrow for things like buildings and if you in a small street you just can’t go a few steps back ^^.

So I was thinking about the 24mm Zeiss and tbh it’s too expensive for my needs. Most of the times I shoot landscapes or longer FLs, if I’m not in a city. I was looking for fast (1.8 or higher) 24mm lenses and I haven’t find a lot of lenses. The alternative to the 24mm lens could be a 35mm lens + a lens turbo. I would end up with a FL of 37.5, but that shouldn’t be a problem.

Here’s my final question:

Which fast 35mm FF equivalent is recommendable? Does anyone have experience with a fast 35mm lens and a lens turbo? If so, which mount do you prefer (if I buy a lens turbo, I would get a 50mm lens to sometime in the near future)?

The price shouldn’t be too high obviously, otherwise I just could buy 24mm Zeiss ^^.

Thanks in advance,

Julian
 
Edit - Made a bit of a booboo and forgot i had a skylight filter on the Yashica and Zeiss lenses. I only remembered when i took the pics of the NEX 5R. I don't have any light to repeat the experiment i'm afraid. Sorry about that.



Ok, took a couple of test shots with the 16-50mm kit at 20mm (for reference to overall scene) and at 37mm and 50mm (to compare to the 50mm legacy on and off the LT). Kit lens shots were at F5.6, hopefully the EXIF will show but this is my first attempt at it so it might not work straight away.

Using the kit lens the camera picked ISO 200, so i stuck to that for the rest of the shots in aperture priority mode with the shutter speed being picked by the camera.

What should follow are:

Kit lens: 20mm 37mm 50mm (5.6)

Yashica 50mm on lens turbo: 1.7, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11

Zeiss 50mm on lens turbo: 1.7, 2, 2.8. 4, 5.6, 8, 11

Yashica 50mm on normal adapter: 1.7, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11

Zeiss 50mm on normal adapter: 1.7, 2, 2.8. 4, 5.6, 8, 11

KIT LENS

=================







YASHICA WITH TURBO

====================















ZEISS WITH TURBO

==================















Will do the others in the next post.....
 
Last edited:
YASHICA WITH NORMAL ADAPTER

========================





































ZEISS WITH NORMAL ADAPTER

==========================



























 
Pics taken with iphone of zeiss + turbo on 5R.

Lens cap + filter + lens + CY->EOS + Lens turbo



ac99f5eb256d4ddb8fb28478b0601a44.jpg



f52d67cd578440aeac8532749ca4a244.jpg
 
I know you said that you want something wider than 35mm, and you want 24mm.

That is a real difference, for sure. But if you can't/won't pay the money for the Zeiss 24, just get the SEL35. Trust me, it is a good lens :) And there are ways to work around focal lengths, mainly by moving around. 24 and 35 are surely different, but it's not a HUGE difference. Another thing you should consider is that the Zeiss does not have OSS, while the SEL35 does.
 
rogatsby said:
rogatsby wrote:

I know you said that you want something wider than 35mm, and you want 24mm.

That is a real difference, for sure. But if you can't/won't pay the money for the Zeiss 24, just get the SEL35. Trust me, it is a good lens :) And there are ways to work around focal lengths, mainly by moving around. 24 and 35 are surely different, but it's not a HUGE difference. Another thing you should consider is that the Zeiss does not have OSS, while the SEL35 does.
Click to expand...
The SEL35 is a good lens, I know that. I’ll use my SEL1650 on the 35mm setting for the next few days and if I should get used to it, I’ll probably pick one up.

But sooner or later desire a 24mm will be back, so the result of this thread should be one (or maybe more) potential lenses for this situation :).

@bryanchicken:
Thanks for your effort. Both lenses look pretty good with the lens turbo on it, but I like the Zeiss colours a little bit more. I’ll examine the example more detailed later today.
 
Cyberratchet said:
Cyberratchet wrote:
Cyberratchet said:
rogatsby wrote:

I know you said that you want something wider than 35mm, and you want 24mm.

That is a real difference, for sure. But if you can't/won't pay the money for the Zeiss 24, just get the SEL35. Trust me, it is a good lens :) And there are ways to work around focal lengths, mainly by moving around. 24 and 35 are surely different, but it's not a HUGE difference. Another thing you should consider is that the Zeiss does not have OSS, while the SEL35 does.
Click to expand...
The SEL35 is a good lens, I know that. I’ll use my SEL1650 on the 35mm setting for the next few days and if I should get used to it, I’ll probably pick one up.

But sooner or later desire a 24mm will be back, so the result of this thread should be one (or maybe more) potential lenses for this situation :).

@bryanchicken:
Thanks for your effort. Both lenses look pretty good with the lens turbo on it, but I like the Zeiss colours a little bit more. I’ll examine the example more detailed later today.
Click to expand...
No probs, agree about the colours. It's a shame the colours are slightly different compared to the kit, not sure what happened there. Might be the filter, not sure.

I have a 28mm 2.8 zuiko (OM) I can put on the turbo if its any use. I don't think the lens is as good as the two 50mm but it can be had for cheap.

i'll try and do that tomorrow morn before I go away, light will be different but might be useful?
 
Cyberratchet said:
Cyberratchet wrote:

First of all, I want to thank everyone for your help, I really appreciate that. Great forum, great members!
Cyberratchet said:
Byron S wrote:

If you haven't committed by time I receive the LT, I'd be happy to share my thoughts regarding how it pairs with the lenses above. LT or no LT, though, both of the lenses above a fantastic additions to your kit if you like manual focus lenses and have the patience to hunt for a good price.
Click to expand...
Thanks Byron,

Like I sad, I’ll pick up the 55210 and 1018 first. There’s enough time to hunt for a good price :-). I’d love to hear your first experience with the lens turbo, especially the C/Y one.
Cyberratchet said:
pmow wrote:

You're right, there aren't lots of 24/1.8 out there, especially not legacy glass. And a lens turbo isn't going to turn an f/2.8 lens into one.

A true 1.8 lens might be the Sigma in A-mount. It's half as much as the Zeiss though.

If it were me I'd value cost over stops and get the Sigma 19 or the Sony 20.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 19 and 30 combination is definitely on my list, but I still think the ideal FL for is right between the two.

Do you mean the „SIGMA 24mm F/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Makro“? Its 550€ in my area and I would need the ~250€ LA-EA2 adapter. That wouldn’t be that much cheaper than the Zeiss tbh. And I don’t own another a-Mount lens and I don’t plan to buy one.

A lens turbo won't turn a f/2.8 into a f/1.8, but it should be close to f/2.0 !? Everyone reports an approximately approvement of 1 full stop.
Cyberratchet said:
1prime wrote:

Julian, just a suggestion, how about picking up a almost new 24mm1.8 Zeiss on EBay? I got one for $800 that was used for 3 shots! I'm extremely pleased. I just wasn't interested in bidding on lesser condition lenses. I figure if the 24 is ever not needed I can always get my $$ out.
Click to expand...
I’m constantly looking for a good Zeiss 24mm Deal, haven’t find a good one yet :-(.
Click to expand...
As I mentioned just above, I really studied 24mm used EBay prices, and decided while I wanted to save about $300 from the new price, going below $800 rarely produced pristine 24s. So that's how I settled on that fair price for a very slightly used 24. The zoom would often show flaws or imbedded dust or something on slightly less expensive glass. I turned down Touits. It seems the 24 is just a color and ISO gem. And if you have the coins now but not later, you can always sell it near what you paid. Good luck.
Cyberratchet said:
Cyberratchet said:
Lightshow wrote:

Sadly there is not that much available @ 24mm that is faster than f2.8, there are a few f2's and a few 1.4's to choose from, and their prices jump with the speed, FD lenses as an example, 2.8= $100, f2=$300, f1.4=$1000

....

The FD 24/2 with the Lens Turbo would probably be a great combo. But that may be wider than you want.
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that too, that’s why I like the idea of the lens turbo. The FD 24mm f/2 by itself would be a good FL, I’ll keep it in mind. But it’s way too wide with the focal reducer, I’ll cover this focal length with the 1018 I guess.
Cyberratchet said:
EinsteinsGhost wrote:

At this FL, it takes a lot of darkness to start worrying about shutter speed and it is even less of an issue with larger sensors developed over last few years.

But if you would like to take an iccasional advantage of small camera, Sony 20/2.8 would be a good one. And it will also take UWA converter down to 15mm so you should consider it.
Click to expand...
Ok that's good to know, but it shouldn’t be lower than 2.8, especially without OSS. The lens doesn’t have to be that small, as long as there is a good balance between the weight of the camera and the lens itself. I think that 20mm is a little bit too wide and I'll buy the 1018 for UWA anyways.
Cyberratchet said:
radissimo wrote:

Most of them are f2.8 (notably best Zeiss C/Y Distagon 35mm f2.8 (can be used wide open)

Faster ones:

1) 35mm f2 Takumar Super-Multi-Coated

2) MIR 24 35mm f2

3) Porst WW 35mm f1.8

4) Flektogon 35mm f2.4

Rado
Click to expand...
I’ve noticed that the C/Y Zeiss lenses have a nice price-performance ratio. I’ve seen a few ones (35mm f/2.8, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/2.8) for about 200-250€ lately. Do you own a C/Y lens turbo? I didn’t find a good experience report for this particular one. If that’s the case, do you also own a 50mm C/Y Zeiss?

Thank you for the other options too.

I would also be happy if another person has experience with the C/Y lens turbo and these lenses.
Cyberratchet said:
1prime wrote:

I was amazed at how much thought deciding on expensive photo equipment demands.
Click to expand...
Me too, 1prime, me too.
Click to expand...
 
I think there is some distortion at the edges of the turbo pictures. The upright piece of wood looks curved. It's less pronounced in the non-turbo images. Could prob be corrected in post
 
Cyberratchet said:
Cyberratchet wrote:
Cyberratchet said:
pmow wrote:

You're right, there aren't lots of 24/1.8 out there, especially not legacy glass. And a lens turbo isn't going to turn an f/2.8 lens into one.

A true 1.8 lens might be the Sigma in A-mount. It's half as much as the Zeiss though.

If it were me I'd value cost over stops and get the Sigma 19 or the Sony 20.
Click to expand...
The Sigma 19 and 30 combination is definitely on my list, but I still think the ideal FL for is right between the two.

Do you mean the „SIGMA 24mm F/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF Makro“? Its 550€ in my area and I would need the ~250€ LA-EA2 adapter. That wouldn’t be that much cheaper than the Zeiss tbh. And I don’t own another a-Mount lens and I don’t plan to buy one.

A lens turbo won't turn a f/2.8 into a f/1.8, but it should be close to f/2.0 !? Everyone reports an approximately approvement of 1 full stop.
Click to expand...
I was suggesting the Sigma 24/1.8 as an alternative to using a lens turbo. Sure, you can spend $300 more and get AF, but you weren't getting AF anyway on the LT.

Okay, so it has to be 24mm, but you can compromise on aperture. What about a NEX-7 with the SEL20? That's a (probably) $500 price tag, and you just crop to get the FL you want.
 
Last edited:
Cyberratchet said:
Cyberratchet wrote:

Which fast 35mm FF equivalent is recommendable? Does anyone have experience with a fast 35mm lens and a lens turbo?
Click to expand...
35mm lenses were the most common wide angle for FF SLRs, so they're usually cheap and pretty good... and the faster versions are not worse. There is some variation on how well they work with a Lens Turbo (LT). Some that I know are reasonable on LT:
  • M42 SMC Takumar 35mm f/2. Probably best of my fast 35mm overall on LT. Also fairly small. Not awesome, but nothing wrong -- a very reliable journalism lens with very straightforward rendering and shockingly good flare resistance.
  • Vivitar 35mm f/1.9. Glowy and soft wide open, but in a pleasing way. As big as a 135mm f/2.8. Oddly, the build on this might even be better than the Tak f/2 -- focus is amazingly smooth.
  • Canon FDn 35mm f/2. Comparable size to the Tak f/2, generally very nice IQ with very good microcontrast, but likes to flare and the LT can make that problem worse. Works great as long as you're not doing things like pointing it into, or nearly into, the sun... in which case serious flare can be unavoidable no matter how the lens is shaded.
  • M42 Super takumar 35mm f/3.5. A tiny and sharp landscape lens known for its intense colors. Yeah, it's slow, but IQ still holds up ok on the LT. Very different rendering from the Tak f/2.
I have not yet tried some of my slower 35mm lenses on LT. Many others, especially the old Minolta Rokkor 35mm f/2.8, have great reputations... but I don't happen to have one of them.

Taking the APS-C center crop from a FF lens tends to give very even IQ across the frame, whereas using an LT improves the center but pulls not-so-great FF corner rendering of the base lens into view. I would not expect corners using the LT to be as good as you'll see from the 24mm Zeiss.
Cyberratchet said:
If so, which mount do you prefer (if I buy a lens turbo, I would get a 50mm lens to sometime in the near future)?
Click to expand...
M42 can be adapted to Canon FL/FD/FDn LT or Minolta SR/MC/MD LTs, so getting an M42 LT is constraining yourself unnecessarily on future lens purchases (ditto for a Nikon F LT). I have an FD LT because I wanted to be able to use my Canon FL 55mm f/1.2 on the LT -- and it is a darn good 40mm f/0.9 on the LT. The FL 55mm is just about the cheapest of the f/1.2 fast 50s commonly seen on eBay, often around $200.

There are no commercial SR/MC/MD->FL/FD/FDn adapters, but I have designed one that I've 3D printed, so I can use my Minolta lenses on the FD LT also. If you have access to a 3D printer, you can make yourself one using my design at: http://www.thingiverse.com/thing:135038
Cyberratchet said:
The price shouldn’t be too high obviously, otherwise I just could buy 24mm Zeiss ^^.
Click to expand...
Most old 35mm f/2 run somewhere between $100-$200 on eBay. Of course, it depends on how patient you are. I paid about $10, shipped, for the Vivitar 35mm f/1.9.
 
I just created a list with a few of your suggested lenses and I’ll check sites like ebay on a regular basis :). During this time I’ll set my kit zoom to the FL of 18mm and 35mm and try them as a combination. IF this should work out better than expected, I’ll probably end up with a SEL1018 and SEL35.

I have no problem with handling two lenses at a time (or maybe 3 with the SEL55210) when walking around in e.g. a city.

I want to thank everyone again for their help and because I got so much useful tips, I can’t really choose one as the “answer” for me question ^^.
 
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