35mm equivalent lenses for NEX series

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

some of their prices just seem crazy to me, if i have to spend around a $1K, why wouldn't i just get the ziess 24mm for e-mount? but i get that a new lens will loose its resell value while an old manual will probably keep shooting up in price because of the mirror-less trend.

i was looking to spend about 300USD, but the cheaper the better.

____________

a bit about me:

i've been a long time viewer of the site, i only started posting recently, what an amazing wealth of knowledge and experience you have here, i really appreciate it. and i hope i'll be able to contribute well.

I'm a photography hobbyist, the first capable camera i owned is the NEX6 which i bought about a year ago. i love the camera and have no complains, what made me dread photography was the hassle that comes with carrying a big bag, i take my NEX with me almost everywhere while my friends keep their DSLRs in their bags only to come out on special occasions.

While it would be a 30 equiv, the obvious choice is the Sigma 19. For the money it is a remarkable lens and it along with the 30 should be in any budget lens quiver for the NEX series.

IbrahimO said:

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

some of their prices just seem crazy to me, if i have to spend around a $1K, why wouldn't i just get the ziess 24mm for e-mount? but i get that a new lens will loose its resell value while an old manual will probably keep shooting up in price because of the mirror-less trend.

i was looking to spend about 300USD, but the cheaper the better.

____________

a bit about me:

i've been a long time viewer of the site, i only started posting recently, what an amazing wealth of knowledge and experience you have here, i really appreciate it. and i hope i'll be able to contribute well.

I'm a photography hobbyist, the first capable camera i owned is the NEX6 which i bought about a year ago. i love the camera and have no complains, what made me dread photography was the hassle that comes with carrying a big bag, i take my NEX with me almost everywhere while my friends keep their DSLRs in their bags only to come out on special occasions.

Click to expand...

I have the Canon FD 24/2.8 and find it a fine lens for the price. Haven't checked recently, but they were going for around $100 U. S. a while back. Of course, you have to add the adapter; I use the Fotodiox which works fine. I'm sure you are aware there is no OS or AF with these legacy lenses.

You have a lot of choices really dependent on how much money you wish to invest. As the other poster said, the Sigma 19 is a good lens, but a bit off the 35mm equivalent you specified.

Here are a couple shots taken with the Canon FD 24/2.8:

DLeeT said:

IbrahimO said:

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

some of their prices just seem crazy to me, if i have to spend around a $1K, why wouldn't i just get the ziess 24mm for e-mount? but i get that a new lens will loose its resell value while an old manual will probably keep shooting up in price because of the mirror-less trend.

i was looking to spend about 300USD, but the cheaper the better.

____________

a bit about me:

i've been a long time viewer of the site, i only started posting recently, what an amazing wealth of knowledge and experience you have here, i really appreciate it. and i hope i'll be able to contribute well.

I'm a photography hobbyist, the first capable camera i owned is the NEX6 which i bought about a year ago. i love the camera and have no complains, what made me dread photography was the hassle that comes with carrying a big bag, i take my NEX with me almost everywhere while my friends keep their DSLRs in their bags only to come out on special occasions.

Click to expand...

I have the Canon FD 24/2.8 and find it a fine lens for the price. Haven't checked recently, but they were going for around $100 U. S. a while back. Of course, you have to add the adapter; I use the Fotodiox which works fine. I'm sure you are aware there is no OS or AF with these legacy lenses.

You have a lot of choices really dependent on how much money you wish to invest. As the other poster said, the Sigma 19 is a good lens, but a bit off the 35mm equivalent you specified.

Here are a couple shots taken with the Canon FD 24/2.8:

Click to expand...

lovely shots, however i wonder what PP you did to the second image because the color rendering looks a bit HDRish to me... how is the form factor with the adapter like?

i checked ebay and man does the price vary, someone is asking 200USD for it while another in germany would let it go for 54USD, both seem about the same condition. any quirks about the lens during your use? how about CA in high contrast?

I don't like the Sigmas for NEX i own the 30mm f2.8 old version and i hate its AF performance and abhor the focus-by-wire for MF, i would rather have an old lens with a good, proper focus ring

VaughnA said:

While it would be a 30 equiv, the obvious choice is the Sigma 19. For the money it is a remarkable lens and it along with the 30 should be in any budget lens quiver for the NEX series.

Click to expand...

i know they are great optically, i own the 30mm f2.8, but i hate the focus-by-wire, and the AF performance is bad... i would rather have an old lens with a smooth and fast focus ring.

but how do old lenses compare to modern ones in terms of sharpness, i mean if you compare a 24mm canon FD to a new 19mm sigma... which one do you expect to perform optically better, disregarding everything else?

IbrahimO said:

lovely shots, however i wonder what PP you did to the second image because the color rendering looks a bit HDRish to me... how is the form factor with the adapter like?

i checked ebay and man does the price vary, someone is asking 200USD for it while another in germany would let it go for 54USD, both seem about the same condition. any quirks about the lens during your use? how about CA in high contrast?

I don't like the Sigmas for NEX i own the 30mm f2.8 old version and i hate its AF performance and abhor the focus-by-wire for MF, i would rather have an old lens with a good, proper focus ring

Click to expand...

There are Canon FD and FD new lenses

And FL for that sake. Prices vary in accordance with condition.

THe FD 28/2.8 is a nice lens, SUrely better than Sigma DN 19. And you can use on your next purchase, ,Sony A7, too

IbrahimO said:

VaughnA said:

While it would be a 30 equiv, the obvious choice is the Sigma 19. For the money it is a remarkable lens and it along with the 30 should be in any budget lens quiver for the NEX series.

Click to expand...

i know they are great optically, i own the 30mm f2.8, but i hate the focus-by-wire, and the AF performance is bad... i would rather have an old lens with a smooth and fast focus ring.

but how do old lenses compare to modern ones in terms of sharpness, i mean if you compare a 24mm canon FD to a new 19mm sigma... which one do you expect to perform optically better, disregarding everything else?

Click to expand...

The Sigma 30 and 19mm perform better optically than all but the most expensive SLR wides. Most of the old 20mm lenses aren't that great on digital, and most kit lenses are very good around 20 to 24mm and not much smaller aperture.

Eric

Felice62 said:

IbrahimO said:

lovely shots, however i wonder what PP you did to the second image because the color rendering looks a bit HDRish to me... how is the form factor with the adapter like?

i checked ebay and man does the price vary, someone is asking 200USD for it while another in germany would let it go for 54USD, both seem about the same condition. any quirks about the lens during your use? how about CA in high contrast?

I don't like the Sigmas for NEX i own the 30mm f2.8 old version and i hate its AF performance and abhor the focus-by-wire for MF, i would rather have an old lens with a good, proper focus ring

Click to expand...

There are Canon FD and FD new lenses

And FL for that sake. Prices vary in accordance with condition.

THe FD 28/2.8 is a nice lens, SUrely better than Sigma DN 19. And you can use on your next purchase, ,Sony A7, too

Click to expand...

Would you mind to tell us, how's canon FD 28/2.8 surely better than Sigma DN 19?

I mean, they are completely different focal lengths, but even so, is the Canon sharper in the center (at what distance and what MTF did you measure), overall sharper (in center and corners), sharper at corners, has better micro contrast, more natural colors, flatter focal projection, better flare resistance or what?

I am just curious to understand, how did you compare both lenses, that you can be so sure...

--
Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/viktor_viktor/
http://verybiglobo.blogspot.com/

I also have the APSc Sigma 19mm and 30mm, got them when B&H had them for $200 for the pair.

Now that was a great deal.

I don't understand for sure what your looking for. A 24mm Zeiss lens on Nex is a 36mm field of view.

Remember 12mm= 18mm on APS-c Nex cameras

so 18mm = 28mm FOV ; 24mm = 36mm ; 36mm= 50mm and 60mm = 90mm

So if your looking for 24mm field of view, then a Samyang 16mm f2 is a good choice.

If you buy full frame legacy 35mm lenses you could get Speedboosters reduction lenses that have

about a 0.7 x focal length reduction of field of view. So a 24mm lens might end up as say a 25mm lens. This is costly but not that much bigger than using a plain legacy adapter. The difference is that the plain adapter is a spacer with mounts vs. a speedbooster has optical elements inside the adapter.

On the plus side you gain one faster F stop.

Bah, I have been chasing this for quite some time. As an example, I have tried a Minolta Rokkor 21mm F2.8 and was disappointed, So I found and tried a 21mm F4 Non Retrofocus which is just MM away from the sensor. While I was a little put off by the funny colors in the corners, It just didn't have a flat field of focus which drove me really crazy. But it was small and light, I loved that little lens, but an unused lens has no room in my bag. So I found an Olympus OM 3.5/21 and it has been a dream for two years, until the 16-70 Zeiss showed up at my doorstep. About the same time I found the Olympus F2 Version of the 21mm which I have been coveting for 2 years, finally got one at a reasonable price. However the Hype was all wrong, the lens had an amazing review, but at least the copy I found was not sharp, not flat field, horrible CA...very disappointed :-( boo hoo for me.

With the new zeiss zoom in hand, I compared the three, at F2 the 2/21 won! but it is easy to win when you are the only player. At F4, it was the clear looser, and at F5.6 it was hard to pick a winner between the OM 3.5/21 and the Zeiss. 2/21 still stunk in the corners... But for me, it was telling, the Zeiss was close to the quality of the prime lens. Granted the prime was for full frame, the zeiss was for APS-C, but still it is amazing how far the lens makers have come in 30 years.

Not a huge fan of AF, and would rather have the old manual lenses IF they can hold their own. But how can you argue with the convenience, size, weight and functionality of the new modern glass.

I continue to look for the best compromise between size, weight, sharpness and tactile quality. What is best I think depends on my own set of values. I truly would love to have Zeiss Otis sharpness in the little Olympus OM form factor at the Sigma price...but it ain't happenin' so I will keep searching, and I keep both Nikon 85mm F1.8 for its amazing sharpness and the Olympus OM 85mm F2 for its amazingly small size (and I shoot Olympus OM 35mm cameras too)

Ill also say this, that even a not perfect quality lens can generate some wonderful images. with the Kit lens i found used I have made some AmAzInG 30x40 prints. I think the trick is understanding the limitations of the gear, and using it to its full advantage.

I have found the Minolta Rokkor 3.5/28 and the Olympus OM 2.8/24 really surprised me for their high quality for a reasonable price.

Hope that helps!

Zenjitsuman said:

I also have the APSc Sigma 19mm and 30mm, got them when B&H had them for $200 for the pair.

Now that was a great deal.

I don't understand for sure what your looking for. A 24mm Zeiss lens on Nex is a 36mm field of view.

Click to expand...

In my learning, i decided to use the kit lens as a prime at different focal distances and stick to them for a while till i get a feel on how to best use them.

i found myself enjoying using it at around the 35mm equivalent, but i need a little bit more punch in sharpness/contrast. would not mind manual focusing as it's a wide lens and i would be using it at closed apertures anyway. i hope someone would suggest me something that accomplishes that without breaking the bank.

i looked at the samyang/rokinon 24mm f1.4, but the lens is big and not cheap (600-800USD depending on the mount) which is more than double my maximum budget for a 24mm. Modern full frame lenses are also mostly out of budget, and the adapter is too expensive. (and i think shallow depth of field is overrated, i never use my 50mm f1.8 below f2.8, i just don't like the look)

john-photoguy said:

Bah, I have been chasing this for quite some time. As an example, I have tried a Minolta Rokkor 21mm F2.8 and was disappointed, So I found and tried a 21mm F4 Non Retrofocus which is just MM away from the sensor. While I was a little put off by the funny colors in the corners, It just didn't have a flat field of focus which drove me really crazy. But it was small and light, I loved that little lens, but an unused lens has no room in my bag. So I found an Olympus OM 3.5/21 and it has been a dream for two years, until the 16-70 Zeiss showed up at my doorstep. About the same time I found the Olympus F2 Version of the 21mm which I have been coveting for 2 years, finally got one at a reasonable price. However the Hype was all wrong, the lens had an amazing review, but at least the copy I found was not sharp, not flat field, horrible CA...very disappointed :-( boo hoo for me.

Click to expand...

john-photoguy said:

With the new zeiss zoom in hand, I compared the three, at F2 the 2/21 won! but it is easy to win when you are the only player. At F4, it was the clear looser, and at F5.6 it was hard to pick a winner between the OM 3.5/21 and the Zeiss. 2/21 still stunk in the corners... But for me, it was telling, the Zeiss was close to the quality of the prime lens. Granted the prime was for full frame, the zeiss was for APS-C, but still it is amazing how far the lens makers have come in 30 years.

Click to expand...

i think you are exactly where i will be in a couple of years, with comparing legacy lenses and performances. i know full well that great gear doesn't make a good photographer, but i think i reached the point where i need a little more punch than my kit lens could deliver.

in the lenses that you tested, do you think i will gain in optical performance by switching my kit lens (used at 24mm) to a legacy glass. in other words, have lens manufacturing improved so much so that a modern kit lens can be optically comparable to a legacy lens from a reputable manufacturer? nostalgia aside, what justifies the prices of legacy glass? some of them can be at the same price as modern counterparts.


for fun i post this photo i took at 21mm with the nex6 and kit lens

A good question. The Kit lens is pretty good, the quality is amazing compared to the zoom lenses of yesteryear. Can a legacy lens out perform the kit? Yes, absolutely! can you do it for Less $$, smaller package in addition to faster with better in the hand feel without loosing balance of the package? Haha! Now that is the question! Sometimes the fun part is the hunt for the next piece and testing to see if you like it. I sold my Kit lens, when I found a set of 6 amazing legacy primes to carry with me. the hardest to find was a wide angle, the 21. The rest were all F2 or faster, I tried F1.2, 1.4 and F2 50mm offerings, and settled on an Olympus OM 50mm F2 macro, 35mm 1.8 rokkor, Olympus OM 2/28, 3.5/21 and 2/85 Canon FDn 2/135 and a Nikon 1.8/85 1.4/50 AFD. But when I had a job when I couldnm't carry all that, I went back to a Kit lens. Now I wanna try a Voigtlander 1.4/35, and I question weather or not any of these lenses will work as well on the new A7.

Id try the Olympus OM 2.8/24 I think you will enjoy the little gem, a nice advantage over the kit all the way around, sharp, speed and size. Great balance on the NEX bodies, whats not to like.

Thought I would add and amplify, if you have say a Nex X, and use a 24mm and and a speedbooster

with the speedbooster you get 25mm FOV on a FF and without the speedbooster its gonna act like

an 36mm because of the 1.5x crop of the APSc frame sensor. Therefore one lens does double the work.

Since you can use the same adapter on two different focal length legacy lenses, if they have the same legacy mount, for example a Minolta MD. You can have a 24mm and 50mm and the speedbooster gives you close to the original lenses focal length plus the crop focal length.

This makes it like you have 4 lenses, but you only carry two lenses plus the speedbooster in your bag.

24mm w/o SB =36mm with SB 25mm

50mm w/o SB= 75mm with SB 52mm

So its like carrying 25mm; 36mm; 52mm; and 75mm plus if the two lenses were f2.0 they are now

F1.4 lenses. I cannot understand why people don't see that this is a win win situation.

F1.4 lenses cost more and are bigger/heavier and at least while using the Speed booster its

like carrying two really fast lenses, at half the size and weight in your camera bag.

I liked Soligor 24/2.8 (Minolta MD mount) while I had it: inexpensive at $40 and very good optically. It was said to be a rebranded Tokina. The only downside was that it was a lot of metal making the lens quite heavy. It also had a quite big front element too (62mm filter size).

I currently use Sigma 24/2.8 Superwide (Minolta A-mount) which I had prior to the Soligor as well. It is AF and being from the early days of PDAF, MF ring appears to be an afterthought (also a case with Minolta Maxxum lenses from the day) but it stl works fine as a MF lens. I use it with AF though via LAEA2 as it complements Minolta 35-70/4 very well.

IbrahimO said:

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

Click to expand...

When it comes to legacy lenses, good deals generally ends at 28mm. Going wider usually means significant increase in price and narrower offer.

There are many great 28 and longer legacy lenses, that can still challenge their modern counterparts, for less money, but bellow 28, situation is more complicated.

Traditional brands all have some rather good options, but the best of those are probably above your estimated budget - Canon FD 24/1.4 L,Canon FD 24/2, Minolta 24/2 MD, Nikkor 24/2, Oly 24/2 etc.

The ones that you might try are cheaper - f/2.8 siblings, but while most of them are solid lenses, in direct comparison with modern alternatives, especially at wide apertures, they shows their age.

On the other hand, once stopped to f/5.6 or f/8, most of them will come very close in resolution across the frame, that it will be hard to distinguish. But, CA, spherical aberration, coma, and some other aberrations are usually better corrected in the new lenses.

So, it is very important to consider what exactly you want to shot with your 24mm lens. Especially for 300 USD price range. In other words, if you can live with slower aperture, your options will be wider.

Let me try to put this in perspective with few comparison ISO chart 100% crops. Not because, I want to show you valid figures in terms of resolution, (this was not well controlled test, mainly because of a bad lighting) but just to give you an idea of differences that I am talking about.

Don't forget that even more than resolution, you should pay attention about flaring behavior, bokeh characteristics, minimum focus distance, build quality and price of course.

First, let's see how Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C cope with SEL 1855 kit lens (set to 23mm by mistake).


Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C vs Sony SEL 1855 at 24/23mm and f/4 center

In the center, difference is negligible. Canon has slight edge, but nothing significant.


Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C vs Sony SEL 1855 at 24/23mm and f/4 top right

In the corners, difference is rather significant. My SEL 1855 is also de-centered, but so is my FD/NEX adapter. Therefore, different corners might get closer to each other, but this show general tendency of the kit lens corner performance at its widest aperture (at 23mm).

Buying Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C, you might want to use it wide open. Let's see how it compare with SEL (Zeiss) 24/1.8


Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C. vs Sony SEL 2418 on Sony NEX 5N at f/2.8 center

Now, we can see reversed situation. Sony 24/1.8 has an edge no doubt. (It is also two stops closed, while Canon is wide open.) But in the center, difference is once again rather small.


Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C. vs Sony SEL 2418 on Sony NEX 5N at f/2.8 top right

Sony gets on top in the corners easily. You might check in my albums here in my gallery, other corners, and you should notice significant CA on Canons side. Well, it is a bit older lens than Sony right?

I have read here several times, that some people are disappointed with the sharpness from Sony SEL (zeiss) 24/1.8, as they expect it to be much sharper than their kit lens. Needless to say, they are comparing both lenses at f/4 or smaller apertures, where most lenses are getting very close, at least in the center. I don't want to blame them, but it is good to understand, that comparing lenses of different maximum apertures is very academical at its best. In Leicas words - if you don't need faster lens, save your money and buy slower one. Anyway, here is brief comparison of the two.


Sony SEL 2418 vs Sony SEL 1855 on Sony NEX 5N at 24/23mm and f/4 center

While SEL 24 f/1.8 has an edge in the center, it is obviously not as much as one would expect from almost 800 USD more expensive lens. As SEL 24 f/1.8 is also optimized for short distances, at longer ones, the difference can be even smaller if any.

But Sony SEL is also very well optically corrected for field curvature and spherical aberration. Maybe slightly over corrected as in fact it shows pincushion distortion instead of barrel which is more obvious. That, in combination with probably larger projection circle, result in a very good corner performance as we can see on the above comparison against Canon FD. Here it is aginst kit lens at f/4.


Sony SEL 2418 vs Sony SEL 1855 on Sony NEX 5N at 24/23mm and f/4 top right

Not even a contest, and my SEL 1855 despite being de-centered is still sharper in the corners than two samples of 1650. But most people will shot a normal "real life" scene instead of a flat target, and in such circumstance will hardly notice weaker corner performance. Therefore I understand, why some are disappointed, that Zeiss didn't make such a difference.

To put things little more in perspective, let me show you another example of a really bad legacy lens, wide open, in comparison to one of the very best 24mm performers in 35mm world.


Nikon Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 G vs Makinon 24/2.8 MC (FD mount) on Sony NEX 5N at f/2.8 center

Now this sucks right? Could be bad sample, but more probably it is just bad lens. It cost 30 USD, and I didn't expect it to perform as the one on the left, that cost almost 2000 USD. However...


Nikon Nikkor 14-24 f/2.8 G vs Makinon 24/2.8 MC (FD mount) on Sony NEX 5N at f/5.6 center

Stop Makinon down to f/5.6, add some (well quite a lot) of contrast in pp, and you will have hard time to say which is which. (extreme corners remains weak on Makinon though, but I can imagine the lens to be used at f/4 and above for some street or family snaps).

Some users like Kiron 24/2, Sigma super wide 24/2.8, and similar. From that group, I found Tokina 24/2.8 RMC to be a solid performer, but none of those, that I had was really stellar. That could be of course, due to the sample variations.

I kept only Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C from legacy 24 (and Makinon of course, cause none wants it ).

(I will check tomorrow another Olympus 24/2.8 in my local store, as I liked that lens quite a lot, and shouldn't probably sell it.)

Here are few more shots with Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C from a "real life" (whatever that means )


Sony NEX 7 + Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C


Sony NEX 7 + Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C


Sony NEX 7 + Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C


Sony NEX 7 + Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C


Sony NEX 7 + Canon FD 24/2.8 S.S.C

--
Don't trust your eyes or mind, they might betray you! Trust only comments posted on the forums, because there is the absolute truth!
viktor_viktor
Photototo

Agree wholeheartedly with several of the posters on the Olympus OM lenses. I have the 21/3.5, 24/2.8, 28/2.8, 50/3.5macro, and 135/3.5. All give great results in a small package.

David

IbrahimO said:

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

some of their prices just seem crazy to me, if i have to spend around a $1K, why wouldn't i just get the ziess 24mm for e-mount? but i get that a new lens will loose its resell value while an old manual will probably keep shooting up in price because of the mirror-less trend.

i was looking to spend about 300USD, but the cheaper the better.

Click to expand...

For under $300...

FD SSC 24/2.8, it feels ergonomically great on my NEX-7, its not too big that it dwarfs the body, and not too small that it's hard to use. It has very low coma & flare, and it's sharp from wide open, I also have the SSC 24/1.4 Aspherical, it's bigger, heavier, faster, as sharp or sharper, and way mor expensive, I paid $700 for mine because it's well used, but the optics are mint, normally they go for $1000 or more, I haven't used the 2.8 version since getting it, it's that good, you can get bokeh from it the 2.8's just can't.

The nFD 24/2 is also good, it's at your price limit.

The OM 24/2.8 is a bit smaller, it too is sharp, and controls flare and coma well, in fact if you like to shoot at night, the OM's in general are great for this purpose, the 21/3.5 being my fave.

Minolta Rokkor 24/2.8, Yashica 24/2.8, Sigma super Wide 24/2.8 are all good.

28mm is another option, they are typically cheaper by half vs 24mm lenses.

IbrahimO said:

____________

a bit about me:

i've been a long time viewer of the site, i only started posting recently, what an amazing wealth of knowledge and experience you have here, i really appreciate it. and i hope i'll be able to contribute well.

I'm a photography hobbyist, the first capable camera i owned is the NEX6 which i bought about a year ago. i love the camera and have no complains, what made me dread photography was the hassle that comes with carrying a big bag, i take my NEX with me almost everywhere while my friends keep their DSLRs in their bags only to come out on special occasions.

Click to expand...

Lightshow said:

IbrahimO said:

Hello,

What lenses would you recommend (in terms of bang-for-buck) to be adapted to NEX bodies to get a 35mm equivalent focal length?

i've been looking at my options (21-25mm, ideally 24mm) manual lenses, (rangefinders, Canon FD, Nikon, Olympus, Minolta MD...) and i am overwhelmed. as i have no experience with film photography i can't really evaluate the lenses.

some of their prices just seem crazy to me, if i have to spend around a $1K, why wouldn't i just get the ziess 24mm for e-mount? but i get that a new lens will loose its resell value while an old manual will probably keep shooting up in price because of the mirror-less trend.

i was looking to spend about 300USD, but the cheaper the better.

Click to expand...

For under $300...

FD SSC 24/2.8, it feels ergonomically great on my NEX-7, its not too big that it dwarfs the body, and not too small that it's hard to use. It has very low coma & flare, and it's sharp from wide open, I also have the SSC 24/1.4 Aspherical, it's bigger, heavier, faster, as sharp or sharper, and way mor expensive, I paid $700 for mine because it's well used, but the optics are mint, normally they go for $1000 or more, I haven't used the 2.8 version since getting it, it's that good, you can get bokeh from it the 2.8's just can't.

The nFD 24/2 is also good, it's at your price limit.

The OM 24/2.8 is a bit smaller, it too is sharp, and controls flare and coma well, in fact if you like to shoot at night, the OM's in general are great for this purpose, the 21/3.5 being my fave.

Minolta Rokkor 24/2.8, Yashica 24/2.8, Sigma super Wide 24/2.8 are all good.

28mm is another option, they are typically cheaper by half vs 24mm lenses.

Click to expand...

IbrahimO:

The Canon FD 28/2.8 is a nice lens for very little money and as Lightshow says, considerably cheaper than the 24. It might be a good choice to "get your feet wet" in legacy lenses and then decide on a 24. I have included a shot taken with the 28. As far as the other shots I posted -- and this one -- no doubt about it I do like vibrant colors, perhaps too much in many's opinion! ;-)

By the way, thanks to verybiglebowski for the excellent analysis and the great shots he included. Lee

Let me reinforce what has already been said, the FD SSC 24/2.8 is a fine lens. I tried several 24's and this was the best, including the FD 24/2.0 -- although I can speak from experience samples may vary. As some others have mentioned the FDn 35/2 is also an excellent lens, and coupled with a Lens Turbo (inexpensive) or a Speed Booster (more expensive but better corners) would give you 35/1.4 plus 50/2 without the SB. I've tried dozens of different legacy primes and have found the FD's outperform all of them, until you get into the $$$$ range. Always the caveat: samples vary.

Michael