I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if you own an A7 or A7r and are looking

Started Dec 24, 2013 | Discussions thread
SQLGuy Veteran Member • Posts: 6,235
Re: I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but if you own an A7 or A7r and are looking

120 to 35 wrote:

SQLGuy wrote:

120 to 35 wrote:

Old Pirate wrote:

for a relatively inexpensive wide angle lens that gives pretty good results I will continue to suggest the Minolta MD 24 mm 2.8. I have both the 49mm and 55 mm filter receiver versions and I see little difference between the two albeit the 55 mm version is touted to be a bit better.

Thanks for sharing the information with a photo. The lens cost a lot when it was a current lens. Thanks to the E-mount we can choose among many good legacy lenses. Your photo shows the lens is not sharp in the corners but the center is fine.

You might want to check a few other reviews before reaching a conclusion: http://www.rokkorfiles.com/24mm.html

It's just what I see in the photo. Not a comment on reviews. The blades of grass in the bottom edge look sharper in the middle than the sides, especially the left side.

I understand. But my point is that you saw one photo with one example of one variant of this lens, and made the statement that "...the lens is not sharp in the corners..."

If you follow the review link I posted, you'll find an example showing fairly sharp corners from another example of the same lens. In that case it was shot on film, but are we reviewing the lens or the sensor?

-- hide signature --

A7 with kit lens and a number of legacy lenses (mostly Canon FD)

 SQLGuy's gear list:SQLGuy's gear list
Canon PowerShot G9 Nikon D200 Sony Alpha DSLR-A900 Sony Alpha NEX-7 NEX-5T +13 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
osv
osv
osv
osv
osv
osv
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow