FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony: step up your LENS game: A-Mount plea

Page  <1 234
Author
Trogdon View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 24 December 2012
Status: Offline
Posts: 542
Post Options Post Options   Quote Trogdon Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2017 at 01:00
Give me an autofocus 24 1.4!
 



Back to Top
Steve-S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Sonoma Co. CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 2506
Post Options Post Options   Quote Steve-S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2017 at 07:59
Originally posted by Trogdon Trogdon wrote:

Give me an autofocus 24 1.4!

Sigma has 20 & 24 at f/1.8. There's the ZA 24/2.
Do you REALLY need the 1.4?

It honestly doesn't seem all THAT innovative...
Alpha: a77+7000; SAL 18135, SAL1870, MinO50/1.7, MinO75-300, Tam90/2.8, Smyg85/1.4, others.
SR(MC/MD): XD-11, XK+AEhead Min50/1.7&1.4, Tam70-150/3.5, Viv35/2.8, Viv2xTC
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Online
Posts: 1566
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27 September 2017 at 09:56
SLR full-frame 24mm F1.4 lenses tested. That makes me appreciate my little 25mm F1.8 lenses. The A mount 24mm F2 looks like a better compromise than the 24mm F1.4s.

Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

24-35 is such a limited and slightly "Unappealing" range - I understand a 24-35mm zoom as good a primes is appealing (24/28/35) but it just seems a bit.... limited.

I found it interesting that Minolta had a 24-35 F3.5 in 1981 too. It looks like those are still fairly valuable.

Edited by QuietOC - 28 September 2017 at 00:44
A65 30M 35 50 16-50 16-80 16-105 18-135 18-250 55-200 55-300
A5000 LA-EA1 16 20 16-50 18-55
Maxxum 70: 20 24 28 50 85 100M 135 28-135 35-70 35-105 35-200 70-210 75-300 100-200 100-300D
Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3623
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2017 at 00:59
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

SLR full-frame 24mm F1.4 lenses tested. That makes me appreciate my little 25mm F1.8 lenses. The A mount 24mm F2 looks like a better compromise than the 24mm F1.4s.

Originally posted by artuk artuk wrote:

24-35 is such a limited and slightly "Unappealing" range - I understand a 24-35mm zoom as good a primes is appealing (24/28/35) but it just seems a bit.... limited.

I found it interesting that Minolta had a 24-35 F3.5 in 1981 too. It looks like those are still fairly valuable.


I guess in 1981, a 24-35mm focal length range was quite "esoteric" (in the same way the 24-50mm f4 in MAF mount a few years later was quite an esoteric lens too) - but since then we've all come expect 20-35mm and then 16/17/18-35mm and then Sigma gave us an excellent 12-24mm zoom. The benefit of a less ambitious focal length range is of course optical simplicity, and therefore the potential for faster apertures and better optical performance at an affordable price.

The Sigma 24-35mm is a large, heavy lens with a limited range of focal lengths and only a 1 stop advantage over more typical 24-70mm zooms. I think on balance I would prefer the greater range of focal lengths than the 1ev extra light gathering - but I understand for some the near-prime quality and f2 aperture could be appealing.
Art
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2243
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2017 at 10:18
I would have killed for a decent 24-50mm f4 lens in my earlier Miranda days, when I juggled several primes.
Except, thinking about it, I probably wouldn't have trusted one. I had access to a Tamron 35-70 F4 which was not bad, but I was still prejudiced against zooms then.
A900, A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
SnowFella View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 21 April 2013
Country: Australia
Location: Sydney
Status: Offline
Posts: 1770
Post Options Post Options   Quote SnowFella Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2017 at 11:14
Having done some testing with the Minolta 24-50 f/4 on APC-C it's not really much to write home about unless stopped down, massive vignette and soft corners even on an A77.
Still like it as a general walkabout lens though.
 



Back to Top
artuk View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 06 July 2007
Country: United Kingdom
Location: United Kingdom
Status: Offline
Posts: 3623
Post Options Post Options   Quote artuk Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2017 at 11:59
Originally posted by SnowFella SnowFella wrote:

Having done some testing with the Minolta 24-50 f/4 on APC-C it's not really much to write home about unless stopped down, massive vignette and soft corners even on an A77.
Still like it as a general walkabout lens though.


It is a lens that never had digital sensors in mind when it was designed.

Bench tests at the time that it was released (mind 1980s) showed a very good quality lens on film. It was particularly complimented for it's very good quality at longer focal lengths. In it's day, it was quite a complex design as the aperture diaphragm moves during zooming, to maintain the constant f4. At the time, wider zoom lenses were often very mediocre, and nobody made 24-70mm type lenses, so a 24-50mm covering wide to normal with good image quality was probably quite a revelation.

On film it was a very nice lens - good image quality, small and light. I have fond memories of using mine around Japan in about 1997.

If yours is soft on APS-C then I'm wondering if there is a problem with it - mine was ok to fairly good on digital full frame (24Mp).
Art
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 2243
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 October 2017 at 13:12
Originally posted by SnowFella SnowFella wrote:

Having done some testing with the Minolta 24-50 f/4 on APC-C it's not really much to write home about unless stopped down, massive vignette and soft corners even on an A77.
Still like it as a general walkabout lens though.


Bokeh isn't that good either. I'm surprised by the vignetting. Mine doesn't show that on APS-C, though on FF digital like the 24-105mm there is fairly heavy darkening of the corners (I wouldn't call it vignetting as such). I agree it is okay on film, though I found myself wishing mroe than once for a wider aperture. Centres are sharp but like a lot of film era lenses (though not all) it needs f8 for sharp corners.

The thing is, at f4 it is less sharp everywhere than the 50mm f1.8 dt is at full aperture, so on APS-C I find myself using the 18-55 most of the time with one of the DT primes (30, 35, or 50) when I need some aperture. So maybe I'm agreeing with you.

Edited by Miranda F - 12 October 2017 at 13:22
A900, A58, 5d, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.047 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Find us on Google+

Feel free to contact us if needed.