Sigma 24mm Super Wide II F2.8 A-mount lens reviews
 RedDrake#8457 date: Dec-28-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 120 EUR |
| positive: | + relatively sharp from F2.8 + no noticeable distortion on APS-C + nice 1:4 macro feature + cheap |
| negative: | - Quirky IQ - AF is loud - hood can't be reversed for storage |
| comment: | This was my first lens that I have bought for my KM5D. It's perfect as a daylight walkaround lens on an APS-C body. (F2.8 isn't really enough for nighttime) I was lucky and got a brand new version from an online auction - it was never even taken from the box. On the 5D it's as good as it gets. The AF is loud and clunky but it gets the job done and relatively fast too, and always accurate. The 1:4 macro is just a bonus, but you need to get very close. Pretty much the same for usage on A700. However sometimes it loses it's cool and produces images that look like they were taken with ISO3200. Sharpness is there but it's like it loses all resolution or something and produces some ultra grain. I don't really know. The hood is flimsy and can't be stored on the lens in reverse. I rather avoid using it at all. Haven't really gotten any flare so far so I can't judge it. |
; 10MP| mydarkstars#8337 date: Dec-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 25 GBP |
| positive: | Size, price, sharpness |
| negative: | Horrendous AF noise! Paint peels off but that doesn't actually matter. |
| comment: | Wow, a price vs performance comparison of this lens against much more expensive primes - this Sigma must be the winner. Amazingly sharp. I had disassembled the lens to grease the gears but didn't really stop the loud AF grinding sound, I also lost one of the screws inside the body (Will try again soon)! |
| jlbigornia#8331 date: Dec-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 5 overall: 5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 24 2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | sharp! sharp! sharp! macro! |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | super bargain sharp contrast good wide prime! |
| REVENGE#8263 date: Nov-17-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 58 USD |
| positive: | Cheap Sturdy Compact Light Sharp |
| negative: | Flare Compatibility Distortion Bokeh AF Drive |
| comment: | This has to be one of the top 10 overall best budget prime lenses available to the Alpha mount. In used condition, these guys are dirt cheap, and you can expect them to last you a lifetime. My copy is very beat up, the rubber focus ring grip has been stripped away, there are a good number of dents and scrapes all around the lens and filter ring, and the distance scale is cracked. However, the lens continued to perform reliably in all weather conditions, ranging from the high desert heat to a thunderstorm. Image quality is surprisingly good, with sharp centers wide open and great full frame sharpness by f5.6. Chromatic aberration and veiling haze are noticeable wide open, but quickly goes away past f4. Close focus performance is very good as well. Flare can be severe in challenging lighting conditions, but I can't comment on the effectiveness of the stock hood as I don't possess it. Bokeh performance leaves something to be desired, unless you prefer the look from a hexagonal aperture (which I do, under certain circumstances). Moderate barrel distortion is not complex in nature, so you can do software correction relatively easily. Overall, a solid choice for a beginner / budget minded shooter trying to assemble a starting outfit. In the long run, the lens isn't wide enough or fast enough for me to justify keeping on APS-C, although it has been my primary lens for as long as I've had it. Note the AF drive screw compatibility issues: it's an easy fix if you follow the steps described in the related forum post. That said, you might end up with noisy AF post mod, as in my case. |
| Photovisionz#8228 date: Nov-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 3 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 24-50 Sigma 12-24 Minolta 24mm f2.8 |
| price paid: | 190 NZD |
| positive: | Sharp great colours great contrast |
| negative: | CA on full frame Corner softness on full frame barrel distortion |
| comment: | This lens performs well on an APS-C sensor but falls short on full frame. Centre sharpness is first class but is markedly corner soft on FF until well stopped down. On FF there was marked CA in the corners. Stopping down helped a little. As I am now FF I have sold this lens. I would not recommend this lens for full frame owners. barrel distortion is dissappointing for a prime |
| Tijn#7718 date: Jul-23-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | 18-70 (kit) 35-105 minolta 50 1.7 minolta 70-300 tamron |
| price paid: | 50 Euro |
| positive: | sharp small build quality (on the outside) good colors macro |
| negative: | noisy and quite slow af durability of the mechanics |
| comment: | I've got this lens for a week now and i am very happy with it. indoor it delivers very sharp pictures with nice colors. the macro mode is very good (way better than the tamron 70-300) with razor sharp details. my copy isn't free from problems however, occasionally it fails to recognize the apperture which even resulted in a jammed camera. most of the times however you just refocus a couple of times and the apperture reappears again. in short very good lens that is most likely going to live on my a200 for the near future |
| Seagull#7570 date: Jun-14-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF 50 f1.7 Minolta AF 50 f1.7 Tokina AT-X 17mm Beercan 70-210 f4 Minolta 35-105 f3.5/4.5 Minolta 35-70 f4 Sony 18-79 f3.5/5.6 kitlens |
| price paid: | 42 GBP |
| positive: | Very sharp Minimum focus distance Macro Very small Build |
| negative: | Hit or miss AF at some distances Rubber coating Flare |
| comment: | This is the lens I have most debated over selling or replacing due to it initially causing me a load of grief and frustration. I knew from the picture on eBay that it had a scrape to the metal focus ring so I was not surprised to find the infinity point was off slightly and the front section had a little bit of play in it. As many other reviewers have said, the AF sounded like a washing machine with a bucket of bolts inside and it also appeared to be back focusing (but not all the time and only on subject up to about 1 metre distance). It was obvious though that it was also extremely sharp and with great colours - so I stripped it down to see what I could do! A thorough clean and some carefully and sparingly applied grease cured both the play in the front section and gave smooth, quiet and silky focusing, both manual and AF and with a quality precision engineered feel to it. Not quite on a par with a Minolta prime but better than say the beercan or other older minolta zooms. The infinity stop was another matter as this is set by 3 screws which you can only get at as the very last part of the lens to come apart. I eventually worked out how to set it accurately by which time I could strip and rebuild it in about 6 minutes. Build quality by the way (apart from the external rubber coating)is very good. It is now probably my sharpest lens and one I use more than most. It has an unusually close minimum focusing distance for a wide prime and is superb for close ups, flowers, insects etc. Colours are excellent and on a par with my best Minoltas. It had the worst flare of all my lenses until I bought an original hood (looks good but doesn't improve things much)and a decent filter, now it's just a case of being careful and watching for flare in the viewfinder. The back focus issue is a bit odd. Having got it set up properly it now rarely back focuses and generally only in poorer light. Sometimes it does, and sometimes it doesn't. I emailed James Lao about rechipping it and in this case he couldn't guarantee a re-chip would improve the issue. It hits infinity not much beyond 2m anyway so for general street shots etc its not an issue. The main time it rears its head is lowish light, wide open and close focusing. It may just be me missing the spot focus point and I will post an update when I've tested it specifically for this in better light. All in all, now I've got it working almost perfectly, it's a keeper; very versatile, wickedly sharp with great colours - and cheap. |
| awa54#7509 date: May-29-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.9 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Tokina 19-35 KM 35-70 f4 KM 50 f1.7 Min AF 24 f2.8 RS Min AF 24-50mm f4 Min AF 24-85mm f3.5-4.5 |
| price paid: | $75 USD (used) |
| positive: | sharp great color huge DOF fast focus superb boke |
| negative: | flare can cause drastic contrast reduction, hazing and colored discs (sometimes all at once) "perfect hood" is perfectly useless |
| comment: | I have owned the MD mount version of this lens for almost 25 years, so the "super-wide II"s performance was no surprise. It has excellent sharpness, very good color (slightly green compared to Minolta color standard) and there is an extra dimensionality to images made with this lens...somehow its rendering is more vibrant than other 24mm lenses, not so much more saturated, sharp or contrasty...but definitely possessed of an extra "something". By the way, this lens is not a fully rectilinear design like some of the newer Sigma uw lenses, expect noticeable barrel distortion even on APS-C cameras If you can put up with slight outer edge c/a (more noticeable in FF), sharpness that isn't *quite* state of the art and a tendency to flare a bit more easily than some other 24mms then get one of these! There are some hood solutions that work for this lens, these are the ones I have tried with success: I found that a Konica 24mm clamp on black aluminum box hood works well when used with a 52mm to 55mm step up ring, it almost completely solves the flare issues that plague the Super Wide II, except of course when you are shooting right into a hot light source. These tend to go for +/- $20 on Ebay. Hood option #2, Neweer makes a 52mm reversible petal hood which doesn't cause vignetting with this lens, as long as you use a slim filter. ($7 off Ebay) ** Update; I now own a newer Quantaray/TECH 10 branded example of this lens, it exceeds the older version in almost every way, sharper, better flare control, less CA and better fit-n-finish, the overly green color rendition also gets closer to neutral, however the so-so linear distortion remains unchanged. If all of the later production lenses are like this, then it's well worth seeking one out and paying a little extra for it. *** Updated after direct comparison of the Quantaray branded Sigma to Minolta AF 24mm F2.8 RS: In my comparison shots, the Minolta has less linear distortion, slightly less C/A and shows less "colored blob" flare than the Sigma as well as having noticeably better edge and corner sharpness, but the Sigma may have a slight advantage in center sharpness at wider apertures and also seems to have a little less veiling when shot directly in to the sun (despite showing larger colored disc artifacts), the Sigma also has smoother bokeh and highlights near the edge of the frame stay round or oval, where the Minolta sometimes produces somewhat triangular shapes (coma?). If I had to pick just one I would probably go with the Sigma, despite the kluge hood and rattly AF noises. **** As far as the zooms go, the 24-50s IQ and image feel as well as distortion are pretty close to the Sigma, though it has a longer MFD and even softer corers. I like the look of images made with the Sigma over ones from the 24-85, the Sigma prime seems to have better center sharpness, though the 24-85 may have sharper corners. |
| atmaan#7458 date: May-21-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28 2.0 prime Sony 30 macro Sony 24-105 Sony 18-70 Sony 18-55 |
| price paid: | $ 119 used |
| positive: | Ultra sharp. nice Bokeh for a wide angle. Light and sturdy |
| negative: | Useless hood. U wont miss it. |
| comment: | Incredible images for a cheaper prime. I wish I had a Minolta 24 to compare. I just accquired the Sony 30 macro. This lens creates better images, for sure. Sharpness, distortion, colors are all better. If the Minolta 28mm could focus as close...... Great buy if you can get for under $ 150 |
| TheGoOse#7051 date: Mar-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 10-20 @20mm Tamron 18-250 @24mm Minolta 50mm f1.4 @wide-open Pentacon 135mm f2.8 @wide-open |
| price paid: | 85 USD (used, mint) |
| positive: | Size and weight Bokeh Close focus Price |
| negative: | None by its price |
| comment: | I had one the Sigma version for that lens, and sold it when I bought the Minolta 50mm f1.4 for low-light and bokeh photography. After using it for I while, I realised that I liked Sigma wide-angle-close-focus wide open shots better than any of my other lenses, as none of them are capable of focusing so close, so I've bought it again in that forum (Quantaray version). I can't think of a better prime for the price. |
| webrunner#7041 date: Mar-9-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 3 flare control: 3 overall: 3.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 80 eur |
| positive: | Sharp wide open Nice colors Very light Very small Cheap |
| negative: | Flare distortion |
| comment: | This lens is great for all indoor shooting and landscape. |
| Cougar66#7032 date: Mar-8-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.8 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sony 28mm f2.8 Minolta 28mm F2.8 Minolta 24mm f2.8 Minolta 24-50mm f4 mini beercan Carl Zeiss Jena 35mm f2.4 |
| price paid: | 100 USD |
| positive: | Sharp 3D lucency Colours Contrast Build Lack of Ca |
| negative: | Mild barrel distortion |
| comment: | I have the Quantaray version. This lens has blown me away. It is sharp corner to corner wide open and gets sharper stopped down. There is some blue CA wide open that dissapears when stopped down a little. Otherwise CA is very hard to detect. The colours a great. More than anything else this lens renders a lucency and detail that I would normally associate with top end Leica and Carl Zeiss lenses. It is an ideal landscape tool. At 100 dollars its the best scoop in my photographic career. |
| JeremyT#6725 date: Jan-11-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (non-macro) |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Sharp - Macro - Cheap - Small |
| negative: | - Flare - Only 1:4 |
| comment: | It's pretty darn sharp at f/2.8. No need to stop down. AF on nearby objects is slow since it's a macro. On the other hand, it hits infinity at about 4 meters, so if you do most of your shooting beyond there the AF hardly needs to do anything. I have trouble with flare since my version didn't come with a hood. If I used it more I'd probably try to find one. I suspect the Sony 30mm macro is a better option for general use, since it's closer to 'normal' and its macro is 1:1. However, the slightly wider field of view of this lens can make for some pretty striking 1:4 macro images with a fairly wide field of view. A prime of this focal length is nice to have for APS-C; not really wide, but on the wide side of standard. Since I have the Sigma 18-50mm this lens is somewhat redundant as a general purpose lens, but at its going rate I can afford to keep it just for its macro capability. |
| lowcost4dslr#6669 date: Jan-2-2010 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | KM 18-70 Tamron 17-50 2.8 M 35-105 old 3.5 -4.5 M 28-105 3.5 -4.5 M 50 1.7 |
| price paid: | 50€ |
| positive: | Sharpness Fast AF speed well built low price |
| negative: | noisy AF |
| comment: | This lens was a great companion of my D5D for all indoor shooting and landscape. It was a great complement to the excellent Minolta 35-105 old. With this pair or lenses, I stoped to use the poor kit lens (18-70) The AF speed is fast even on the D5D in low light. This lens is under rated. I sold It (with the Minolta 50 1.7) when I purchased the tamron 17-50 2.8. For me, such a good zoom is a good replacement for all the prime lenses in the same range. |
| snajper#6614 date: Dec-21-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 149 |
| positive: | Wide 24mm Good macro capabilities not bad wide open- around F5.6 excellent Small and light Good build quality |
| negative: | Flare Barrel coating peels off |
| comment: | Nice 24mm. It is way better than minolta 28mm. If you can get it cheap do so. |
| maxfarphoto#6427 date: Nov-21-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | 80 EUR (second hand) |
| positive: | Cheap Sharp Close min. focus |
| negative: | Flare (sometimes) |
| comment: | This is the lens for street photography with APS-C cameras: light, small, with a minimum focus distance really good. On Full frame it is even better |
| nitrosyl#6326 date: Nov-5-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 3.5 color: 4 build: 3 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 3.5 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - Minolta 24mm f/2.8 RS |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - cheap - good center sharpness - 1:4 "macro" - ok build quality |
| negative: | - flare! |
| comment: | A cheap alternative to the Minolta 24mm f/2.8 (Original & RS) if you're on a budget. IMO the Minolta is a little better in almost every aspect but not by a very large margin. Minolta should be a no-brainer if you can pay a little more, but the Sigma is certainly worth considering especially if you value its pseudo-macro (1:4 magnification) capability. |
| stan_pustylnik#5980 date: Sep-4-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 20mm f/1.8, Minolta 28mm f/2.8, Minolta 50mm f/1.7 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | One of my "very favorite lenses". It's sharp, compact; slightly slow focus, but very reliable; very well built, inexpensive, produces beautiful color on my 7D |
| negative: | Flare distortion |
| comment: | If you find this inexpensive compact wide prime - grab it. |
| AllAboutAlpha#5783 date: Jul-29-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | missing |
| price paid: | nothing |
| positive: | quick AF, Colours |
| negative: | light build quality |
| comment: | Fine lense for very small money, build quality could be better, sunhood could break quick, or got lost |
| PeterB#5614 date: Jul-1-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.1 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 28 1.8 Sigma 10-20 |
| price paid: | 50 USD |
| positive: | Sharp pretty fast Marco feature |
| negative: | Old Sigmas may need work |
| comment: | Compared to other reviews my copy's AF is pretty quiet and very fast. This seemed to be bad Ebay purchase. The lens was back focusing or going all over the place. The viefinder display was flickering to the point that I was worried that it will damage the camera. I put it on the shelf to collect dust. Then I read an article about fixing a Sigma 400 (I have one of these too) here on Dyxum. The writer replaced the contact/chip with one from James Lao (search for member). I got a chip from James and installed it in about 5 minutes. Now the lens works as it should. The marco (1:4) is great for closup work that requires some depth. I got it for that purpose and I'm very happy with it. BTW changing the chip only requires to remove the 2 screws holding the contact strip on the back of the lens, cutting the flat cable and replacing it with the Lao contact strip. |
| Dynaton-DK#5580 date: Jun-22-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.2 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta AF28, Minolta AF24-50, Minolta AF24-85, Minolta 24-105D |
| price paid: | 45 (Used) |
| positive: | Sharp Compact Nice colors Works with Autofocus |
| negative: | Autofocus can be a little slow in low contrast situations |
| comment: | My copy is the Quantaray version that just is a re-branded Sigma. I bought this lens based on the describtion from the seller and (as it turned out) corrrectly guessed that it was the Quantaray-branded Sigma AF24 Ultra Wide II. The advantage of the Quantaray is that people "batter" these lenses in reviews claiming that they are made "from scrapped parts" and other ridicolous claims, thus they come pretty cheaply and are in fact a scoop to buy. "Battering" this lens is totally unfair - the finish is in fact better than the Sigma-branded lens and the Autofocus works on new cameras (which is not the case for older Sigma's). The lens has a nice performance - as sharp as expected and has very nice colors (suiting my personal preference for more saturated colors). Another advantage is that the lens is tiny - it is really cute. Everyone will be able to find space to carry this lens. My copy does not make any grinding sounds when focussing - it is just as silent/loud as any other Sigma lens. The only disadvantage is that the autofocus can be a little slow if contrast in the focus area is low - in such cases the lens hunts in small incremental steps trying to find the focus. However not any worse than other older lenses. So if you can find a Quantaray version, I think that you'll be happy with it as it is compact, sharp and produces nice colors at a bargain price. |
| Rusty#5500 date: Jun-4-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I used to own this lens |
| compared to: | - MinO 50/1.7 - Tamron 17-50/2.8 |
| price paid: | missing |
| positive: | - Compact - Sharp - Affrodable (pretty cheap compared to Minolta glass) - Solid Metal Build - short MFD |
| negative: | - Noisy AF - sluggish AF - FLARE ! but I have no hood |
| comment: | mine is a Quantaray Variant. Nice wide lens on FF/Film, and makes a nice close-to-'standard-wide' lens on APS-C. Short MFD is fun for flower macros and such. AF is smooth but grindy-noisy. if that makes any sense. Didn't do extensive comparison tests, but it's acceptably sharp wide-open, gets better stopped-down |
| salvageland#5495 date: Jun-2-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | its my only prime but i have -18-70 kit -tamron 28-200 XR -minolta 28-85 macro -minolta 70-210 beercan |
| price paid: | $55 shipped |
| positive: | -very compact -sharp at wide open...even sharper at f5.6!!! -very short focus distance! |
| negative: | -noisy autofocus, but i opened it up and put some grease on the gears and its fine now -flare is a bit of a problem, but just steer clear from the sun and you'll be fine |
| comment: | very good lens...well worth the price up to $120...takes beautiful macro and portraits on APS-C cameras. |
| benedetti#5242 date: Apr-15-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 4 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | minolta 17-35 minolta 24-105 sygma 28 1.8 EX |
| price paid: | 75€ used-mint |
| positive: | small, light and well built. |
| negative: | none for the price. |
| comment: | I have a perfectly smooth and silent AF on my A700, seems I am the only one ! Not surprisingly sharper than the two zooms but I just bought a Minolta 24 2.8 and will come back to this post. The hood doen't bother me and is quite usefull to protect the front element. Over all I am very pleased with it. |
| Raimios#5057 date: Mar-20-2009 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 4 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Sigma 20-40/2.8 |
| price paid: | can't remember |
| positive: | Small, sharp, focuses pretty close. |
| negative: | Shade & cap is just a joke |
| comment: | Very light and small wide lens, good to acceptable sharpness. |
| sjinouck#4372 date: Nov-13-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 3 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | sony 18-70 |
| price paid: | 75 euro (used) |
| positive: | nice bokeh, sharp, nice colours, metal build |
| negative: | very noisy AF, very small focus ring...At low apertures, it starts to deliver soft images |
| comment: | Nice lens, sharp at F8 or higher, nice bokeh, focus is reasonably fast.I'm very, very happy with it!!! |
| tomiZG#4226 date: Oct-12-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.4 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 28-100 d Minolta 35-80 Minolta 70-210 f4 Cosina 19-35 Sigma 28-80 Sigma 70-210 Sigma 400 5,6 |
| price paid: | 50 € |
| positive: | 2,8 small and light colors quite sharp build quality - metal |
| negative: | missing |
| comment: | To be honest, haven't put it on for too many times, but its size will definitely make it a good "keep-it-in-the-pocket-while-traveling" lens. It's small and light, and quite light-intense. Sharpness is good at almost all apertures. Colors are really nice, sharpness is absolutely fine. |
| bharnois#4171 date: Oct-1-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 5 flare control: 3 overall: 4.6 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Min 24/105. Min 50-1.7 Min 17-70 DT |
| price paid: | $80(US) BNIB |
| positive: | Small and compact. Pretty Fast. Pretty Cheap Nice and Sharp. Good colors. Usable wide open and at about any aperture. |
| negative: | Filters can cause some vignetting. Element not protected at all without a hood. Can sound wonky when focusing. She can flare. |
| comment: | Got mine off the bargain shelf at the local Ritz (Quantaray branded). A nice sharp lens at about any aperture. This lens is totally usable wide open! A total bargain for the price. Much sharper than the 24-105 at 24 as well as the 17-70. Better wide open than the 50-1.7 as well but they are pretty well matched at 2.8. A very solid build with what seems to be an all metal body. The forward element is really right out there in front and since I don't have a hood for it I ended up slapping a filter on for protection. Feels good on the 5D, A700 and 7000i. Edit: also works quite nicely on the A900. I have since obtained the Sigma hood which is a pain as you cannot put a lens cap on with the hood in place. |
| Zu Zu Man#4167 date: Sep-30-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 4 distortion: 4 flare control: 4 overall: 4.3 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | Minolta 50 F1.4 Minolta 50 F2.8 macro |
| price paid: | 100 CHF (used) |
| positive: | Good Cheap Small |
| negative: | noisy autofocus |
| comment: | I like it more on APS-C digital camera then on FF analog one. The sound of the autofocus varies between examples, nevertheless I haven't seen one (heard one) that is acceptable. I've used much better lenses, but for the price of the good multi-coated filter you simple can not buy anything better - in fact you should dig very dip into your pocket to buy something noticeably better. Its one of my favourite lenses, and it has its own place in my backpack. |
| hassenpheffer#3944 date: Aug-10-2008 | |
|---|---|
sharpness: 4.5 color: 5 build: 5 distortion: 4 flare control: 5 overall: 4.7 | tested on:
|
| ownership: | I own this lens |
| compared to: | -Zuiko 50mm F3.5 |
| price paid: | 75 USD |
| positive: | -small and light -cheap on Ebay -useable macro -quite sharp |
| negative: | -noisey AF |
| comment: | I bought this lens primarily to use as a landscape prime, which is does quite nicely. The bonus is that it also has a close minimum focusiing distance, so it makes a fairly decent macro as well; although one wouldn't think of a 24mm F.F. lens as being a good candidate for macfro capability. When I first used it, I thought the AF function was about to break within the lens as it seemed quite noisey and clunky, but it seems that it's just that way with this lens. AF isn't very fast, since it is also designed as a macro lens, o it tkes a fir bit of turning for focus adjustment. I've been using it lately for wildflower shots with my a-350 and it does a great job there. The sharpness is pretty good on macro, but I think it does better with landscapes. with it's tiny size and weight, it's easy to take this lens with my on my backpacking trips. |
rating summary
- total reviews: 73
- sharpness: 4.51
- color: 4.36
- build: 4.29
- distortion: 4.05
- flare control: 3.70
- overall: 4.18
to add your review
you need to login
you need to login