Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Wideish, smallish constant aperture zooms
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:49 am    Post subject: Wideish, smallish constant aperture zooms Reply with quote

Zoom lens I already have:

* Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 (last version)

Zoom lenses I am interested in:

* Nikon AI-S 28-50/3.5

* Minolta MD 24-35/3.5

* SMC Pentax-M 24-35/3.5

What are your experiences with the last three? Does anyone have experience with two or more of these lenses, and can compare them?

The Minolta 35-70 is nice, as everyone says. I'm looking for something wider. (At the wide end, at least - going longer at the long end also doesn't hurt, but of course is in a lot of tension with size.) Being able to adapt it to Canon EF for use with my Lens Turbo is a factor, so Canon, Minolta, and Konica are somewhat disfavored for this reason.

So far I'd been looking at the Minolta and the Pentax (but haven't really seen any comparisons of them), and only recently became aware of the Nikon. People are saying very nice things about the Nikon...

Is there perhaps anything else I should be aware of?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The M(AF) 24-50/4(?) maybe? Though i was sort of underwhelmed. IIRC it was a bit bigger than the 35-70/4 but still manageable.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

24mm up zooms? I don't have any on your list, but I'd like the Minolta one day.

With constant aperture, I only have the excellent Vivitar Series 1. 24-48 / 3.5, which is not small or light, in fact it's short fat and heavy, but still an easy lens to use and very good indeed.

I recently bought a Soligor CD Macro 24-45 / 3.5-4.5 that I believe is made by SUN, and is very good. Not perfect, but a very decent lens that is way better than it's pedigree might suggest. It is small and light, but variable aperture though

I don't kmow if there's an older manual focus version of the Tamron Ashperical 24-70 / 3.4-5.6 that I have in Canon EOS mount? it's a great lens that I bought new many years ago and was a huge improvement on the Canon kit lens for my EOS600.

I've got a Sigma Aspherical 24-70 / 3.5-5.6 which is horrible, and it's in perfect condition to look at. It might have been dropped?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For less than 100 Euro you can have very decent,small and wider Canon EF USM standard zooms,namely the 28-105/3.5-4.5 and the 24-85/3.5-4.5.They are sharp across the FF frame at f8-11,(also very much usable wide open),regardless focal length and adaptable to Sony FF/APS-C mirrorless via AF adapter with aperture control.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The tamron adaptall SP 13A 24-48mm is nearly constant aperture; f3.5 to f3.8. Very good performance IMO when stopped down a bit, specifically at the 24mm end.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:11 pm    Post subject: Re: Wideish, smallish constant aperture zooms Reply with quote

glaebhoerl wrote:
Is there perhaps anything else I should be aware of?

The SMC Pentax A 24-50/4 is a very good w/a to normal constant-aperture zoom -

http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-A-24-50mm-F4-Zoom-Lens.html

It also comes in an AF version, the SMC Pentax F 24-50/4. Both lenses are great performers (and I do have both, but I have zero experience witj Minolta and Nikon lenses).

Another one of my favorite lenses comes to mind, the Vivitar Series 1 (Kiron) 24-48/3.8, but it's not exactly what I would call "smallish".


PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another excellent performing Minolta to consider is the MD 24-50mm f4. Having said that, it is larger and heavier than the MD 24-35 f3.5 you mention.


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Of the lenses mentioned I have the Minolta MD 24-35/3.5 and it's very good. There's not much zoom though. I think of it more as three primes packed into one (24/28/35).


PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Of the lenses mentioned I have the Minolta MD 24-35/3.5 and it's very good. There's not much zoom though. I think of it more as three primes packed into one (24/28/35).


I think you have to discern: "very good" depends on the use case. Adapted to APS-C cameras, yes: The MD 24-35 mm f/3.5 shows very high resolution and good overall contrast. There's some barrel distortion and quite soft corners @ 24 mm due to strong field curvature, though. On full frame, the (far) corners are heavily smudged @ 24 mm - I used it on an A7II and was a bit disappointed.

I'd say this is a very good lens for APS-C cams, but the effective FOV (36 - 53 mm) isn't that useful. On full frame, the zoom range is still short, but quite useful for me. But here, the image quality at the wide end suffers too much for my taste.


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, that's right, my opinion is based on using this on an APS-C body. But I don't agree with the statement that the FOV isn't useful. I think that on APS-C both 24mm (36mm equiv.) and 35mm (52.5mm equiv.) are in fact quite useful focal lengths, 24 being moderately wide and 35 close to normal. The 24-35 gives you both and everything in between, all at just a little bit slower aperture than a typical f/2.8 prime and with not much worse image quality. So in fact I'd say the 24-35 can be quite a decent general purpose walkaround lens on APS-C for days when you can't decide whether to take a 24 or a 35 prime.

On fullframe on the other hand it shouldn't be surprising that corner performance can't be that great and I think the same must be true for any non-modern wide zoom.


PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks everyone. The Tamron 24-48 and Pentax 24-50 are interesting too. Doesn't make deciding any easier... :)


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have a few of the lenses mentioned above, and i have quickly used / compared them on the 24MP FF A7 / A7II:

Canon nFD 20-35mm L
Minolta MD 4/24-50mm (MD-II)
Minolta MD 3.5/24-35mm (MD-III)
Tamron 3.5-3.8/24-48mm

The Minolta 24-50mm is OK at 24mm, but the later MD-III 2.8/24mm is clearly better. Towards 50mm it gets slightly worse.

The MD 3.5/24-35mm is surprisingly small, especially for its constant f3.5 aperture. It is a sophisticated construction with 10 lenses, and comes close to the famous Canon 20-35mm L.

The Tamron 24-48mm is another small lens and a good performer, too. Wide open it is quite soft, though with lots of detail. Stopped down it gets really good, as far as i remember it is sharper than the MD 24-50mm. However, it's distortion is quite hefty.

The nFD 20-35mm is my favourite vintage Wideangle zoom, since it goes down to 20mm. CAs are well controlled, and while it is a bit low-contrast wide open, it is very sharp at f5.6-f11. Distortion is a problem as well (about 5% at 20mm).

Stephan


PostPosted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks stevemark!