View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 9:49 am Post subject: Wideish, smallish constant aperture zooms |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
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? _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
buerokratiehasser
Joined: 12 Jun 2011 Posts: 470
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 10:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
buerokratiehasser wrote:
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. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Lloydy
Joined: 02 Sep 2009 Posts: 7785 Location: Ironbridge. UK.
Expire: 2022-01-01
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 11:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lloydy wrote:
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? _________________ LENSES & CAMERAS FOR SALE.....
I have loads of stuff that I have to get rid of, if you see me commenting about something I have got and you want one, ask me.
My Flickr https://www.flickr.com/photos/mudplugga/
My ipernity -
http://www.ipernity.com/home/294337 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shapencolour
Joined: 03 Oct 2013 Posts: 270
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shapencolour wrote:
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. _________________ shapencolour |
|
Back to top |
|
|
marcusBMG
Joined: 07 Dec 2012 Posts: 1304 Location: Conwy N Wales
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
marcusBMG wrote:
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. _________________ pentax ME super (retired)
Pentax K3-ii; pentax K-S2; Samsung NX 20; Lumix G1 + adapters;
Adaptall collection (proliferating!) inc 200-500mm 31A, 300mm f2.8, 400mm f4.
Primes: takumar 55mm; smc 28mm, 50mm; kino/komine 28mm f2's, helios 58mm, Tamron Nestar 400mm, novoflex 400mm, Vivitar 135mm close focus, 105mm macro; Jupiter 11A; CZJ 135mm.
A classic zoom or two: VS1 (komine), Kiron Zoomlock... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fwcetus
Joined: 12 Jun 2015 Posts: 303 Location: New England
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:11 pm Post subject: Re: Wideish, smallish constant aperture zooms |
|
|
fwcetus wrote:
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". _________________ Fred
If you saw a fellow drowning, and you could either save him or photograph the event . . . What lens would you use ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
DigiChromeEd
Joined: 29 Dec 2009 Posts: 3462 Location: Northern Ireland
|
Posted: Tue Jan 03, 2017 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
DigiChromeEd wrote:
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. _________________ "I've got a Nikon camera, I like to take a photograph" - Paul Simon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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). _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VLR
Joined: 05 Mar 2015 Posts: 86
|
Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
VLR wrote:
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. _________________ http://vintagelensreviews.com/
Reviews of vintage Minolta SR mount lenses and more |
|
Back to top |
|
|
miran
Joined: 01 Aug 2012 Posts: 1364 Location: Slovenia
|
Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
miran wrote:
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. _________________ my flickr stream |
|
Back to top |
|
|
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
Thanks everyone. The Tamron 24-48 and Pentax 24-50 are interesting too. Doesn't make deciding any easier... :) _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
stevemark
Joined: 29 Apr 2011 Posts: 3754 Location: Switzerland
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
stevemark wrote:
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 _________________ www.artaphot.ch |
|
Back to top |
|
|
glaebhoerl
Joined: 03 May 2014 Posts: 100 Location: Hungary
|
Posted: Wed Jan 11, 2017 4:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
glaebhoerl wrote:
Thanks stevemark! _________________ use: 40/1.4 Zuiko; 50/1.4 Takumar; 85/2 Rokkor; 105/2.5 Nikkor; 200/5 Zuiko.
have: Lens Turbo II; 20/2.8 Flektogon; "25/1.4 APS-C"; 28/2.8 Industar; 35/1.8 Rokkor; 35-70/3.5 Rokkor; 50/1.4 Prakticar; 50/1.7 Zenitar-M; 50/1.8 Pancolar; 50/2 Jupiter; 55/2.8 Industar; 57/1.4 Hexanon; 58/1.8 RE.Auto-Topcor; 58/2 Helios; 100/2.8 Zuiko; 135/2.8 Pentacon, Yashica ML; 135/3.5 Pentax-M, Rokkor, Fujinon; 180/5.6 Sigma; 200/5.6 Tele-Takumar.
want: 12/2 Samyang; 20/4 Pentax-M; 24/2.8 Zuiko; 28/3.5 Pentax; 35/2.4 Prakticar; 35/3.5 Takumar; 50/1.5 Sonnar; 58/2 Small Biotar; 75/1.8 Fujinon-TV; 100/3.5 Canon (LTM); 135/2.5 Takumar; 135/3.5 Prakticar.
in my dreams: 80/1.8 Prakticar; 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit-M; 180/4 APO-Lanthar; 250/5.6 Rokkor.
reviews flickr |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|