MF: sigma 24mm super-wide-II

Discussion in 'Sony/Minolta' started by jeroen_b|1, Sep 13, 2006.

  1. hello group, Is there someone out there who has experience with the Sigma 24mm f/24 super-wide-II lens?. I have let go a MD (rokkor?) Minolta 24mm f/2.8 auction earlier this week, the lens went for 70 euro's (not bad, right?). The sigma is about 35 euro, with a "ding" in the front ring. I don't have real interest in wide angle for my MF system (or the long end, I stick between 35 and 135mm), but maybe the Sigma is a nice buy? bye, jeroen p.s: I have mixed feelings about my MD rokkor 35mm f/2.8. I have the feeling my Olympus P&S Mju-II (35mm f/2.8) is a lot better. Maybe a bad sample (lemon...?)
     
  2. that should be 24mm f/2.8!
     
  3. Hi Jeroen, I personally would not bother with the sigma 24mm super-wide 2. I can have no opinion on this lens as i have not read anything on it, seen the results or used it...;-) However, I believe the minolta version is about as good as it gets for a 24mm prime lens [Is the SR-mount version better than the AF-mount version?]. So i see no need to step down to the level of the sigma lens [probably not bad but still a step down]. Also, the price isnt great value. You mention you dont do wide angle stuff so much... if you have this minolta lens you definately will. Also, if you dont go so wide at the moment there is no need to buy a lens that you dont no much about. Ive used a 24mm lens on my dads nikon and i find its great to use [when you have the perfect picture] as you can include so much forground. Just incase you havent seen already www.rokkorfiles.com has a great review of the minolta lens. Let me know what you think or what you decide to do in the end. Richard
     
  4. I should tell you I have a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 prime for AF, and the minolta 24-50mm f/4. So, I do wide sometimes, but not with MF. Indeed, no clue at all about the Sigma on the web! And an interesting question, is the MF 24mm better than the AF one?. Maybe on film you will not see it anyway, because in the printing stage in a (cheap?)lab some resolution is lost anyway?
     
  5. Interesting comment. I suppose you will only see the quality when you print quite big and when you do that you do really need to find a good lab I suppose. Do you have any preference, in terms of quality, over the 24-50 [at the wide end] and the 24 prime lens? Im only guessing but the MF version could quite possibly be sharper as it was one of the lenses made in the leitz collaboration. If the the AF version is identical i dont know, someone else will probably know. I for one would like to know as i dont have a 24mm lens myself and own both MF and AF bodies.
     
  6. Well, I own the Sigma Super-Wide II 24/2.8 so I guess I can add something. It's a well-built lens which is optically superb. I suspect, though I have never made side-by-side comparisons, that the Rokkor 24mm is slightly better, but not sufficiently to matter in practice. I think you'd be happy with it. The price is good, too.
    One slight drawback for Minolta system users is that it takes a 52mm filter.
     
  7. You let go a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 for $70? Bad move - these are worth $140 plus and are a step above all of the 35mms for the Minolta system.
     
  8. I have one, it is very good, sharp, good contrast and no significant illumination fall-off, or other bad habits. Build quality is good. I don't use mine much because the colour rendition is subtly different to my Nikkors. I wouldn't personally buy a lens with any form of physical damage - clean examples are quite cheap nowadays and good value for money. Photodo rating on this lens is 4.2 - as good as they get (in Photodo's mtf rating system). The Minolta MD-W Rokkor-X 24mm f2.8 has CRC (close range correction) which should perform better than the Sigma's conventional design for 'macro' work. If I was looking for a Minolta-fit 24 I'd choose the Rokkor over any independent. Your MD 35 should be a decent lens - but many manufacturers produced lemons from time to time ... AC
     
  9. "... You let go a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 for $70...?"
    Antony, he said 70 euros. I think they're, like... metric dollars. ;-)
     
  10. Well, I did't bid on the lens (and I was at work when auction closed) so it went for 70 euro's. There was one bidder only who took it. I guess if I had start bidding, the price would be higher. The Sigma, it has a ding, and the Minolta is a better performer. I will think about it. Are there many Minolta 24mm's out there?
     
  11. The Rokkor is pretty scarce here in the UK - at least on dealers' shelves. More so the 20mm Rokkor, which I believe is an 'Iyosobi' ("if you see one buy it") lens. I'd do that even tho' I don't own a Minolta camera - cameras are easier to find. The one possible dealer worth checking in the UK is London Camera Exchange (lcegroup. co. uk) - they have many branches over Britain and a good stock turnover (they may not be keen on overseas sales tho'). AC
     
  12. I own the MC 24mm f2.4 Rokkor - beautiful plumage, and useful for a wide range of applications. I use it most for indoor sports shots, see atached.
    00I2dJ-32376284.jpg
     
  13. And another... BTW - Rodinal on pushed HP5 gives a pleasant, somewhat vintage feel to the image.
    00I2dK-32376384.jpg
     
  14. Yes ive never seen them in any shops in the UK and Ive only seen a few on ebay, the last one i noticed went for 48 GBP but was an MC version [nothing significant in performance change though i dont think]. Anyone know about the differences between the SR mount version and the AF mount version?
     
  15. Thanks for the pics. Always nice to see people's different approaches to photography. To answer a question some messages back: I like my 24mm prime better than the 24-50 zoom. The prime gives a more clean/crisp result. The 24-50 add's a tiny bit of a vintage look to the pics (maybe the coating or because of extra lenses inside?).
     
  16. Well, no wide angle at the moment. Yesterday I have bought a MD 100mm macro f/4 for 100 euro's , with the 1:1 tube. The seller told me the lens is mint, brand new, unused. Nice one together with my MD 50mm f/3.5 macro. Now for Minolta I am out of budget!!
     
  17. Jeroen, I got one a while ago but havent pushed its quality at all yet. Im currently in the process of testing its performance with some fuji reala but it would also be interesting to know how you find the lens performs in terms of sharpness with the big enlargments.
     
  18. Minolta 100mm macro f/4 --> when I have it I will test it with the x-500, some shots in and around the house, with a fuji 100 iso film, tripod and self timer. I will let you know. I am going to test it against my MD 50mm macro and my AF Cosina 100mm macro on the 800SI (maybe swap the roll of film half way, in the dark). I am curious about the quality. Rokkorfiles has tested the MD f/4 lens, it seems the lens is allright.
     

Share This Page