Minolta 20mm vs 24mm

[boulderjoe]

Hello, After a long hiatus I am breaking out my maxxum 7000 again. I

basically only shoot landscapes (in the mountains). I have 28-85

minolta zoom, but it's just not wide enough for some shots.

 

So if you were going to buy a lens for shooting mtn lakes, ranges,

etc. Does the 20mm warrant the extra money?

 

Or should I be looking at a zoom?

 

Well that's a lot of questions. Anyone one selling any of these

lenses?

 

Thanks,

-Joe

[rokkor fan]

20mm strikes me as much too wide for landscapes except in portrait orientation with an interesting foreground feature. Even at 24mm it starts to feel that way - it just diminishes the scene you are trying to show. I normally will shoot 35mm for landscapes, or 24mm in portrait orientation. If you need to go wider, get the 24mm. It is cheaper and will get you started on wide angles nicely - if you like it then consider the 20mm later.<div></div>

[bacsa]

If you really never used wider stuff, you could consider a cheap, second-hand zoom in the 20-35 range or even shorter, 17-something, that you can try out in real cases. Later, when you know which your preferred focal length is, say, you notice that you use it mostly at 24mm, you can sell the zoom for the same money that you bought it for, or even more if you are lucky, and buy a prime for its quality, speed and size merits.

<br>I am saying this because that's what I would do NOW...however, i didn't do it; i bought a second-hand tokina at-x 17mm(!) for a more than reasonable price, and that lens is, believe me, a one-eyed monster... I had lots of trouble with it until i produced the first decent photo. It's just too big of a jump from the 28mm i had before...

<br>Tried to change it to a 20 or 24mm several times, but I didn't succeed. They were all too expensive. Now, after ~8 months, he's my good friend, and I don't want to get rid of him anymore:) but i'm still looking for a 24mm(to have them both), i just know i would use it much more often.

<p>

For a comparison between a 50mm and a 17mm view, see <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1541122">this(50mm)</a> and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1541129">this(17mm)</a> pictures in my portfoolio. (Same scene, same time, same foreground subject size.)

<p>

Hope this helps a bit. Cheers!

<br>PS: which mountains?:o)i luv mountains.

[brien_szabo]

I'd prefer a 24mm over the 20mm anyday. The 20 can give an interesting look and encompass a lot but you really have to worry about distorting you horizon line, especially if you're at the beach or anywhere where a flattish horizon plays a distinct role in your image. If you don't shoot the shot straight on and start tilting up or down, the horizon will begin to distort and badly if you don't watch yourself.

[bob_finley]

Another vote for 24mm for reasons already stated and the fact that the 24 can be easily carried in a pocket providing some pretty extreme perspective when you need it. I don't have a 20 but do have a 17mm and find little real use for it. The 24mm is used often.

[fmueller]

I went from 50mm straight to 20mm, and had the same problems previous posters seem to have encountered. 24mm for some reason seems to be the widest lens that is useful for general type of photography; ie group shots and landscapes were there isn't much in the foreground. With anything wider you NEED to find something interesting to fill in the foreground - but of course you can use this type of composition even with a 28mm lens. I am shooting manual focus, and there isn't a 20-35mm zoom available for this system (only some 18-28mm no-name junk with unspeakably bad quality). Since you are shooting AF, something like a nice Tokina 20-35mm might be a good option, but if ultimate quality is required get a Minolta 24mm f/2.8. You won't regret it.

 

BTW - the attached photo could have benefited from the superb corner sharpness of the Minolta MD 24mm f/2.8 that I am using nowadays, but the bottom left corner shows motion blurr, since the picture was taken from a moving train.<div></div>

[michael_moon2]

If you're doing mountain photography, presumably you're lugging gear, so weight & bulk might be issues. My favorite hiking lens is the 24-50/4, which provides a very functional range of focal lengths and high quality images. I do have a wider lens, a Sigma 18/3.5, which is surprisingly good in all respects, but I use it very little, only beause it is so wide.

[christian deichert]

I would start with the 24mm and then go wider if, after using the 24mm, you notice that you need to go wider. I agree that 20mm is too wide for most landscapes, as you tend to lose subjects. However, 20mm is great for architectural shots and some close-in landscape work.<p>

 

Here's a few blatantly self-promoting views of ways I've used my 20mm lens when a 24mm just wouldn't have worked as well. Yeah, they're shot with manual focus Minolta equipment and not Maxxum, but the perspective will be the same with any 20mm lens.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=205830&size=lg">These falls</a> were shot at 20mm to put them into their setting and to use the rocks in the foreground to lead the eye into the frame.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=205933&size=lg">This shot of the Very Large Array</a> emphasizes the sky rather than the 90' tall radio tlescope dishes in the foreground.<p>

 

For <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=789080&size=lg">this interior shot of a ghost town assay office</a>, I wanted to emphasize the crucible in the foreground while still getting the rest o the room in the shot.<p>

 

Finally, for <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1309519&size=lg">this shot at the Gila Cliff Dwellings</a>, I wanted to lead into the frame using the steps in the foreground while giving a dramatic perspective to the structures above.<p>

 

Hope this helps.

[ras1500]

I have the Minolta 20 mm lens and find it somewhat useful for landscape work. The photos in the above post depict the types of situations where this lens can be a benefit. The Minolta 20 mm was about the widest Minolta lens available without having the fisheye effect. As previously mentioned, distortion can become exaggerated if the lens is not held horizontally. I get more use of the 20 mm for indoors shots where its wide field of view can capture a whole room full of people. I also have the Minolta 28 mm lens which, for me, has become a workhorse lens for landscape photos.

[boulderjoe]

Thanks for everyone's opinion, I think I'm leaning towards a 24mm or 24-50mm. Might skip the zoom cause I already have that area sort of covered. I'll see what's cheaper on the internet.

 

csab- I Usually stay in the colorado mtns. I live Here so it works out for me!

 

-Joe

[christian deichert]

Joe,

 

If it's a question of choosing between a 24mm prime and the 24-50mm zoom, go for the 24mm. I've owned both, and I gave up the zoom for the prime. The zoom's good, don't get me wrong, but the 24mm is MUCH, MUCH better. Probably cheaper, too, given the relative scarcity of the 24-50mm compared to the abundance of 24mm lenses on the market.