Quality of the 24 and 28mm 2.8 AF lenses

[philip_coleman1]

I am considering investing in primes in the above range and would

like to know how the above two lenses perform both wide oped and

stopped dow. I have heard that the 28mm 2.8 is very soft is this your

findings and what about the 28mm ?

Thanks

[philip_coleman1]

sorry the last 28 should have read 24mm 2.8

[michael_hohner]

Click here: <a href="http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/17-35.php?lang=e">http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/17-35.php?lang=e</a>. This page is mainly a review of the 17-35/3.5 G, but it also contains sample shots with the 24/2.8. The 24 is very sharp, even wide open. When stopping down, it's mostly corner performance that improves.

[ivan_dzo]

the 24 is a classic lens, very good. whilst the 28mm 2.8 isn't good, but is great value. The classic lens is the 28mm f2.0 which is brilliant but expensive. pays your money and....

[Mike Gammill]

I've used the 28mm f2.8 and found it to be quite sharp. However, be sure to use a hood as it will flare.

[ian green]

i can not compare 28 vs 24<br>

but :<br>

1. 28/2.8 is good lens<br>

2. built-in hood is no good - you'd better use some external one<br>

3. you can find 28/2.8 used for a hundred

[denis_connolly]

I have the 24mm f2.8 and it's noticeably sharper than my Sigma 28-70 f2.8, really an excellent lens.

[ilkka]

Another happy owner of 2.8/24. Very good lens, and small and light as well. My primary lens on 7D and a very good companion to 1.7/50. lovely pair, 35 and 75 mm equivalent fields of view.

[georg_kern]

It all depends on your needs. The 28/2,8 AF (MD is the same design) is not bad, and if you are used to the quality of a cheap zoom, you will see a clear improvement in quality. Contrast and color is good, but sharpness is not great, so this lens is not optimal for enlargements. In fact, almost all 28/2,8 have been relatively simple designs (mostly six elements), and were mainly intented as affordable lenses for amateurs when zooms started only at 35mm. The 28/2,0 AF is much sharper, but difficult to get. If you can wait, you might be able to find one relatively cheap, as these lenses often do not gain much interest (I bought mine as-new for 150 Euro, but that was pure luck).

 

The 24/2,8 is very good and will give you very brilliant pictures with good sharpness. Average price here in Europe is 150 Euro (on E*ay), which is defintively too cheap for such a good lens.

 

So, go for the 24AF, and add a 35/2,0 later. This will be all you need in the wide-angle field. Only opt for the 28/2,8 if you are on a really, really tight budget.

 

Regards

 

Georg

[nate_macdonald]

I bought a used 24mm 2.8 on ebay and I'll tell you, this is one of those purchases that you'll be glad you paid the extra money. My main concern prior to this was that on 'wide' zooms, I found the distortion to be unacceptable. The prime does a much better job of evening things out, but on top of that it's faster, sharper and just generally more pleasing.

[bill_thorlin]

Is there a problem with vignetting on the 24mm, particularly when using a polarising filter ?

[nate_macdonald]

If you use two filters, yes, definately. With one I haven't noticed any problems.

[bill_thorlin]

Nate - I made the 2 filter error once when rushing - never again !

However it did make me check out my 24-105 and at 24 wide open with ONLY a polariser fitted there was noticeable vignetting - that is why I asked as regards the 24 prime.

[ivan_dzo]

Bill, i've got both lenses - the zoom and 24mm. The prime is fine with any normal polariser whilst you need an ultra-thin on the zoom and even then it is touch and go. Not my favourite lens.

[bill_thorlin]

Ivan - it is a shame it has this drawback as I find it to be a pretty good all-round lens for general use - a dogsbody if you like.

[ivan_dzo]

I used it like that too until I compared it to the 28-85, for ?40 on ebay. Blew it out of the water!

[bacsa]

As I see that you mention no Minolta name in your post, i dare to suggest you the sigma 24mm f/2.8 "superwide" as a cheaper alternative. I have found it of very good optical performance (although a bit noisy AF), and it has a "makro" feature. Not true macro, it goes only up to 1:4 i think, but still quite handy once in a while. Got it for 50 euro (with some luck).

[ivan_dzo]

The Sigma isn't in the same league as the Minolta. I tried it and the distortion and softness in the corners was terrible. You can have my old one for less than 50usd!

[m_m7]

Contrary to the other opinions I found that the 28/2.8 is sharper than the 24/2.8.I observed this in my slides but hard to see on the 7D.It doesn't matter too much,whatever works for you.To my surprize Photodo,the only place I trust in reviewing lenses score the 28 more than the 24.The score is second only to the Nikon 28mm/2.8 manual focus.

[nrb]

Also Photodo scores the 2.8/24mm and 2.8/28mm Sigmas very highly if you'd care to drop by there.<div></div>

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

The Min AF 28/2.8 is the 2nd most common prime lens on eBay. Loads about. Why not get one, see if you like it. If it isn't as sharp as you want then you'll be able to eBay it for about the same price and get a 24/2.8 instead?