Thoughts on best prime lens (wide angle?) for landscapes?

[drjedsmith]

Well, the Minolta forum's looking pretty dead here...let's get a

lively topic on. :-) Seems it happened again, the two lenses I had

purchased for myself: 24-50mm f4 & 70-210mm f4 have been taken over

by the wife for use on her 7D.<BR><BR>

Which lens do you find yourself using the most often for landscapes

or general nature shots, and why? Which do you think is the

sharpest, or best suited for this work, even if you don't currently

own it? :-)<BR>

I am going to step away from zooms (I think) and try to get some

primes to give me the maximum that 35mm can give. I am not a very

patient person by nature, so I also feel this might help me improve

by taking more time, compose and focus my shots better.<BR><BR>

I should have close to $400 to go toward lens(es) after purchasing

the 9. I know that isn't much, but I hope it is enough to get a

decent wide angle lens or even two if I'm lucky - maybe one wide

angle and a standard?<BR><BR>

I appreciate any commentary...Jed

[bill_thorlin]

Don't worry about it being quiet here - we probably shoot more and talk less than the others around and have less trouble with our kit.

 

As to your question - new or secondhand ? and what do you have already ?

[drjedsmith]

Yeah, I figured after I typed that line, that someone would give me a hard time about not being out there shooting a roll myself. My only excuse? I can only shoot so many "Christmas snapshots!" :-)<BR><BR>

I would prefer used, because that would stretch my limited fundage further. New is fine if I have to, because I can't find near as many used Minolta AF fixed focal length lenses for sale as the zooms. As far as lenses, let's just say I would be starting from scratch in a way, as I don't have any primes right now. I could possibly sell somthething on Ebay to up the funds for more prime glass if absolutely required. The coffers are a bit low after the 9.<BR><BR>

I should add here some evolution of my own photography process. I thought at one point that zooms were a must, and how could I limit myself by walking around with "only" a 50mm prime for an hour?<BR>

Well, I think I can do this, because when I got my 50mm f1.4 for my XD-7, that changed, and I did indeed find myself shooting many outings with just that one lens. For some reason I liked the photos I got back from it more than with the other (zoom) lenses I previously owned.<BR>

Jed

[jamesdak]

I own and love the 24mm lens. In fact I have both the AF and MF versions of the lens. Both seem to be very sharp. Another favorite is the 35mm/2.0 AF. Wonderful lens that I'm starting to use a lot again since moving back out west. Most of my used AF stuff came from KEH although the pickings are pretty slim right now. I've also bought a ton of MF stuff off Ebay the past year or so.

[georg_kern]

Why waste the 24-50 zoom on a 6 MP digital? In my experience, this lens has the highest center sharpness of all Minolta consumer zooms (I do not know the f2,8 zooms), and at a f-stop around 8 (which you might use for landscape anyways), sharpness and contrast are very good up to the edges (but not the corners) of the picture.

Apart from some sharpness falloff in the outermost corners, this lens will give you as good landscape pictures as any of the 24/28/35. It is defintively better than the cheap 28/2,8.

So, first: Spend 100+ for a 18-70 on the D7 and get back the 24-50 from your wive. Second: If you really want to spend money for some primes, get the 35/2,0 first, because it is also a great lens for available light snapshots (like the 50mm, but much more useful focal length). The 24mm is nice (perfect angle for most landscapes, nice contrast and colour) and a good buy at actual 2nd-hand prices, but your pictures will not be generally better than the ones from the zoom. Forget the 28mm, you don't need it. The 2,8 has lousy sharpness, and the 2,0, while optically very good, is quite difficult to find.

Don't invest in the 20mm. Most amateurs (including myself) are not able to handle such an extreme perspective and end up with boring, empty pictures.

 

Regards

 

Georg

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

You could of course find another 24-50/4?

 

Prime wise, and I am very bias, for sharpness nothing beats the 28/2. But you may not need to go that far (high in price). The 24/2.8 has a good reputation. Check out this review here http://www.mhohner.de/minolta/17-35.php its on the 17-35/3.5 G but compares it to the 24/2.8 - worth a read.

 

I think the 24/2.8 is pretty goo value for money. Of course the 28/2.8 is an absolute bargain! 28/2 & 35/2 are near impossible to find used.

 

For landscapes I can't really comment, I shoot city scapes with the 20/2.8 & 28/2 and respect both of them, the 24/2.8 only 'failed' for me becuase of the 20 & 28.

 

Luxury line, the 35/1.4 is total overkill for landscapes IMHO and works best in the near distance subjects anyway. Not brilliant as an infinity/far distance lens IMHO.

 

You'll find links to a whoel bunch of prime reviews here: MaxxumEyes.com - I'm currently working on the actual review that I'll post there. But there are links to about 100 prime lens reviews on that site at the mo.

 

What do people think of the Sigma 20/24/28 f1.8 as a landscaper? Might be a nice alternative to a Minolta used prime. A new Sigma. This one I've only got 3rd hand experience of but the 24/1.8 is supposed to be pretty good as a street lens.

 

PS - yep, this is a pretty quiet forum, but from the quick/number of responses here clearly a good few of us pop in on a regular basis to see if there is anything interesting going on.

[ivan_dzo]

The AF primes are all pretty good. The 20/2.8 is not very sharp but quite acceptable when stopped down to f8. A difficult length to manage though compositionally. The 24/2.8 is a good lens and fairly sharp at f8 or smaller. The 28/2.0 is brilliant from f4 onwards (the best of them) whilst the 28/2.8 is cheap and pretty good when stopped down to f8 or smaller. The 35/2.0 is quite rightly highly regarded and my standard prime. Its very sharp from 2.8 and smaller and the only one I brought new (not something I regret). Thats it. All my own testing of my own lenses, so others may disagree validly (from subject variation). Not a lot of 35/2.0 or 28/2.0 around second hand- for good reason!

[brettdeacon]

I generally prefer wide (landscape) shots when using my Maxxum 7 and most often use a 20-40mm Sigma zoom that is very functional but produces unspectacular results. My 50 1.7 is a sharp little lens that I rarely use because it's so close to the 40mm end of the Sigma. Although I don't often use it, the 100 2.8 macro is BY FAR the sharpest and best lens I own. The macro capability is great when the need arises, but the sharpness, even wide open, puts it in a different league than my other lenses. I have a much higher percentage of keepers with this lens than with any other. For $400, you could probably get this lens as well as a 50 1.7, though this doesn't help you with the wide end. Good luck, and have fun!

[clinton_abe]

Jed- For wide angle shots, I like the 20mm f/2.8 or my Sigma 14mm f/2.8 rectilinear lens. Another poster said that the 20mm is not really sharp until you stop down to f/8. This is not a problem for me as I normally like to hyper focus with the wider lenses. Although you asked about prime lenses, you might save a little more and look for a 17-35mm. I tried this lens during a Minolta sponsored shot at the zoo. I shot a few pictures at the 17mm setting and was amazed at the corner sharpness. I could see the individual grains of grass. If you can find the KM rep in your area, Uri, you might want to see if he will be doing a shot in your area, or perhaps he might be able to meet you and let you shoot a few shots with his lenses.

[danny_spence]

I'll echo the 35mm f/2 lens recommendations as well. The 35 f/2, 24 f/2.8, 50 f/1.4, and

200 f/2.8 are my most used landscape lenses. Of those, I use the 35 and 200 the most.

The 35 has a very nice angle of view for me (The 24 is so wide I tend to get too close and

warp things a bit). I could best describe the 35 as wide, but not too wide -- for me,

photos with this lens look natural without any distortion. Manual focus is okay, but

doesn't seem to 'pop' as it does with my 50 or 200. The 200 is just marvelous - compact,

extremely smooth manual focusing, incredibly sharp, and very resistant to flare from

bright light sources.

[drjedsmith]

Enjoyed reading all the comments. The 35mm f2.0 sounds like a great lens - can't find a used one anywhere, and the new price is $300, but B&H is back ordered. I will have to think about this one. The 24mm f2.8 seems like a lens I would use a lot as well. I agree I probably could not use a lens wider than 24mm very often and expect a lot of keepers.<BR><BR>

Sounds like for the time being, I should get the 24-50mm f4 back. I think I will find Kim an f2.8 zoom lens that she likes and then I will use the 24-50mm myself for a while.<BR>Jed

[bill_thorlin]

Am trying out a new ( to me ) 28mm f2.8 and so far it has performed well and is more than acceptable but more actual use will tell the full story. I got it for a penny over 30 quid as it seemed good value for money. The equivalent price for the f2.0 version seems to me to reflect scarcity value more than a quality increase unless perhaps you are planning on producing posters or the front cover of a glossy magazine.

 

I have the same views on the 50mm f1.4 and the f1.7 - a recent thread did something of a comparison on these two and it seemed to me that the price differential was far greater then the quality differential.

 

Brett Deacon made comment on the 100mm f2.8 macro and I would second his points wholeheartedly - I try and find a reason to use it as often as possible and the focus limiter makes it simple to use in non-macro mode.

 

My view is spend your money on the macro and "make do" just a very little on a cheaper 28 and/or 50.

 

Each to his own !

[Brian]

I was skeptical about the 28mm for a while but I have noticed a lot of published wide angle landscapes are 28mm shots. I think maybe the angle of view works well when the image is printed down to page size. So, don't rule out the 28mm as an in-between lens. It's cheap because it's popular, and it's popular for a reason.

[paul_friend]

Only dealt with them once, but Cameta Camera on e-bay seems to regularly have KM 28/2.0 "factory demonstrator" lenses. I got one for ~$230 and had zero problems--customer service was good, lens was as advertised (I have seen some quibling on the recommendations forum about demonstrator vs. reconditioned--frankly as long as it is in great condition and there is a valid warrantee, I'm not going to split hairs--Cameta claims that the "reconditioned" packaging is simply the only way they get the "demo" lenses from KM), and, though I haven't had to use it, has a one year warrantee. Based on watching prices a bit after my purchase (I know, wrong time to do that), you should be able to get it for ~$200.

 

Paul

[ivan_dzo]

Bill, unless you've compared or got both 28mm's you don't know whether it's worth the money. My answer to both questions is yes. I've got both and it's well worth the extra money. Want to buy a 28/2.8??

[bill_thorlin]

Ivan - did my research and did not reach the conclusion that the difference was worth four times as much - leaves something in the budget for other things.

 

Do not need two of the same thanks.

 

To put it another way - to each his own.

[dennis_fallon1]

You mention "landscapes or general nature shots". I used to say I like to do "landscape photography" but have since changed that to "nature photography" because my idea of a landscape photograph is shaped by the scenery in New England. Vistas are few and vistas without houses or other signs of civilization even fewer. So mostly I do "intimate landscapes" - more often from 100mm up than 35mm down. That said, when I shot with an old Sigma 21-35, I typically shot at either the wide end or the tele end. And now that I have the 17-35G, I think I've only taken two photos with it at 17mm (at least with film - I've used it at 17mm quite a bit with the 7D !) I think that if I were to ditch the zoom for primes, I could be content with a 24 and a 35. Further evidence: out in Utah in may, shooting *real* landscapes, I was generally satisfied with the 17mm wide option (25.5mm FOV) so again, 24mm would probably be ok. For a single lens wider than 50, I'd probably compromise on 28mm. But I'd probably go for a 50 for starters, then a 100, then a WA (24 or 35) then a 200, then the other wide :)

 

- Dennis

[drjedsmith]

Ah, thank you for the answers. Refreshing to read all the good input on this forum in a civilized discussion!<BR>

After much debate with Kim, looks like the solution for the time being will be to buy her an f2.8 zoom; looking at either the Minolta 28-75mm f2.8 (D) or the Tokina AT-X 28-70mm f2.8 lenses. Both look very good; the Minolta is twice the price...<BR><BR>

I will get the 24-50mm f4 back. I will use this until sometime in the spring, and as my skill developes, if I need more sharpness than the 24-50mm can deliver, I will start with the 35mm f2.0 prime first, then the 24mm and 50mm primes.<BR><BR>

I appreciate the discussion on the tele primes, such as 100mm and 200mm lenses, but I feel it will be a long while before my technique and needs build to a need for anything better than the 70-210mm f4. That is quite a lens in the optical department, at least for my needs at the moment...<BR><BR>

Jed

[michael_moon2]

I am a confirmed prime-lens shooter, but the convenience of zooms is too tempting. I was happy with my 28/2.8 and 35/2 until I got my hands on a 24-50. I agree that it is a fine lens for a consumer zoom, but the bokeh leaves a lot to be desired. I routinely carry a 50/2.8 anyway so I don't need the long end of the 24-50. My last Maxxum purchase was a 20-35, and I am completely satisfied with enlargements at all focal lengths. In fact I'm debating selling the 24-50 and the 28/2.8 ... any offers?

[drjedsmith]

Michael - do you just carry the 20-35mm with the 50mm and just swap when you want the 50mm? I'm curious how often this makes you change the lens? I mean, how many of your shots do you use each for on a given outing? I think that might be a bit wide for my tastes, I'm just getting used to having a 24mm.<BR>

Jed

[chris_at_vividoptic.com]

Its strange, this thing about changing lenses. I'm Mr Prime. But lets say I went for a shoot in London with a 28/2 & 85/1.4, maybe the 200/2.8 tucked in the bag. I think I would change lenses about as often as anyone would go from their 20-35 to their 70-210. In facr I can go for hours with one lens, then I swap to another. Then maybe 5 mins later another lens then another, but that is rare. I can shoot maybe 3-4 hours and change lenses 2 times for the first 3 hours. Then have a play and shoot one scene with all three lenses.

 

I know that zoom users can sometimes imagine that us prime people spend all day changing lenses. I just don't think its the case. I can day trip with just one lens and find plenty to shoot. I guess its partly to do with what you shoot? How you shoot. Sure a 24-200 would mean I would never change lens all day long. But - don't take this the wrong way - changing lenses isn't difficult.

 

I tend to spend more time thinking about the scene and composing with a prime, and working a different angle of view. Back in my zoom days, I would stay pretty static and zoom about to get the right scenes. Now I prefer moving around and getting low and close and walking about .... gets me thinking more about composition. It what makes a prime FOR ME a better lens, its as much about the way it MAKES me shoot as it is about the slightly better optical quality.

 

just my 2c, not a rant. Just don't want people thinking that going prime means you spend more time changing lenses than shooting.

 

To anyone, try this ... get a 50/1.7, and go do a day trip somewhere totally new. With JUST that lens. You'll see it changes the way you look at your environment.

[jamesdak]

Chris - Good suggestion at the end of your post. I converted over to mainly primes over the past couple of years and feel I have rediscovered photography again. I even have picked up several old manual focus bodies and find them more rewarding in a lot of ways to shoot than my Maxxum 7's! A manual focus camera with a prime lens really makes you slow down and work the composition. Plus that old XD-7 just feels and sounds sooooo sweet!!