jeffery_pool Posted July 18, 2006 Share Posted July 18, 2006 so my 28mm f2.8 finally ate it hard. I bought it a few years ago for a paltry sum of $50 and managed to drop it a few times, so that the lens elements rocked back and forth in the plastic casing. It slowly got worse and worse over the years, and now its finally bad enough that it probably drastically effects sharpness or focussing. I see Minolta lists a 28mm f2.0 lens, but I've searched high and low for it on the auction site and on google but haven't found any information on it at all. I assume its pretty rare but I'd like to hear some reviews? Besides it being a 2.0 vs a 2.8, are there any quality differences? I've never been stunned by the 2.8's sharpness compared to the 50mm 1.7, but at the same time I'm not really one to look at a print with a magnifying glass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan_dzo Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 yes it's hugely better than the f2.8. It's about the finest lens that Minolta made. that's why they don't come up for sale often and I wont be selling mine. But I'll sell you my f2.8 to replace yours if you want ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 I have it and can say is as sharp as 50 f1.4 Has better bokeh than 50 f1.7 I had to wait some years to find a second hand one. Never regret and I would never sell it either! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted July 19, 2006 Share Posted July 19, 2006 Samples: http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=4223010 You can have a look at my Scotland photos as well. Wide angle ones are shot with 28 f2 http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=477420 and also these http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=517292 Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesley_chang Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 I asked a similar question a little over a year ago: http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00CFiK My overall impression from everyone's advice: get the 2.0. I did and I was not disappointed. I got it on e-bay. You have to be patient, though. Good luck, Wes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeroen_b1 Posted July 20, 2006 Share Posted July 20, 2006 Just a thought: I read in the post from a while back that the 28mm f/2.8 is as sharp after f/8. So for wide angle shots on a tripod the f/2.8 should be just fine (when there is enough light!). With more open apertures the f/2.0 is king. I would think that when you shoot typical wide open shots, at close range, to shoot a sharp isolated subject with a nice bokeh background, the 50mm f/1.7 or equal would also be good enough? Do you need a 28mm f/2 for this? Any comment is welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherman Posted July 21, 2006 Share Posted July 21, 2006 I would think that when you shoot typical wide open shots, at close range, to shoot a sharp isolated subject with a nice bokeh background, the 50mm f/1.7 or equal would also be good enough? Do you need a 28mm f/2 for this? ----------- surely not. But 28mm is a wide angle lens that happens to have good bokeh as well. That is what I meant. 50mm 1.7 also serves well for bokeh purposes, if that is your only concern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now