Upgrade from the Minolta 28mm 2.8 lens for 'studio portraits'

[starvy]

<p>Today I did my first studio shoot and used the A450 with the Minolta AF28 2.8 lens mostly. I was shooting around f11 to f13 mostly. The reason for using this lens was because the crop sensor 42mm perspective was the closest to what I saw with the Rolleiflex TLR and its 80mm lens. The DSLR was supposedly the light meter and test image setup. However, I am quite startled by the results as I slowly go through the processing and CS2 routine from RAW. As there would be more of this style of shooting next year (hopefully!) what would be an upgrade lens from the Minolta 28mm? I am looking for a prime. Speed is not of essence here but image quality from 5.6 upwards is going to be. I think I am looking at something around the 28mm length.</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>The obvious answer for a prime that is an upgrade to the Minolta AF 28mm f/2.8 is the Minolta AF 28mm f/2. By all accounts it is considerably better optically, and of course will give you a brighter viewfinder and possibly better focus accuracy. However, if the idea of paying $500 or $600 (US, no idea about UK) for a used lens does not appeal, then maybe you can find a new (albeit old stock, because when Sigma redesigned the lens, did not introduce a Sony version of the new lens) Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for slightly less (IIRC they sold for $489 US new for most of their run).</p>

<p>Also, I doubt any of these lenses will give anything near their best performance around f/11 to f/13, especially on a cropped-sensor camera. If the idea is to meter for the Rollei, then performance doesn't really matter so much. On other other hand, if you're using ISO 400 film in the Rollie, use ISO 100 on the Sony and f/5.6 instead of f/11; or if you're using ISO 100 film, I think I'd get a neutral-density filter for the Sony and use a wider aperture on it. Remember also, the Sony will give about the same depth of field as the Rollei when the former is using an aperture about 2.5 stops wider, so the Rollei's depth of field at f/13.5 and the Sony's at f/5.6 will be about the same, making the shots more similar / comparable.</p>

[paul_de_ley]

<p>Would a 24 2.8 prime do? If so then the least budget-challenging solution with AF that I've shot with myself would be <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-24mm-Super-Wide-II-F2.8_lens215.html">Sigma's "ultra wide II"</a> for about $100 used, although the dyxum ratings wouldn't suggest so, mine at least pleases me more than the Min 28 f2.8. Also take a look at the Minolta 24 2.8, that would go for about $200 used and according to reviews it performs significantly better than either of the foregoing (haven't used it myself).</p>

<p>If you want to stay as close to 28mm as possible then your sharpest budget-friendly solutions with AF would probably be the SAM 30 2.8 macro at $200 new or about two thirds of that used. As with the other SAM primes the build is all plastic but its optics are very sharp. If you're willing to spend up to $350 then check out <a href="http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Sigma-28-70mm-F2.8-EX-DG_lens212.html">Sigma's 28-70 2.8 EX DG</a>, Minolta's 28-70 2.8 D or Tamron's 28-75 2.8 XR Di LD. I have the Sigma and it's prime sharp wide open - take note though that other 28-70 versions made by Sigma are not rated as highly.</p>

<p>If AF is not necessary then a great performer to keep an eye out for is Kiron's 28 f2 in m42 or Minolta MD mount (the latter would of course need mount conversion to work at infinity focus). These days they tend to go for $200+ on feebay, but every once in a while it's possible to pick one up for less. Minolta Rokkor 28 2.8 or 2.5 are much easier to find and go for about $100 (plus mount conversion cost). Tamron's adaptall-2 lenses would bypass any infinity problems when mounted with an adaptall-2/maxxum adapter, though take note that their coatings render colors rather cooler than Minolta/Sony AF lenses. The adaptall-2 28 2.5 is quite mediocre, while the 24 2.5 has a better reputation and goes for about $100.</p>

[starvy]

<p>Thanks Dave and Paul. Some of the results are in my Portraits in Contrast folder. I actually have the Sigma 24 2.8 lens and do rather like it but the focusing is slow. It may be an idea to look out for AF only for studio situations as I founf out yeterday. The Sigma 30 1.4 sounds like a good idea?</p>

[dave_redmann]

<p>Thinking about it, in light of your mention that "peed is not of essence here," Paul's suggestion of the Sony DT 30mm f/2.8 Macro SAM seems like a good (maybe excellent) option--currently $173 at B&H in the US. Personally I'd prefer a faster lens, but the (considerable) added cost may not be worthwhile. The first-generation Sigma 30mm f/1.4 had a good but not stellar reputation, and always seemed too expensive to me. So there's no obvious answer, just options with advantages and disadvantages.</p>