As I see it, [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/260-sony-a33-a55/page__view__findpost__p__2121"]the A55 looks like the perfect second camera for me[/url]. As such, I won't need many lenses for it. Two will do, a semi-wide (17-25mm) and a short tele (50-80mm). As the A55 is a small and light camera, so should the lenses be. However, the requirement list doesn't end there (I'm spoiled, I know...). I want them to be fast (f/2 or faster), I want AF and I want them to be sharp when used wide open.
The short tele was an easy find - Tamron 60/2 macro - but the other proved to be a difficult nut to crack. Zeiss 24/2? Too big. Sigma 20/1.8? Too big and not sharp enough wide open. Zuiko 21/2 + adapter? No AF. Sony 35/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4? Too narrow. Leica 25/1.4? No APS coverage, no adapter, no AF. Zeiss 18/3.5 or 21/2.8? No adapter, no AF, too slow.
So, even if I am keeping the cost out of this, it seems I have no options. Please tell me I'm wrong...
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282762798' post='2163']
As I see it, [url="http://forum.photozone.de/index.php?/topic/260-sony-a33-a55/page__view__findpost__p__2121"]the A55 looks like the perfect second camera for me[/url]. As such, I won't need many lenses for it. Two will do, a semi-wide (17-25mm) and a short tele (50-80mm). As the A55 is a small and light camera, so should the lenses be. However, the requirement list doesn't end there (I'm spoiled, I know...). I want them to be fast (f/2 or faster), I want AF and I want them to be sharp when used wide open.
The short tele was an easy find - Tamron 60/2 macro - but the other proved to be a difficult nut to crack. Zeiss 24/2? Too big. Sigma 20/1.8? Too big and not sharp enough wide open. Zuiko 21/2 + adapter? No AF. Sony 35/1.8 or Sigma 30/1.4? Too narrow. Leica 25/1.4? No APS coverage, no adapter, no AF. Zeiss 18/3.5 or 21/2.8? No adapter, no AF, too slow.
So, even if I am keeping the cost out of this, it seems I have no options. Please tell me I'm wrong...
[/quote]
What's wrong with the Zeiss 16-80 ? Or Sigma 8-16mm ? Tokina 11-16mm ?
[quote name='Klaus' timestamp='1282765667' post='2167']
What's wrong with the Zeiss 16-80 ? Or Sigma 8-16mm ? Tokina 11-16mm ?
[/quote]
Ah, too slow. Although the Tokina may be fast enough.
The Tokina is about the size and weight of the 24/2. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />
[quote name='Yakim' timestamp='1282767030' post='2169']
The Tokina is about the size and weight of the 24/2. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':o' />
[/quote]
Well, there're no fast, light-weight, wide options for the other systems either.
The NEX can take Leica M lenses e.g. 21mm f/1.4 but you won't like the pricing ...
The NEX is way too small for me and lacks AS. MFT bodies also comes close but no cigar AFAIAC. I like the G1 form factor but it has a small sensor (and the results from the A55 are indeed way better) and lacks AS. Lenses are easy in that regard: 20/1.7 and 45/2.8 OIS.
Yakim,
In short, you weren't wrong. You'll have to wait for a manufacturer to start producing and selling the lens you are after.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
The closest match would be the [url="http://mkropa.republika.pl/minolta/lens/24__2_8.html"]Minolta 24/2.8[/url]
- Fast internal focus (screwdriven)
- 8/8 construction, circular aperture blades
- 215 gram
- Typical second hand price - $200~$250
Granted, it's not an f/2.0 lens, but how frequently would f/2.0 at a given ISO be visibly cleaner (without pixel-peeping) compared to f/2.8 and one-stop-higher ISO? Not very frequently, if at all.
Also don't forget that the AS gives you at least 2 stops gain, which in terms of low-light photography (of subjects that aren't too erratic,) makes this lens competitive with a 24/1.4 on a camera without AS. You obviously won't get the motion stopping power of the 24/1.4 or the shallow DOF, but there are significant gains in size, weight, cost, and likely better contrast/sharpness and less aberrations than a wide-open 24/1.4 lens. When comparing with a more modest 24/2.0 the difference in DOF is smaller, but either way it's not something that's likely to ever become an issue with a lens at this focal length. After all, it's not the kind of lens you buy for it bokeh qualities.
Bottom line: The difference between 24/2.8 and 24/2.0 has very little real life impact for most people, but it's a great excuse to wait for the next big thing ;-)
[quote name='wim' timestamp='1282772008' post='2173']
Yakim,
In short, you weren't wrong. You'll have to wait for a manufacturer to start producing and selling the lens you are after.... <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />
Kind regards, Wim
[/quote]
I hate it when I'm right. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/sad.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />
[quote name='boren' timestamp='1282779066' post='2176']
The closest match would be the [url="http://mkropa.republika.pl/minolta/lens/24__2_8.html"]Minolta 24/2.8[/url]
- Fast internal focus (screwdriven)
- 8/8 construction, circular aperture blades
- 215 gram
- Typical second hand price - $200~$250
Granted, it's not an f/2.0 lens, but how frequently would f/2.0 at a given ISO be visibly cleaner (without pixel-peeping) compared to f/2.8 and one-stop-higher ISO? Not very frequently, if at all.
Also don't forget that the AS gives you at least 2 stops gain, which in terms of low-light photography (of subjects that aren't too erratic,) makes this lens competitive with a 24/1.4 on a camera without AS. You obviously won't get the motion stopping power of the 24/1.4 or the shallow DOF, but there are significant gains in size, weight, cost, and likely better contrast/sharpness and less aberrations than a wide-open 24/1.4 lens. When comparing with a more modest 24/2.0 the difference in DOF is smaller, but either way it's not something that's likely to ever become an issue with a lens at this focal length. After all, it's not the kind of lens you buy for it bokeh qualities.
Bottom line: The difference between 24/2.8 and 24/2.0 has very little real life impact for most people, but it's a great excuse to wait for the next big thing ;-)
[/quote]
It certainly gives a lot WRT value-for-money and weight and size are exactly what I'm after but [url="http://www.kurtmunger.com/minolta_af_24mm_f_2_8_reviewid218.html"]IQ isn't that great[/url]. Oh, and the main thing I lust for wider aperture is less DoF. High ISO and AS can't help here.
If one may dream of a slightly larger A77 in the not-so-distant future, the 11-16/2.8 and 24/2 suddenly become very attractive propositions.....
|
