Jump to content

Shootout - Rokkor MD 24mm f2.8 vs. Sony Zeiss 16-35mm on Sony A7S II


Recommended Posts

  • 1 month later...

In what way (so that maybe I can make better posts in the future)?


Lasse !

Sometimes, you have to ignore certain posts.

You did ok ! 

In future, look at  when the member joined, and how many posts they  have.  In this case, a  Newbie, made a statement !  However, he had no explanation  !

Dont Worry ! Be Happy !     Just like  IamJF

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just recently used the Minolta 24mm again - and I spontanious liked the

output, it's somehow "charming". I use the Seiss way more (documenting

stuff), but this little Minolta stands for it's own.


Having recently acquired the necessary adapter, I de-mothballed

my Maxxum lenses and immediately rekindled love for the 24/2.8. 


I remember that the SRT-mount Minolta 24/2.8 rotates a forward

section of the glass when focusing. The Maxxum version uses IF.  




So, while it might not be exactly the same optic, it's the very next

version of a 24/2.8 ... IOW prolly has a very similar rendering. It's

not an Otis or other "miracle lens", but it's verrry "friendly" ! Or, in

your own words, "it's somehow charming". Form factor-wise, it's

also, dare I say, "cute". The IF eliminates the need for concentric

inner and outer threaded barrels for focusing motion, allowing the

Maxxum version to be strikingly compact.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Posts

    • Given your interest in wildlife, the 2.8 makes a difference over the 4 version, because it will allow you to better isolate your subject from the background and gain an extra stop. Optical stabilisation is not that much useful when your subject is a moving one, you need a fast lens to keep the shutter speed as high as possible.  Furthermore, the times you won't need 2.8, you will gain image quality stepping down to 4 or 5.6.
    • Thank you all for the replies, definitely some food for thought. I have considered the a7iv as it does have bird eye AF but I was unsure if an upgrade was justified for that alone? The a7iv fps still isn't great.  I have also considered the a7rv, but again was unsure if it would suffice, I love the ability to crop which I often do, but those file sizes are big and I believe the higher MP isn't so great in low light. Lastly I did consider the f4 version, and I agree it would probably allow me to keep the 85, but I'm pretty sold on the 2.8 with it being an internal zoom and I'm a sucker for bokkeh. I would also forever question myself if I should have just gone for the 2.8 As some of you have said, perhaps it is best to add the lens to my arsenal and wait for new body, maybe, just maybe there will be a high frame body with bird eye af in the future? I can hope atleast can't I?   
    • Thanks.   I finally returned my 50-400.  Maybe I’ll find one locally that I can test.  For now I am going to just enjoy the lightness of the 70-300 until I find a longer hand holdable lens that is a significant enough improvement.    Although now I am missing the good macro I had on the 50-400.   
  • Topics

  • Create New...