Jump to content

24mm options for a7ii


Adrichardson
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all

 

I'm struggling to find a decent 24mm for my a7ii. So far I've tried the: Yashica 24/2.8 ml (terrible corner performance), Canon nFD 24/2.8 (sharp but handling too stiff and strong distortion), Sigma 24/2.8 Super Wide II (even worse corner performance than the Yashica), Rokkor MC 24/2.8 (not bad, but softer than I would like).

 

I'm not a natural 24mm shooter (35mm is normally as wide as I go), so it's not exactly going to be glued to my camera. I'm thinking about giving the Zuiko 24/2.8 a go, but it's not the cheapest. Anyone got any recommendations? As an outside, I was wondering about the Nikkor 24/2.8 afd - anyone tried it with the a7ii?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, 

 

I use an original A7r and at one time I had both the Olympus 24 and the Minolta 24 MC (55mm filter ring version). I ended up selling the Olympus, the Rokkor was generally a bit sharper stopped down and a lot sharper wide open.

 

You could try focusing the 24 MC Rokkor at the borders (if your subject is positioned there) and at the working aperture, i.e. AFTER you've stopped down.

 

This because it has quite a bit of field curvature, and the focus shifts a bit when you stop it down. But if I focus it at the borders and at the working aperture then it gets pretty much the equal, at f/11, of my (great) Contax 28-85 (even more so getting closer to keep the frame identical) at both close distance and infinity

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks - it sounds like my technique could use a bit of work in that case.  I'll have another play and see if that helps.  I've reviewed some indoor sample in Lightroom and noticed a fair bit of flare from artificial lights (I was shooting with a screw in hood) .  Do you have similar issues with yours?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, mine does that too. Part of it is the lens fault, part of it I suspect is the fact of using an adapter, because I've seen the same thing even with modern Canon etc. lenses used on a Metabones or a Commlite etc.

 

With the Minolta, and beside the possible troubles due to the adapter, this might depend on two things: first, the older anti reflective coatings aren't as good as the new ones; secondly, Minolta went along another road in comparison with pretty much all other manufacturers. Instead of trying to maximize the efficiency of the anti reflective coating for each specific lens, they sacrificed a bit of resistance to flare to have a perfectly matched color rendering along the entire lens range.

 

Even the Contax 28-85 MM that I already cited, that's possibly the worst performing lens in terms of flare resistance out of the entire Contax lineup, still holds MUCH better.

 

If a 24mm focal length is not a lock, and you can live with a 28mm, a Contax 28/2.8 could be an interesting proposition (or probably, at that point, even the 28/2 Sony FE).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that might be the cases - I'm tempted to give the Canon nFD 24/2 a shot, as it's supposed to be a reasonable improvement over the 24/2.8 and should have more modern coating than the Minolta MC. 

 

I never really got on with the 28mm focal length - I originally sold my 35/2.8 and replaced it with the 28/2 (as it was faster and I hoped it would be a good compromise between a 24mm and 35mm).  I more or less instantly regretted the decision, sadly.  Obviously it's not going to have Zeiss rendering, but the distortion made it a pain to compose with and a nightmare to deal with in post (even with a DXO profile).  Needless to say, first thing I did was to reverse the decision and replace it with another 35mm/2.8.  If there was a 28mm Batis, I might reconsider, but the 35/2.8 is so versatile that a Batis would have to be stunning to get me to part with it.

 

If only there was an affordable native 24mm...

Link to post
Share on other sites

If only there was an affordable native 24mm...

 

 

Agree 100%; the 2 lenses I need, and that Sony stubbornly refuses to release preferring instead stuffing the lineup with 50mm lenses, are a reasonably priced and small 24/2.8 and a 85/1.8 or a 100/2.

 

I really don't get this obsession where everyone has to shoot with the shallowest dof possible, and your subject will be left with just an eyelash in focus! :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep - I really don't understand why they haven't done

an FE version of the a-mount plastic fantastic line...  

  

I was using an AiS 24/2.8 on a Metabones but

switched to the A-mount, actually Maxxum AF

mount, 24/2.8 cuz I could then enjoy auto-iris

convenience. The lens is much lighter but quite

sturdy since it has no external focusing motion. 

  

The focusing ring is narrow but easy to access

and easy to turn without being sloppy or loose

or "free spinning". IOW "just right". I don't use

the OEM clip-on hood cuz it crowds the focus

ring. A generic threaded hood is no problem cuz

it sits about 1/2 inch further forward. The thread 

fit hood is actually a convenience as it puts my

fingers right exactly where they need to be with

no interference, and acoarst it sits there reeeal

solid cuz the lens has internal focusing :-)

 

  

You seem a bit concerned about IQ and you'd

hafta ask someone else about that. I'm in the

IILGIIG* club, possibly senior founding member.

   

  

*  If it LOOKS good, it IS good.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a bit surprised concerning your comments on the Sigma 24mm Superwide II f2.8; I have a PK fit one that I use with a K&F adapter, and I find the corners are pretty sharp, except at f2.8. I find that it's a sharper lens than the FE24-70mm f4 at 24mm.

 

Sounds like you won the sample lottery!  The centre of mine was excellent wide open, but i had to stop down to f11 before the corners were acceptable.  Guessing Sigma's QC hasn't changed that much over the years...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

All adapters are not created equal. It is possible to get a cheap adapter that performs flawlessly; the reverse is also true. There may also be copy variation at play here, but with a Novoflex adapter my tiny Oly 24mm f/2.8 is a stellar performer. Stopped down it is sharper than my Canon 24mm f/1.4 L adapted via a Novoflex.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Maxxum isn't bad - I've only used on an a77, but I was

quite pleased with it.  Which adapter are you using?  From

memory, it was quite fiddly in mf...

   

Mechanically, it's not "fiddley". Visually, on an old 

Maxxum film camera, MF was eyeball fiddley due 

to great DoF and to inadequate focusing screens. 

But on a live view with magnified MF assist there 

is no longer such a problem in the least.

 

The adapter I use is the LAEA3. Since it is Sony's

own adapter, everything fits beautifully and flange 

focus seems to be perfect. 

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
 Share

  • Posts

    • I mostly see posterization artifacts, which are the result of lossy compressed RAW files (or bad jpeg conversion). Unfortunately, the A6400 doesn't offer uncompressed or lossless compressed RAW. The noise might indeed result from the smaller sensor than what you're used to. If you're not shooting at max aperture, you could try shooting at wider aperture and lower ISO. When you're not shooting at max aperture, fullframe versus APS-C shouldn't matter much in terms of ISO-performance combined with depth of field: at the same ISO and aperture value, fullframe offers better noise performance but with a narrower depth of field. This can be offset by choosing a larger aperture and lower ISO on the APS-C camera. If you want a fullframe camera the size of an A6400, try the A7C(ii).
    • ..unfortunately, the lighting was correct. The shot required deeper shadows. The K1 ff didnt have these banding issues [yes, I know the sensor is larger]. The film shots had details in the same light. The sony files, both the jpg and raw, had this banding/noise - with NO retouch or post adjustments [straight out of the camera]. the camera was purchased new a few years ago and I am trying to determine if there is something wrong, or the settings are wrong, or the camera just cant handle this kind of lighting [studio + softbox]. No shadow detail is one thing... banding/noise in the shadows is unacceptable. Does sony have a body this size that is FF ? Im wondering if that would make a difference..  dw
    • The root causes for banding are uneven lighting, incorrect exposure settings, or compression artefacts or certain kinds of artificial lighting, especially LED lights. Also the lens used plays a role, I have noticed it more with my sharpest lenses, looks like they outresolve the sensor when I have a uniform blue sky. There is more than one solution, and ultimately post-processing, but the root cause has to be identified first.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...