P
Petr Svoboda
Guest
I would like to buy a wide angle lens for Minolta 505 si (24-35). I thought about some Sigma (but I am afraid of compatibility problems) or Minolta 35/2. Can you please give me an advice?
- Status
A
andylee
Guest
Hello Petr,
You could help us to help you by telling us what lens you have at this moment. from what i see, you are interest in prime lenses. I personally like the 35mm focal length. if you are the street type of shooter, then this focal length is :thumbsup: .
20mm, 24mm, 28mm is not so easy for street photos as you need to fill the composition with a lot of things. 35mm to me is not too wide and not too narrow. but there is 3 combo which i think is good.
combo #1
1. 20-35 f3.5-4.5
2. 50 f1.7
3. 70-210 f4
combo #2
1. 20mm f2.8
2. 24-85 f3.5-4.5
3. 70-210 f4
and my all time favourite
combo #3
1. 16mm f2.8 fisheye
2. 24-50 f4
3. 70-210 f4
hope i've help you in any way.
don't know about the picture quality of sigma prime lenses though.
You could help us to help you by telling us what lens you have at this moment. from what i see, you are interest in prime lenses. I personally like the 35mm focal length. if you are the street type of shooter, then this focal length is :thumbsup: .
20mm, 24mm, 28mm is not so easy for street photos as you need to fill the composition with a lot of things. 35mm to me is not too wide and not too narrow. but there is 3 combo which i think is good.
combo #1
1. 20-35 f3.5-4.5
2. 50 f1.7
3. 70-210 f4
combo #2
1. 20mm f2.8
2. 24-85 f3.5-4.5
3. 70-210 f4
and my all time favourite
combo #3
1. 16mm f2.8 fisheye
2. 24-50 f4
3. 70-210 f4
hope i've help you in any way.
don't know about the picture quality of sigma prime lenses though.
P
Petr Svoboda
Guest
Andylee, many thanks for the tips. I have 28-105 which was supplied with the camera but I am not much satisfied (some pictures are not sharp enough). From your reply it appears you would recommend me the Minolta 35.
Petr Svoboda said:
There are a number of reasons why the pictures are not sharp enough, have you have isolated other possibilities and concluded that it is due to the lens?
If it is indeed due to the lens, then check for the following possibilities :
Is the lens faulty?
Do you have the Minolta 28-105 xi lens, which is crappy.
Is your 28-105 a third party lens?
The reason why I am asking this is because the Minolta non xi version of the lens, while not being known to be a very sharp lens, isn't a horrible performer either, and if you are using one in good condition, then you have a high expectation of sharpness and we'll have to adjust the recommendations accordingly.
While the 35mm prime Andy recommend is a good lens, it seems that you are looking for a replacement for the lens you are currently using. In that case I'll suggest you look at the Minolta 24-85mm or 24-105mm, both of which are sharp lens, particularly the 24-85. They are not cheap lens though, in the $600 range, but older version of the 24-85 can be had for under $300 2nd hand.
If you are looking primary for wide angle zooms to complement your current lens, then I'll suggest something in the range of 17-20mm to 35-40mm. Minolta's 17-35 G is a great lens, but pricy. There is a whole range of third party lens in this range too so check them out.
If you are looking for prime, then you need to know what exactly you need.
35mm work well for Andy, but 24mm works well for me. It boils down to how you shoot...........
A
andylee
Guest
sulhan said:
Thanks mate, It's my wish that Minolta cameras is enjoyed by every of it's users. It could be a small compact to a pro specs camera, it boils down to to difference users like what frisky says.
I'm using the 24-85 f3.5-4.5 for my wedding assignments and my clients are all very happy with the photos they get. the 24-50 f4 is use for the journalistic shots for the wedding. I always use the 24-50 f4 without flash, with 400 ISO B/W films.
Cheers from the Essentials of Imaging
P
Petr Svoboda
Guest
Hello Frisky,
many thanks for further information. I am a beginner and I gathered most my poor knowledge surfing on the internet recently. I found that some tests of lenses e.g. on www.photozone.de and I found that some Sigma lenses which are cheaper than Minolta are here better off. Than I found also that there may be some problems connected with their funtioning on Minolta. So it was my first question nobody replied me but I gather that in your opinion Sigma lenses are not worth of thinking about.
As far as the camera is concerned it is not my but of my girl friend. The lens was original part of the camera. It may be of course our fault but in some pictures the person in the center was not sharp (and nothing was sharp) and in others yes. Maybe some problems with autofocus. Here we will still test the lens more.
Well, I want to buy the new lens especially because there are some problems especially with indoor photos, the angle is not enough to include e.g. more people. Here is a question whether a primary (24, 28 or 35?) or a zoom (17-35, 20-35 or 24-50)??
many thanks for further information. I am a beginner and I gathered most my poor knowledge surfing on the internet recently. I found that some tests of lenses e.g. on www.photozone.de and I found that some Sigma lenses which are cheaper than Minolta are here better off. Than I found also that there may be some problems connected with their funtioning on Minolta. So it was my first question nobody replied me but I gather that in your opinion Sigma lenses are not worth of thinking about.
As far as the camera is concerned it is not my but of my girl friend. The lens was original part of the camera. It may be of course our fault but in some pictures the person in the center was not sharp (and nothing was sharp) and in others yes. Maybe some problems with autofocus. Here we will still test the lens more.
Well, I want to buy the new lens especially because there are some problems especially with indoor photos, the angle is not enough to include e.g. more people. Here is a question whether a primary (24, 28 or 35?) or a zoom (17-35, 20-35 or 24-50)??
I have to say that for EVERY reputable lens/camera maker, there will be some good lens and some lousy lens in the catalog. Knowning which lens is the good one is the key to buy ANY lens, be it from the camera maker, or from a third party lens maker. Generally camera maker will do a broader range of test for their own lens than (if at all) with third party lens maker. So in terms of electronic communication it is more assured.
That said, there are a number of good lens from third party lens makers, and at much better price than the camera maker. So by all means consider them. Personally I'll recommend anyone getting a third party lens stick to the reputable names : Tokina, Tamron & Sigma. Generally Minolta lens are somewhat cheaper than Nikon & Canon lens, so the price difference might be a smaller issue when you are considering.
The thing I find funny is that as far as I know kit lens are usually 28-80 rather than 28-105, so it doesn't sound right to me.
If you are just starting out, a wide zoom might be a better idea, but using prime or zoom is very much a personal taste. Prime has its strength but if you are not used to it, it is a real pain to keep changing lens. No body but yourself can make that decision.
That said, there are a number of good lens from third party lens makers, and at much better price than the camera maker. So by all means consider them. Personally I'll recommend anyone getting a third party lens stick to the reputable names : Tokina, Tamron & Sigma. Generally Minolta lens are somewhat cheaper than Nikon & Canon lens, so the price difference might be a smaller issue when you are considering.
The thing I find funny is that as far as I know kit lens are usually 28-80 rather than 28-105, so it doesn't sound right to me.
If you are just starting out, a wide zoom might be a better idea, but using prime or zoom is very much a personal taste. Prime has its strength but if you are not used to it, it is a real pain to keep changing lens. No body but yourself can make that decision.
P
Petr Svoboda
Guest
Frisky thanks. Summarizing for the beginner may be best from wide angle Minolta 20-35/3,5-4,5 (17-35 is too expensive and 24-50 I have not found to be sold here). On the other hand of the comparable price is Sigma 20-40/2,8. On the first sight it has definitely better parameters so I have some dilemma. Has anybody in the forum some experience with this lens on Minolta 505 si??
Petr, u can try the Sigma 17-35mm EX f/2.8-4.0. I have this lens but have never tested it on the 505si before. I use it with the Dynax 7 without any problems at all. I can try tonight and post back on this thread if there are compatibility issues.
This lens cost me $550 2nd hand. It is very sharp and contrast is pretty good although I feel sometimes a little muted. It focuses very fast but the lens is very large and heavy. The thread diameter is 82mm! The focussing speed may be different from my experience since the AF on the 505si is not so quick nor accurate compared to the Dynax 7. I pretty satisfied with the lens except that at 17mm barrel distortion in very obvious.
The lens costs about $850 brand new. It might be cheaper now.
BTW, the Minolta 17-35mm G lens costs $3300!!!! :bigeyes: I got any equote from a local pro shop about a year back.
This lens cost me $550 2nd hand. It is very sharp and contrast is pretty good although I feel sometimes a little muted. It focuses very fast but the lens is very large and heavy. The thread diameter is 82mm! The focussing speed may be different from my experience since the AF on the 505si is not so quick nor accurate compared to the Dynax 7. I pretty satisfied with the lens except that at 17mm barrel distortion in very obvious.
The lens costs about $850 brand new. It might be cheaper now.
BTW, the Minolta 17-35mm G lens costs $3300!!!! :bigeyes: I got any equote from a local pro shop about a year back.
A
andylee
Guest
If the price difference is just a few hundreds dollars,eg$200. Go get the minolta lens, that will save you the problems of upgrading.eg:the shops will tell you your 3rd party lens no value. then you are stuck with it. Sigma lens get very low resell value. Go for the original lens, buy once only.
I agree with Andy here. Bite the bullet and buy a good lens once and for all. When I was looking for my wide angle zoom, I did ponder over whether to get the Sigma like what TME did or wait for the new Tamron 17-35. In the end, I bit the bullet and bought the 17-35 G lens, abeit used.
I am a very poor man now...... :cry:
I would advise you to try ebay for a decent used 24-50mm zoom. I have one and I can say that this is one of those zoom lense that is just as sharp as a prime lens.
I am a very poor man now...... :cry:
I would advise you to try ebay for a decent used 24-50mm zoom. I have one and I can say that this is one of those zoom lense that is just as sharp as a prime lens.
andylee said:
A
andylee
Guest
I'll 2nd what you just say about the 24-50 f4 lens, i actually broke one and manage to buy another one. lucky eh? The 0.35meter min focusing is really fantastic!! :bsmilie: :thumbsup:
A
andylee
Guest
TME said:When the bullet comes in the form of a $2000 difference...... sorry my teeth not strong enough.........
Maybe you should get tee kee....
A
andylee
Guest
seriously, the 20-35 is also a good lens,worth considering.couple with 50 1.8 & 70-210 f4 is all you need.
If i don't have the 24-50 f4, then this is the lens for me. :thumbsup:
If i don't have the 24-50 f4, then this is the lens for me. :thumbsup:
- Status
Similar threads
