Hi there, I am new to wide angle photography. I have a Tamron 28-
200zoom which is not very good, however I can buy a prime sigma 24mm
f2.8 for the same price as a minolta 28mm f2.8. Both of them are
used in mint condition. I know that the price of a Minolta 24mm f2.8
is quite high (compared to what I'd have to pay for this Sigma).
Which one would you recommend to get me started in wideangle
landscapes? I already tried some with teh Tamron zoom, and I
personally feel attracted to the 24mm, but probably the quality of
the minolta glass is better but unless I hear comments that this
sigma lens is a bad one, I will buy it. THanks for your help.
I was debating this recently, and got some feedback on here that the 28 mm is a bit of a dog (if you search on the word "bowser" you'll find the thread) with a lot of distortion. I ultimately decided to go with a 24mm Minolta used from KEH; the cost was under what the new 28 would have been, and the feedback on the 24 seemed good.
Other good advice I got, however, included the idea that the 28 was really a very good size, giving you a wide/normal angle without giving you too much of the "wide" feeling. So it was a tough decision. I expect to get the 28 someday; for me, this was just prioritizing which lenses when.
I had a thread awhile ago where i was asking about a cheaper 24mm alternative to the minolta's 24mm. The sigma was warmly suggested:)
It took me a few months to find it in minolta af mount, at a good price, but i finally did. I really like it, so far, i used it for maybe 30 frames... It's very wide, but there's not much barrel distortion. It also seemed sharp enough for my needs. The only "problem"(not really a problem for me): it's the noisiest AF lens I ever heard (i have the noisy tokina 17mm at-x too...this produces a much worse rattle-sound.)
Dunno how much are you considering for it; i was lucky enough to get it for 50 euro.
sigma 24mm "superwide II" f/2.8 - at f/2.8...[sorry for the high contrast]
I had a 24mm Sigma which was AF assisted. I swapped it out for a 2Omm EX when I upgraded to a Maxxum 9 (the old 24 wouldn't work with the Maxxum series).
The Sigma EX fixed lenses are excellent. The two wide angles I have had were both outstanding lenses. Minolta's pro glass (G) is fantastic (and very expensive) but their consumer range varies, and I've had a couple of Minolta consumer lenses which were poor. If it's a choice between a Minolta consumer and a Sigma pro, I'd go for the Sigma.
If you can get a second hand fixed Sigma (Ex) then it will serve you well. Look at the reviews here
I would get a 24 or 20mm lens for wide angle photography. The pro (Sigma EX Tokina Pro, Minolta G) 28-70 zooms will give you very good qualty at the wide angle lens and a 2.8 appature. If archiatecture and big sky landscape you will want the benefits of a 24mm or wider lens. Also if you move to a digital SLR, you're wider lens will be more useful.
I picked up used sigma 24mm "superwide II" f/2.8 as it was cheaper than the minolta. I was unsure if I would like the wider view compared to 28mm but I'm glad I purchased it. The lens is solidly built and a little noisy while focusing but it is a great addition to my small lens collection.
If you can afford the Minolta Lens it's is certainly the better product. But I'm afraid M.H. is right, you really need to decide
what you want first. ...;)...J
I have Maxxum5 and Maxxum 2xi, I wonder if a 24mm F2.8 SIGMA SUPER WIDE II MACRO (52)(FOCUS AID & PROGRAM/NOT AUTO FOCUS) lens should work properly on Maxxum 5 and Maxxum 2xi on autofocus mode and manual focus mode.
Thanks for your helps .
