A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Sony/Minolta SLR System > MF: sigma 24mm super-wide-II

Featured Equipment Deals

Transformational Imagemaking: An Interview with Robert Hirsch Read More

Transformational Imagemaking: An Interview with Robert Hirsch

Robert Hirsch takes us through history in this interview about his new book, beginning with the groundbreaking 60s to contemporary work of today, featuring artists in his book that "...literally have...

Latest Equipment Articles

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer Read More

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer

In today's mobile, digital world, we carry hundreds or even thousands of pictures around on our smartphones and tablets. Tom Persinger looks at 4 different mobile photo printer options for getting...

Latest Learning Articles

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial) Read More

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial)

Building upon last week's Basic Printing with Lightroom video tutorial, this advanced printing tutorial will teach you to print contact sheets, print multiple images at a time, use Lightroom's present...


MF: sigma 24mm super-wide-II

Jeroen B , Sep 13, 2006; 03:44 p.m.

hello group,

Is there someone out there who has experience with the Sigma 24mm f/24 super-wide-II lens?.

I have let go a MD (rokkor?) Minolta 24mm f/2.8 auction earlier this week, the lens went for 70 euro's (not bad, right?). The sigma is about 35 euro, with a "ding" in the front ring.

I don't have real interest in wide angle for my MF system (or the long end, I stick between 35 and 135mm), but maybe the Sigma is a nice buy?

bye, jeroen

p.s: I have mixed feelings about my MD rokkor 35mm f/2.8. I have the feeling my Olympus P&S Mju-II (35mm f/2.8) is a lot better. Maybe a bad sample (lemon...?)

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Jeroen B , Sep 13, 2006; 03:45 p.m.

that should be 24mm f/2.8!

Richard Harris , Sep 13, 2006; 03:58 p.m.

Minolta MD/MC Rokkor 24mm f/2.8 would win I would have thought...

Hi Jeroen,

I personally would not bother with the sigma 24mm super-wide 2. I can have no opinion on this lens as i have not read anything on it, seen the results or used it...;-)

However, I believe the minolta version is about as good as it gets for a 24mm prime lens [Is the SR-mount version better than the AF-mount version?]. So i see no need to step down to the level of the sigma lens [probably not bad but still a step down]. Also, the price isnt great value.

You mention you dont do wide angle stuff so much... if you have this minolta lens you definately will. Also, if you dont go so wide at the moment there is no need to buy a lens that you dont no much about. Ive used a 24mm lens on my dads nikon and i find its great to use [when you have the perfect picture] as you can include so much forground.

Just incase you havent seen already www.rokkorfiles.com has a great review of the minolta lens.

Let me know what you think or what you decide to do in the end.

Richard

Jeroen B , Sep 13, 2006; 04:35 p.m.

I should tell you I have a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 prime for AF, and the minolta 24-50mm f/4. So, I do wide sometimes, but not with MF.

Indeed, no clue at all about the Sigma on the web!

And an interesting question, is the MF 24mm better than the AF one?. Maybe on film you will not see it anyway, because in the printing stage in a (cheap?)lab some resolution is lost anyway?

Richard Harris , Sep 13, 2006; 04:58 p.m.

Interesting comment. I suppose you will only see the quality when you print quite big and when you do that you do really need to find a good lab I suppose.

Do you have any preference, in terms of quality, over the 24-50 [at the wide end] and the 24 prime lens?

Im only guessing but the MF version could quite possibly be sharper as it was one of the lenses made in the leitz collaboration. If the the AF version is identical i dont know, someone else will probably know. I for one would like to know as i dont have a 24mm lens myself and own both MF and AF bodies.

Brian Southward , Sep 13, 2006; 05:16 p.m.

Well, I own the Sigma Super-Wide II 24/2.8 so I guess I can add something. It's a well-built lens which is optically superb. I suspect, though I have never made side-by-side comparisons, that the Rokkor 24mm is slightly better, but not sufficiently to matter in practice. I think you'd be happy with it. The price is good, too.

One slight drawback for Minolta system users is that it takes a 52mm filter.

Rokkor Fan , Sep 13, 2006; 06:11 p.m.

You let go a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 for $70? Bad move - these are worth $140 plus and are a step above all of the 35mms for the Minolta system.

Alan Clayton , Sep 13, 2006; 06:22 p.m.

I have one, it is very good, sharp, good contrast and no significant illumination fall-off, or other bad habits. Build quality is good. I don't use mine much because the colour rendition is subtly different to my Nikkors. I wouldn't personally buy a lens with any form of physical damage - clean examples are quite cheap nowadays and good value for money. Photodo rating on this lens is 4.2 - as good as they get (in Photodo's mtf rating system).

The Minolta MD-W Rokkor-X 24mm f2.8 has CRC (close range correction) which should perform better than the Sigma's conventional design for 'macro' work. If I was looking for a Minolta-fit 24 I'd choose the Rokkor over any independent. Your MD 35 should be a decent lens - but many manufacturers produced lemons from time to time ... AC

Bob Gentile , Sep 13, 2006; 06:59 p.m.

"... You let go a Minolta 24mm f/2.8 for $70...?"

Antony, he said 70 euros. I think they're, like... metric dollars. ;-)

Jeroen B , Sep 14, 2006; 03:08 a.m.

Well, I did't bid on the lens (and I was at work when auction closed) so it went for 70 euro's. There was one bidder only who took it. I guess if I had start bidding, the price would be higher.

The Sigma, it has a ding, and the Minolta is a better performer. I will think about it. Are there many Minolta 24mm's out there?


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses