Photoclubalpha

Has anyone seen a review anywhere on these two lenses? -- I have the Minolta 24MM from around 1987, and I would really like to know that I'm buying something much better if I spend the money on the new Sony 24mm.

No, you are getting the same lens. All you will get is a new example, with totally clean optics and the latest coatings, unworn focus mechanisms, the latest chip (but still no ADI as far as I know, I think the lens still uses a 5-contact mount). If you can check one and find that it uses an 8-contact mount, it will be a totally new chip and probably more accurate focus.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:No, you are getting the same lens. All you will get is a new example, with totally clean optics and the latest coatings, unworn focus mechanisms, the latest chip (but still no ADI as far as I know, I think the lens still uses a 5-contact mount). If you can check one and find that it uses an 8-contact mount, it will be a totally new chip and probably more accurate focus.

David

David:
OP is talking about the Sony Zeiss 24mm f2.0 -the beautiful (and expensive) one, that you briefly try I don't remember where, and like very much. I don't know if that lens is already on stock...

I tried a Minolta 24mm f2.8 last year, second hand, and didn't like it because not sharp enough -I don't know who was the previous owner and how he/she treat the lens... I bought a Quantaray (Sigma) that is really nice but colors are a little cold.

I did a test in a store to use my 24/2.8 RS side by side with a Sony 24-70/2.8 ZA SSM and the results were embarrassing for the little prime lens. The Sony zoom was, wide open, as sharp in the corners as my prime at f/5.6. My Minolta prime never caught up to the zoom at any point. I can't remember where I saw a comparison between the 24-70 ZA and the 24/2 ZA, but I observed that the 24/2 ZA does to the 24-70 what the 24-70 did to my 24 RS. In short, the 24/2 ZA SSM is some orders of magnitude better than Minolta's old f/2.8 beater.

FWIW, David, my Minolta 24/2.8 RS has only five contacts.

Here is one Full Frame comparison featuring the two lenses and few more:

http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons ... 517-35mm-g

Sorry! I saw the word Sony and failed to spot f/2. I don't really call that lens a Sony 24mm, I call it a CZ 24mm or at the very least a Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm. Yes, of course the CZ 24mm f/2 is in a completely different class. As to whether it's worth a huge amount of money, not so sure.

David

David Kilpatrick wrote:Sorry! I saw the word Sony and failed to spot f/2. I don't really call that lens a Sony 24mm, I call it a CZ 24mm or at the very least a Sony Carl Zeiss 24mm. Yes, of course the CZ 24mm f/2 is in a completely different class. As to whether it's worth a huge amount of money, not so sure.

David

It's a fair chunk of glass to carry as well. I would be really interested in a compact 24mm f2.8 if it were the equal of the Minolta 28mm f2.0 and less than £500. No doubt this newcomer is a great lens, but it seems like overkill to me - aren't there more important gaps in the Sony lens line-up still to be filled?. If the Sony embargo on mail-order is still in place, a long journey would be required to get one, adding further to the cost!

I'm not an expert, so maybe DK can enlighten me on what in practice the extra stop contributes in a 24mm lens.

Wes Gibbon wrote:It's a fair chunk of glass to carry as well. I would be really interested in a compact 24mm f2.8 if it were the equal of the Minolta 28mm f2.0 and less than £500. No doubt this newcomer is a great lens, but it seems like overkill to me - aren't there more important gaps in the Sony lens line-up still to be filled?. If the Sony embargo on mail-order is still in place, a long journey would be required to get one, adding further to the cost!

I'm not an expert, so maybe DK can enlighten me on what in practice the extra stop contributes in a 24mm lens.

If you can find a Minolta 24/2.8 for a good price, it's really not a bad little lens (neither is it a really great one), and it's as small as you're going to get. It focuses very fast and accurately on my a700, gives pretty good bokeh with little coma on APS-C, and it's sharper than the Tamron 17-50/2.8 at similar settings (and 24mm is where the Tamron is at its best).

If you want something faster, there's always the Sigma 24mm f/1.8, which appears to be the better of their three wide f/1.8 lenses (20, 24, and 28mm). It uses a big nine-bladed aperture like the Sony 24mm f/2 ZA and even bigger 77mm filters.

I'm sure Sony will "throw" a new wide angle lens with f/2.8 and SAM (not necessarily DT)... at least I hope so