freaklikeme
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
JohnJ wrote:
Yes, this is considered 'less attractive within the R series'. Being a Minolta design it has a reputation of being 'less than Leica' from the get-go. Ironically, here Minolta glass is generally highly praised. It would be interesting to see the R24 compared on a FF body with a Zuiko 24/2.8, Contax 25/2.8 and maybe others where it's shortcomings could be seen and compared objectively but I think most people just jump on the 'it's a Minolta design' bandwagon and dump on it for that reason alone.
I don't have many digital pics from it as I've only ever used it on a 40D as it won't clear the mirror on my FF bodies. However I've used it on film, mostly E6 for pro work, for a very long time and only had one issue with it. It's the dumb-ass-idea-from-hell to place white lettering on the front of a lens where it can reflect of any filters back to the image (in high contrast/flare prone conditions). This is exactly what happens when you photograph automotive interiors, which is what I do, so I had to tape over the lettering with matt black tape. Problem solved, see pic below.
It is a very sharp lens in the central area, even wide open, but I admit I'm not one to care much for corner sharpness and I think the R24 falls over in this department to some degree. It's probably not a 'landscape' lens and if that is your intended application then this possibly isn't the lens for you. Edge sharpness is probably the main real gripe with this lens, other than that it's a 'Minolta design', yadda yadda yadda. It's a nice lens for general use, people, reportage etc.
I like the relatively soft bokeh from this lens (The Yashica 24 ML is a little softer, not much) and I think this is probably it's strength combined with excellent central sharpness and it's highly saturated colours (which are fairly similar to the R50 Cron). Putting a polarising filter on this lens can give intense almost cartoon-like colours.
It might be a mediocre lens in some respects (it's not clinically sharp into the corners) but I've hung on to it in the hope of a FF mirrorless body. It's kept company with my R35/1.4 side lined for the same reason. Maybe a cheap zuiko 24 is a better option, I don't know.
In the only 'test' I ever did with this lens it was sharpest in the centre (at close range and at distance) of the Canon 24-70/2.8 (I) L, 17-40/4 L and Yashica 24/2.8 ML.
JJ...Show more →
To be fair, the dumbasses did design a hood for it that covers the lettering. It's bulky, but it's an excellent hood.
I never got to test them on the same FF camera, but I've used the Zuiko 24/2.8 and 24/2 on a 5D and DsIII and the Leica E60 on an R8 and a900, and I've used all three on the NEX 5N and 7. As imperfect as the corners are on the Leica, neither Zuiko could keep up at like apertures (the f/2 is fairly bad in this respect down to about f/4 with distance shots, and never really gets good in corners below 2m, the f/2.8 is better than the f/2 at distances, much worse below 2m). I'm not convinced that it matters, though. I think as a rule, you'd be hard pressed to find a shot taken with a wide angle lens that was ruined by a little fuzziness in the corners.
The upside on the Minolta-design's fairly high. Sharper across the frame, more consistent performance regardless of distance to subject (or aperture, between f/4 and f/8). Higher contrast (without being too high) and, in my opinion, better colors. The Zuiko 24/2 can be more fun to shoot close up, simply because the barrel distortion and curvature of field create a very unique frame, particularly for limited DoF shots, its flare resistance is impressive, and of the three, it's the least punishing when you're shooting off-axis. The 24/2.8 is an incredible bargain for the size and performance, and it may be all you want or need from the focal length, but it's not as versatile as the other two. That's my take on it.
Edited on Apr 25, 2012 at 08:32 PM · View previous versions
|
