I need something wider. I'm looking recommendations for a ~35mm full frame equivalent. I want a lens great at something. That could be sharpness, bokeh, price, etc. I'm just looking for interesting options. Otherwise, priorities are lightweight, cheap, and fast. Quality should be good, doesn't need to be great. That's a lot to ask, so I'm willing to compromise.
Currently thinking the G 28 or the Rokkor 28 f/2.8. G 28 for its weight and quality, Rokkor for its rendering and price. Would love something faster, but don't want to carry around a brick either. CV 28/1.9 seems nice on paper but way too expensive. Any thoughts?
Went through archives and liked this one:
NEX 6 + G 45
Park benches seem so cliche, but I still love pictures of beautiful places to sit.
Rokkor 58/1.2, probably f/2
New niece. People pictures are so hard--focus and color. I really bombed DOF and focus for most shots of her.
Rokkor 58/1.2, probably f/2
Adam211 wrote:
I need something wider. I'm looking recommendations for a ~35mm full frame equivalent. I want a lens great at something. That could be sharpness, bokeh, price, etc. I'm just looking for interesting options. Otherwise, priorities are lightweight, cheap, and fast. Quality should be good, doesn't need to be great. That's a lot to ask, so I'm willing to compromise.
Currently thinking the G 28 or the Rokkor 28 f/2.8. G 28 for its weight and quality, Rokkor for its rendering and price. Would love something faster, but don't want to carry around a brick either. CV 28/1.9 seems nice on paper but way too expensive. Any thoughts?
The CV 28/1.9 is a real pain to focus on Mirrorless bodies, not enough contrast, especially wide open. Otherwise a great rendering and sharp lens. I liked mine as an RF lens but not so much on mirrorless. It's also on the larger side for an RF 28.
My suggestions would be to go for a compact and inexpensive SLR 24. The three that immediately come to mind are the Nikkor 24/2.8, the Olympus 24/2.8 and the Sigma Super-Wide II 24/2.8. All are very good, small to very small (the Nikkor, largest of the three, is the same size as the Zeiss ZA E 24/1.8 when mounted on an adapter) and can be had for under $200. A 28 will be longer than a 35 equivalent, being a 42-43mm-e on APS-C. For those I'd recommend the Oly 28/3.5 or a Pentax-A 28/2.8 for compact, inexpensive & good.
Going to RF lenses will necessarily increase the cost, the only bargains in RF lenses are older 35mm and longer lenses or the Contax G lenses (which handle poorly on mirrorless)
I went out for a walk today with the Nex7 and the 30mm Sigma. I've owned quite a few lenses in the last few years including highly regarded primes by Pentax and some fine Nikon zooms. I think that the SIgma 19 & 30 are as sharp as those lenses. Not quite the color pop but they still blow my mind.
But this one doesn't show the performance. I just liked the look of this one right out of the camera on monochrome mode. Too shallow DOF and terrible light actually worked IMHO.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/13168198/Birds%201.jpg
Then I got home and saw a little bluebird in a redbud. Went in and grabbed my 40+ year old Takumar 200F4. The Nex7 should not be considered a camera as much as it is a digital back..
New ebay lens! Canon FDn 24mm f2.8, excellent condition, for $60. Online reputation as less sharp/contrasty than its f2 sibling, but from first impressions I can't imagine it being much better. The F2 goes for upwards of $400...
Not a test, just a few snaps - from RAW, on old NEX-5, vignette & unsharp mask added, minor crops & perspective adjustment.
f5.6 or f8, with random OOF stranger - plenty of (corrected) moiré in this one, showing that the sensor is being comfortably out-resolved: Kennedy Quay, Cork, Ireland by specularist, on Flickr
alan_m - The Fd lenses are very good.They are just not as cool looking as some of the others but optically they perform very well.I really like #2
-Jim
Why does it make me think of ginger snaps?
