The MD24/2.8 is decent for its age & price range. Similar to the Canon FD 24/2.8. Both are somewhat better than the Sigma Ultrawide 24/2.8.Currently pondering a Minolta MD 24/2.8 or maybe 28/3.5, but if anyone has a better idea I’m all ears!
- not crazy expensive, hopefully
- not crazy big either
How does it perform in terms of e.g. barrrel distortion? It seems like a relatively compact lens and it's kind of hard/impossible to make a 24mm fast retrofocus design with full 35mm coverage in a very small package that also has low distortion. It's one of those triangles where you can have two corners, but never three at a time (not to mention price).There's also the Vivitar (Kiron) 24mm f2.0. Faster than the Minolta, and less expensive -- but just as good in my resolution tests.
How do these options relate to the 'needs to have physical aperture ring'? Mind you, IDK, but I guess it would limit the options among modern designs, which in general would be preferable due to the inherently better quality of post 1995ca. designs.top contenders would be:
How does it perform in terms of e.g. barrrel distortion? It seems like a relatively compact lens and it's kind of hard/impossible to make a 24mm fast retrofocus design with full 35mm coverage in a very small package that also has low distortion. It's one of those triangles where you can have two corners, but never three at a time (not to mention price).
A rectilinear lens isn't distorted by definition. And barrel distortion in particular in my view can be a significant concern. The better lenses at around 24mm keep this down to 1.5% or so, which is already significant. Smaller lenses tend to run into the 3+% region which really limits their usability in architectural situation IMO.A 24mm is pretty distorted anyway
I am a little surprised that the Nikkor 28/2.8 AiS doesn't live up to your requirements. I wonder if sample variation is a play here. The last produced samples are approaching 15 years so wear may also be a factor if you don't know its use history.
How do these options relate to the 'needs to have physical aperture ring'? Mind you, IDK, but I guess it would limit the options among modern designs, which in general would be preferable due to the inherently better quality of post 1995ca. designs.
I'd probably sugggest taking a look at the current Voigtlander 28mm lens lineup. They are all quite extraordinary and reasonably priced for a new lens - the 28 APO is likely to be stellar.
23mm | f3.5 | Soligor |
8 / 6 |
1.0 | 62mm |
24mm | f2 | Vivitar |
8 / 8 |
1.0 | 52mm |
24mm | f2 | Vivitar |
8 / 8 |
1.0 | 55mm |
24mm | f2.0 | Kiron |
8 / 8 |
1.0 | 55mm |
24mm | f2.5 | Soligor |
9 / 7 |
1.0 | 55mm |
24mm | f2.5 | Tamron |
10 / 9 |
0.7 | 55mm |
24mm | f2.5 | Tamron |
10 / 9 |
0.8 | 55mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Sigma |
10 / 8 |
? | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Sigma |
7 / 7 |
0.6 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Sigma |
8 / 7 |
0.6 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Soligor |
9 / 7 |
0.8 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Soligor |
8 / 7 |
1.5 | 67mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Tokina |
7 / 7 |
1.3 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Vivitar |
7 / 7 |
0.6 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Vivitar |
8 / 8 |
0.9 | 52mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Vivitar |
8 / 7 |
0.4 | 58mm |
24mm | f2.8 | Vivitar |
? / ? |
? | 67mm |
24mm | f3.5 | Tamron |
8 / 6 |
0.8 | 72mm |
25mm | f2.8 | Soligor |
8 / 7 |
1.0 | 52mm |
I have an old MF 28mm f/3.5 PC Nikkor that I am very happy with shooting on 45 megapixels.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?