Wide angle suggestions

[Chaplain Jeff]

Hello,

When I bought my Sony Alpha 700, I bought a cheap Minolta 24-85 variable aperture zoom for about $45 at KEH. I have since bought a Maxxum 9000 and shoot it most of the time with this lens at the 24mm position. It's a great little lens and is wide enough for me. Not sure if it would be enough of a difference for you or not from 28mm.

If you want to know how wide is wide enough without buying a few lenses to check (Minolta wides seem to be rare these days at places like KEH - thanks a lot Sony...), you might get try of the cheap ridiculously wide Sony kit zooms from your local camera store. Put it on your camera and try it there. Whatever looks "right" is the width you need to seek in a prime.

[sage]

Is it worth the extra money for the zoom lenses that are a stop greater, like a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5? And if so, is the 20 then going to be wide enough instead of the 17? So many little things seem to be adding up hah.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

I had 35mm, 28mm and 20mm lenses for my Minoltas. I got rid of the 35mm because it was too close to the normal lens.
Steve

A 35mm IS a normal lens...

[Sirius Glass]

A 35mm IS a normal lens...

No, my normals were 50mm and 58mm lenses.

Steve

[sage]

Any more suggestions about the aperatures? Just checking before i buy something.

[StorminMatt]

A 35mm IS a normal lens...

Not unless you are shooting APS-C digital.

[wayne naughton]

Any more suggestions about the aperatures? Just checking before i buy something.

i've got both the minolta af 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8 and i don't particularly prefer one over the other. You'd be better off working out what you are going to use the lens for and whether you are prepared to put in the extra effort necessary to effectively use the 20mm ie manual focussing, hyperfocussing and all that stuff.....grin

wayne

[Poisson Du Jour]

i've got both the minolta af 20/2.8 and the 24/2.8 and i don't particularly prefer one over the other. You'd be better off working out what you are going to use the lens for and whether you are prepared to put in the extra effort necessary to effectively use the 20mm ie manual focussing, hyperfocussing and all that stuff.....grin

wayne

HPF (hyperfocus) application is not a usual requisite for ultra-wide angles of which 20mm is a member. Such optics already have very significant depth of field and depth of focus.

[Poisson Du Jour]

Is it worth the extra money for the zoom lenses that are a stop greater, like a 20-35 at F2.8 versus a 19-35 or 17-35 at F3.5-4.5? And if so, is the 20 then going to be wide enough instead of the 17? So many little things seem to be adding up hah.

"A stop greater" is actually a stop slower in terms of Av (aperture).
I think you are going to need a few years' experience of application with, for a start, 20mm, before going down to e.g. 17mm or below. The former is a fine optic and will teach you the need to be careful with spatial arrangement of subject matter (including perspective). The latter takes this a few steps further where composition and spatial arrangement need to be considered very carefully, especially in the small 35mm format. A lens with a variable aperture of (your e.g.) 17-35 f3.5-4.5 is likely to suffer significant optical flaws by design compared to a prime, unless you gun for the more expensive fixed-aperture optics that are usually highly corrected for chroma, astigmatism, curvature and distorion among (in no particular order). Should you be worried about this now? No. Just kit up with a 20mm f2.8, leave zooms until much later and take that optic on a journey of discovery. Finally, a 20mm f2.8 is my second-favourite optic to the PC 24mm prime.

[Rol_Lei Nut]

Not unless you are shooting APS-C digital.

Aaaarrrrrghh! Never!

I just find using 50mm as a "normal" a little too uptight...
35mm Sees the World the way I do.
:-)