Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Peek's gear!

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Quote Originally Posted by seanhoxx View Post
    I think dealing with members in the forum is great, and exchange of advice and info here is fine but maybe when we get to making deals and price offers it should go by private message? not sure what the mods and or admin. feels about a 'open marketplace' in the threads.
    Peek you have and have used both, what are the pros / cons and advantages between the 24 and 28 primes?
    You need to bear in mind that my experience with these lenses is with film as I've only had a DSLR since late November.
    I had the 28mm first, and was happy enough till I got the 24mm. With both lenses AF is instant and IQ is similar in colour but centre sharpness is definitely better on the 24mm. Either lens is acceptably sharp wide open but both perform best at around f4. The extra width, sharpness and lack of distortion of the 24mm more or less made the 28mm redundant for me especially when the 28-135mm came along which is killer sharp for a zoom. The detail on Landscapes and Buildings can be breathtaking with this lens (the 24), group shots are easy and the 2.8 aperture is helpful indoors or early evening outside. Did I mention size; about the same as the 50mm f1.7, put one in your pocket and you hardly know it's there. Go into town with the 24mm and a 35-70mm f4 zoom and you've got a cheap, lightweight rig for most situations, juat a thought.

    That's on film. On the Sony, I haven't yet had a chance to properly explore the possibilities but given that the APS-C is only using the centre (and best) part of the lens' imaging circle, I would say that edge sharpness and distortion are even better but on the negative side, the 24mm becomes a less useful 36mm and the 28mm becomes a 42mm which is closer to standard 50mm.

    Image wise both lenses deliver but which focal length you prefer is down to you; I think my preference is clear.

    I'm happy to discuss like issues on the forum but anything else needs to be by PM.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Ohio, USA.
    Posts
    1,161
    I have the 50mm 1.7 and also use the tamron 17-50 so I pretty much have the 50mm
    (42)mm pretty well covered. A 24mm may prove handy, and it would be so small like the 50mm it almost doesn't count as a extra lens in your bag or pocket. I am interested in getting a UWA maybe the Tamron what is it the 10-24 I think, so something to ponder and think about with the 24mm, Thanks
    Sony A700_____________Minolta AF 50mm. F/1.7
    Minolta AF 70-210mm F/3.5-4.5 Tamron AF 17-50mm F/2.8 XR DiII LD Asp. [IF]
    Tamron SP AF 70-200mm. F/2.8 DI LD [IF] Macro
    Tamron AF 70-300mm F/4-5.6 Di LD Macro 1:2
    Tokina AF 28-70mm F/3.5-4.5
    Tokina AF AT-X 80-400mm F/4.5-5.6
    http://flickr.com/

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Raleigh, NC, USA
    Posts
    788
    I've been thinking a lot about the 24, or the 28 f/2.8, but then I keep going back to the fact that the Tamron 17-50 will just about cover both of them... It won't be as sharp wide open, but for the versatility, maybe its better.
    Jason Hamilton
    Selective Frame

    EOS 5D - Canon EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 35 f/2, EF 50mm f/1.8 Mk II, EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro, Helios 44-2 58mm f/2 (with EOS adapter), 430EX, Canon S90
    Nikon FE - Nikkor 35mm f/2 AI'd, Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 AI, Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 AI, F to EF adapter, 2xVivitar 285, other lighting stuff
    Mamiya C220 - 80mm f/2.8

    Gear List flickr

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Monmouthshire, UK
    Posts
    2,152
    Compromises, compromises, that's what it's all about. If money wasn't an issue you'd simply have both.
    It's hard to ignore the flexibility of a "ZOom" which is why they get most use, but if you want a killer sharp shot be it still life, a building or landscape, a prime is where you find it.
    I've always thought the 17-50 to be a bit soft, softer than the KM 17-35.
    I presume you've already looked at some 24mm shots on dyxum. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11744

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •