1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

Need a good 24 or 28mm lens

Discussion in 'Adapted Lenses' started by dixeyk, Nov 28, 2010.

  1. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I just traded my very nice Super Takumar 28/3.5. I got good value for it but I realize that I do not have a good replacement for it. I have also not found the 28 (or 24) that worked for me yet. So now I set out to find a replacement and I need some assistance.

    What I would like is the ability to close focus around a foot or so (or closer if possible but I'm trying to be realistic), sharp and decent bokeh (notice I didn't say great). About the closest I have come is the Konica 28/3.5 (I have had 2) but I find that 3.5 lenses are bit slower than I would like. I have also had an Olympus 28/2.8...maybe it was my copy but that lens just never worked for me. I'd love to spend in the $50-$100 range.

    I have Konica, M42, PEN F and FD adapters...(I generally do NOT like FD lenses) but I'll go for a different mount if it looks like a good fit. If it makes a difference of the lenses I have I find that my Konica 40/1.8, 50/1.4 and PEN F 40/1.4 are my favorite lenses. That said, they all represent that short telephoto length and what I am wanting is something closer to the standard 40mm/50mm lens I learned to shoot with on film (although I realize a FAST lens like those standard 50/1.8s would be way out of my price range).

    Any suggestions?
     
  2. qball

    qball Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jun 19, 2010
    I have a Canon FD 28mm f/2.8 lense I can sell you. It is in perfect cosmetic/mechanical shape, no dust, fungus, etc. with front/rear lens caps.

    $39 shipped in CONUS.

    If interested, PM me.
     
  3. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I had a Canon AE1P for years and I absolutely HATED that camera...WITH A PASSION. When I switched to digital I had a Canon 10D and I hope to never touch another Canon DSLR as long as I live. That said, I suppose I am not really being fair to the lenses. I know that the FD lenses are good (I have a 50/1.4 myself) but I generally stay away from them (like when you first tried beets and they are those horrible pink/purple staining monstrosities from a jar and refuse to ever eat beets again despite them being very good for you and when prepared properly very tasty). I also knew that this was going to come up as they are so popular. That said, I have to admit that your images do look great.

    Between the 2 lenses do you have a preference?
     
  4. kiynook

    kiynook Mu-43 Regular

    70
    Aug 16, 2010
  5. Sorry to hear of your distaste for Canon products, I'll try not to take it personally :smile:

    Operationally both lenses are virtually identical. The 24mm is a little heavier but nothing that you can really feel on the camera. I've used two copies of each type and all four worked nicely - no lemons amongst them. I'd say the 24mm is preferable because it is just a little wider. The 28mm sometimes just isn't isn't quite wide enough, but it has a slight advantage over the 24mm in close-up work with a marginally shallower depth-of-field. I wouldn't carry them both with me and swap between them because they are too close in focal length to be lens-swapping. However I am happy to keep both and either toss a coin between them if I'm only using one lens or take whichever complements my other lenses better. I don't have many pictures from my 24mm on flickr just yet, but I have a few to upload soon, probably tonight. Please note that I am using the new FD bayonet mount lenses, not the earlier (bigger, heavier) breech-lock lenses.
     
  6. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    I appreciate your understanding of my affliction.

    How is the 28/2.8 wide open? That is something that the Konica and the Super Takumar were good at. They were both quite sharp wide open (although at 3.5 I suspect that isn't exactly a great engineering feat).

    Kevin
     
  7. OzRay

    OzRay Mu-43 Legend

    Jan 29, 2010
    South Gippsland, Australia
    Ray, not Oz
    Unless you're extremely lucky, you're just not going to find high quality, reasonably fast, wide angle lenses at the price that you want. Add another $100 to your price and you might be in the game (just).

    Cheers

    Ray
     
  8. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    Yeah, well that's why I ended up with the 28/3.5's in the first place. I can buy a KEH bargain OM 24/2.8 for around $130. I've bought their bargain lens before and they are way better than most eBay MINT lenses. That said, other than that the pickings are rather slim. Of course I am spoiled by having being extremely lucky of late in the lens acquisition derby as I have lucked into a number of good lenses very cheaply. I guess I need to remember that all lucky streaks come to an end.

    I may just head back and pick up another Konica 28/3.5 and be done with it. If I do however I'd like to try out the F16 version (7 elements in 7 groups) and supposedly the best of the lot. The OM 28/3.5 is also an option (the Japanese seem to love that lens...although its not so popular here so prices are a bit lower).

    Kevin
     
  9. Both the FD 24 and 28mm soften marginally wide open at f2.8. Back off half a stop (f3.3, f2.8-and-a-half?) and they are sharp. I use them between this value and f11 with no problems. I haven't really used them at f16 or f22 so can't comment on their small aperture performance.
     
  10. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    That's as I suspected. I think I'm going to either just grab another 28/3.5 or pony up for something like the OM 24/2.8. Thanks for the info.

    Kevin
     
  11. pdh

    pdh Mu-43 Top Veteran

    598
    May 6, 2010
  12. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010

    Thanks, I had seen that thread...Those are all fine lenses but they are also all quite spendy. There are good affordable lenses as well. As I said in my original post, the Konica 28/3.5 was close but I felt it was a bit slow. It wouldn't be the end of the world to go back to a 3.5 lens. Photography (like HiFi) is a refuge for people with a lot of disposable income but for those of us that cannot casually drop $500 on a lens there have GOT to be some options. I just need to keep looking.
     
  13. Mellow

    Mellow Mu-43 All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2010
    Florida or Idaho
    Tom
  14. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    That sounds pretty interesting...I'll look at that.

     
  15. robertro

    robertro Mu-43 Veteran

    223
    Apr 22, 2010
    My favorite 28 is my Tamron 28mm/f2.5. It's extremely sharp, compact, and focuses to 1:2.5 macro. Like most Tamron Adaptall lenses such as their 90/2.5 and 70-210/3.5, I find it quite contrasty and thus easy to focus, even without magnification. It's usually available for less than $100.
     
  16. I think the OM 24mm will well and truly blow the $100 budget you mentioned.
     
  17. dixeyk

    dixeyk Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Aug 9, 2010
    The 24/2.8 is a nice lens.

    FYI...Just this morning I picked up a Konica Hexanon 24/2.8. I got it under budget and in what appears to be very good shape. Close focuses to 9" and if it is anything like my other Konicas it should be nice and sharp.

    Thanks everyone for the help! I'll check back with some images as soon as it arrives.
     
  18. RetroBoy

    RetroBoy Mu-43 Regular

    I have a Konica 24 2.8 - a nice piece of glass.

    Although I tested it against my Oly Digital 14-54 2.8-3.5 and the Oly is better all round, the Hexanon has that certain something that makes it a pleasure to use. Then there's always the gorgeous Hexanon colours.

    The first 2 are with my e510 and the second 2 sooc jpegs with epl1.

    The last attachment has a side by side comparison with the Hex 24 on the left and the Oly 14-54 on the right
     

    Attached Files:

    • Like Like x 1
  19. qball

    qball Mu-43 Regular

    170
    Jun 19, 2010
    Oops... disregard... didn't notice the your posts two posts back.