Ed Rooney Posted August 20, 2016 Share Posted August 20, 2016 "Yes the 28s (and I have a small collection, tried Pentax, Olympus and Canon - currently using a Pentax f2.8 M) are not as good as the 50s (yet to find a bad one). I find that none are razor sharp at the edges, but they still produce JPGs that are larger than those I get from the Sony 16-50 zoom, which is perhaps a tad better at the extremes. The images from the 28s also seem to have more life about them. I know that you have the earlier Sony zoom which is possibly a superior piece of glass. I don't use the 50 as often as the 28 , but I quite like the 75mm equivalent focal length, it compresses the perspective a bit, good for some landscape shots etc." Bryan from the thread titled "sharpening" Instead of replying to your comments in the other thread, Bryan, I thought I would open a new one, since we seemed to be going off topic there. I hope that's okay with you? Most of my pro shooting was done in the Film Age, and back then almost everything I did was with primes. I think working with primes gives us a better feel for the different perspectives and personalities of focal lengths. There's a great deal of difference between a 24mm and a 28mm, for example: The 24mm has a stronger look. It's why, in addition to the EVF, I picked the RX100 iii over the earlier Sony models. (Of course sometimes the 28 is the best choice, but rarely, I think.) With primes and film, not doing much cropping, I owned Nikon 15, 16, 20, 24, 28, 35, and 50. There's also a differences between the 85 and the 105, the best choices for most portraits. I worked for a number of years with the 105, but then when doing multi-destination trips, for a while I switched to the faster, smaller 85. After maybe two years with this lens, I switched back to the 105 -- because I missed its unique personality. Edo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.