|
 |
| How good, how useful, and how expensive are pickings from the the latest crop of 24+ zooms? See if you can identify the 24-90mm f/3.5-4.5 Pentax; 24-105mm f/3.5- 4.5 Minolta; 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 Nikon; 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 Tamron; 24-200mm f/3.5-5.6 Tokina. |
So here you are with your faithful all-purpose 28-105mm zoom—or maybe you're still using a past-generation 35-105mm or getting by with a budget-priced 28-80mm or thereabouts.
Now the wide-angle end of tele-zooms has been dropped to 24mm by seven major optical players.
Credit Minolta for starting the 24mm ball rolling way back in 1994 when they replaced their 28-85mm f/3.5-4.5 with a 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5. We tested it and thought it a sensational lens. But Minolta did little to promote it, explaining that consumers thought the $684 list price ($340 street price today) was too dear. I became a one-person, 24-85mm Minolta cheering section, with little success. Nikon, usually credited with letting other companies innovate optically and then perfecting the designs, astounded the SLR world in 1997 with a 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 zoom, ostensibly for the amateur market. But pros, particularly wedding photographers, glommed onto the lens, and use it extensively to this day.
Canon, the customary optical pack leader, took three years to catch up with Minolta, getting their own USM (ultrasonic motor) version in 1997. The latest to arrive on the scene is the autofocus 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 Zeiss Vario-Sonnar for the new Contax N1.
We should have realized from the Minolta and Canon 24-85mm lenses that 28mm (like 35mm before it) was on its way out as the minimum wide-to-tele focal length and would be replaced by 24mm. If Nikon had the optical know-how to stretch a zoom from 24- to 120mm, why couldn't other lens designers break out of the 85mm-maximum-focal-length rut, too?
We were worried that other lensmakers would copycat, and all produce 24-120mm lenses since Nikon was so successful with theirs. Thankfully, Minolta, Pentax, and Tokina have gone their own ways in focal lengths offered, as you can see by perusing the photographs and charts herein. And—optical miracle of miracles, the lenses actually were often smaller and lighter than the 28mm-minimum-focal-length zooms they replaced.
Replacing? You don't think lensmakers will long continue making and trying to sell 28-105mm lenses if rivals are successfully selling 24-105mm lenses, do you?
So here we go. Smaller, lighter, 24mm minimum focal length—but higher priced.
Worth it? This will depend on optical quality, useful additional coverage, and convenience.
