Home
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Cheap ultrawide for fullframe (A7)?
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:13 pm    Post subject: Cheap ultrawide for fullframe (A7)? Reply with quote

I'm currently making the step from APS-C to FF (From Nex-5R to A7), planning to use my manual lenses (Minolta MD 28 f2.8, MD45 f2, MC 50 f1.7, Tokina 135 f2.8, Tokina 80-200 f4).

On my nex I had the SEL16F28 with the UWW converter, resulting in a 12mm (FF equivalent of 18mm). I really liked the UWW-imagestyle but didn't use it very often. Already owning a WW (the 28 Minolta), I thought about complementing it with a cheap UWW, because I don't want to spend lots of money for a lens I do not frequently use. But cheap UWW seem to be very hard to find...

In my searches a 19-35mm plastic AF lens keeps popping up which doesn't seem to be too bad (made by cosina and sold under a varity of brand names) that can be had for roundabout 50 to 100 EUR. 24mm primes can be found for under 50 EUR but I'm not sure if I would really use them because I already have the 28 and the question remains if p.e. a hanimex 24mm would be any better than the plastic zoom? Lower than 24mm the price really seems to be coming up...

Do any of you have any experiences with the Cosina or other cheap UWW primes? Are they worth the money? Or any other recommendations?


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, Soligor/Cosina/Voigtländer/ Brand of the day 19-35.

Cannot tell you how good it is, people were paying through the nose for this one. I suppose because it does FF and is shorter than 20mm. And it seems to be one of the few alternatives in that range.

24mm, Sigma UltrawideII maybe.

FF rectilinear (non fisheye) UWW (16mm or less) is really hard to make and pretty expensive. Your options are to shell out $300+ or to perhaps mount a 0.8 converter on that 19mm lens.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Probably better to buy one of the many new offerings that have been released in the last few years by various third party manufacturers (Zeiss, Voigtländer, Tokina, Samyang, Laowa). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_E-mount_lenses and take your pick regarding focal length and budget.

The cheapest ones will be at least a few hundred euros and the expensive ones well over a thousand, but they will all be much better than any old design.

Or get the Sony 28mm/2.0 + wide angle adapter to get the same kind of setup as you had with the 16mm/2.8 + adapter. The price is of course again several times what you were used to with APS-C, but you already knew that when you decided to upgrade to FF. No way around that really...


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Tokina 17mm in Minolta mount may be a good option for you. A good compromise between cost and image quality. Edit: prices seem to be a bit higher today than when I was looking for one, so it may be a less tempting option now.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 3:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big R,

Regarding 24mm vs. 28mm, I can clearly recall when I bought my first 24mm (Canon nFD 24mm f/2.8 ) that after that my 28mm never really got used again. For a "typical" wide angle view, that extra 4mm I found to be much more useful than the 28mm. So I highly recommend that you add a 24mm to your kit. It will get used.

Now, as for ultra wides, the best choices are either the Tokina 17mm or the Tamron 17mm. I have the Tamron 17mm and I also have the Tokina 17mm as a Vivitar lens (S/N begins with 37). You would think that the two lenses would behave similarly, but mine don't. The Vivitar/Tokina focuses like a typical very wide angle lens. With its expansive depth of field, very little focusing needs to be done. But the Tamron behaves much more like a longer focal length lens. It requires precise focusing regardless of where in the field the subject lies. It is an interesting dichotomy.

I find that the resultant images from either my Vivitar/Tokina or my Tamron are virtually identical. So I consider them to be equivalent optics. Some folks, however, claim the Tokina to have a slight edge over the Tamron. Maybe so, but I don't see it in my own tests. This may be because some folks claim the Tokina brand 17mm has a slight edge over the Tokina-made Vivitar. Supposedly the coatings on the Tokina brand 17mm are better, and this results in a slightly better optic. True? Perhaps, but in the ultimate scheme of things, I don't think it matters much.

Whether Tokina or Tamron, it seems the going rate for these lenses here in the US is about $200. Not cheap, but they are outstanding lenses. You might be able t save some money, however, if you can find a Spiratone 18mm. Some of them, at least, were built by Sigma and seem to be very good performers. And sometimes you can find them for less than the Tokina or Tamron typically sell for.

Good luck in your searches. Which ever way you decide to go, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

A copy of Samyang 14/2.8 may be a good choice provided that you can get a good copy and take good care of it.


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 5:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are a few "no name" MF superwides in the 17mm to 21mm which can be bought at 50-100 CHF/EUR/USD. I got an old "Auto Tamron 4.5/21mm" for about 50.--, but its performance is unacceptable - unless you look for special effects or use it only b&w for people.

Then there's the well known "couple" Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm and Tamron SP 3.5/17mm. I have only the Tokina, but if you look at http://www.adaptall-2.com/lenses/51B.html the Tamron must be quite good lens. Other than that i know only the Minolta MD 4/17mm and the Zeiss Distagon 4/18mm (CY mount). Both are virtually identical in their performance, the Zeiss having slightly better corners at f4, and the Minolta (!) having slightly more contrast & better colors, and both sell in the 300-450.-- range.

There are quite a few nice MF 20mm lenses as well, e. g. the Canon (n)FD 2.8/20mm, the Nikkor 2.8/20mm, the Minolta MD 2.8/20mm, the Pentax 2.8/20mm variants, and slower lenses such as the Hexanon AR 4/21mm or the Topcor RE 4/20mm. I got all these lenses for less than CHF 150.--.

Personally i prefer the 20mm over the 17mm, since the 20mm angle is more versatile. If you plan to go on using your 28mm, i would clearly recommend a 20 / 21mm lens. If you want to replace the 28mm by 24mm, then a 17mm might be better.

Stephan


PostPosted: Tue Dec 05, 2017 7:44 pm    Post subject: Re: Cheap ultrawide for fullframe (A7)? Reply with quote

Big R wrote:
I'm currently making the step from APS-C to FF (From Nex-5R to A7), planning to use my manual lenses (Minolta MD 28 f2.8, MD45 f2, MC 50 f1.7, Tokina 135 f2.8, Tokina 80-200 f4).

On my nex I had the SEL16F28 with the UWW converter, resulting in a 12mm (FF equivalent of 18mm). I really liked the UWW-imagestyle but didn't use it very often. Already owning a WW (the 28 Minolta), I thought about complementing it with a cheap UWW, because I don't want to spend lots of money for a lens I do not frequently use. But cheap UWW seem to be very hard to find...

In my searches a 19-35mm plastic AF lens keeps popping up which doesn't seem to be too bad (made by cosina and sold under a varity of brand names) that can be had for roundabout 50 to 100 EUR. 24mm primes can be found for under 50 EUR but I'm not sure if I would really use them because I already have the 28 and the question remains if p.e. a hanimex 24mm would be any better than the plastic zoom? Lower than 24mm the price really seems to be coming up...

Do any of you have any experiences with the Cosina or other cheap UWW primes? Are they worth the money? Or any other recommendations?


For best quality, least $$ & most utility, I suggest the Tamron 20-40 2.7-3.5--decent build quality. I doubt they made one in Minolta mount (though not certain) but it has an A-ring and decent MF ergonomics for an AF lens. I shoot it on Nikon Fx & Fuji X body, the latter through an adapter--images are, at least, very good on both systems. I suspect there is an adapter for either Canon or Nikon to Sony--eh?

I shot with the 19-35--couple of different versions--not a bad idea and can also recommend theses lenses:

Sigma ultra-wide 24mm
Samyang 14mm 2.8
Sigma 14mm 2.8
Tamron 17mm f/3.5 or the Tokina 17mm 3.5
Sigma 12-24 (adapted) may not be a bad idea either--made nice pics for me.
Nikon 20mm f/2.8 (nice and small mf lens)

Remember, it is not very difficult to focus UWA--especially if you use the hyperfocal distance--plus the mf ergonomics of your Sony body (which I've not tried) must be excellent. Best jt


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can keep the 5R and the lenses for landscapes. The combo is not heavy and you can share the batteries with your A7.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the answers!

So one thing I deducted is - there's no hidden gem you can find cheaply.

The Minolta MD 24 sells for 150 to 200 EUR, Canon FD 24 and good 3rd-Party Lenses like Tokina about half. 24mm would really be better I think (I'm used to that, in fact I'd say the 16-50 Kit on the Nex gives you even a little wider view than a 24 if you don't correct it in camera but in RAW-Converter like DXO) - but having a very good 28 (I really love my copy) that I can't sell for a lot of money to compensate I'm going to stick with my 28 for the moment. It just doesn't justify the expense...

The Tokina 17 is really interesting but is also in the 150 to 200 EUR range, as are nearly all the viable 20mm options (lots of them even more expensive). Problem is that this is quite close to a used modern lens which has much better flare-resistance which I think is important for UWA lenses.

As for keeping the nex:
The 16mm and Converter is already gone because I had to sell them to be able to afford the A7... .... and right now I'm selling Nex and double-zoom-kit.

So best bet seems to be - saving money and waiting for a bargain and perhaps in the meantime grabbing me the Cosina 19-35 if one comes along for a reasonable price.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 7:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ive been using a Nikon 20mm f3.5 for years. Great for landscapes and quite cheap, think mine was £150.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64378612@N06/36644592871

https://www.flickr.com/photos/64378612@N06/35949073154


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 9:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Define cheap...
There are a number of options, but most are $200 +
Konica AR 21/4 & 24/2.8
Minolta 24/2.8
FD 20/2.8, 24/2.8 & 24/2
Nikkor 18/4
SMC Pentax 20/4


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 2:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The best ultra wide for less money is the vivitar/tokina 17/3.5


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tamron 17mm f3.5 AD-II


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Cosina-made 19/3.8 prime (most often found as a Vivitar) is usable, but has imperfect corners on full frame even at f/8 and substantial "moustache" distortion. It also flares more than more modern lenses.

Not ideal, but well made and reasonably cheap, almost always under $100, and often much less.

The question really is what level of quality you require. I am very forgiving, my technical standards are quite low, so it doesnt take much to satisfy me.


PostPosted: Wed Dec 06, 2017 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think Rick is right. I've also found that the Vivitar flavor of the Tokina is often considerably cheaper than the Tokina brand Tokina. There are slight differences, as I mentioned above, but they are slight and I don't think really matter all that much. The biggest issue I've found with my Vivitar/Tokina 17mm is barrel distortion along the edge of the frame. I don't have an FF camera -- I found the distortion when shooting with it using a film camera.

This distortion can be corrected with post production software, but it is an issue that should at least be kept in mind. I guess I should also mention that I don't know how old my Vivitar is and that a later version may have addressed the distortion issue.

My Vivitar has vestiges of a built-in hood -- the tulip variety. I've seen other Vivitar/Tokina 17s that don't have this small built-in hood. Dunno if mine is older or newer than this other style of lens. It's in Canon FD mount.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

What about the fujinon EBC 19mm 3.5 ? I got it this year for 150 euros, didn't yet had the chance to test it and can't found a lot of input about it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

miran wrote:
Probably better to buy one of the many new offerings that have been released in the last few years by various third party manufacturers (Zeiss, Voigtländer, Tokina, Samyang, Laowa). See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_third-party_E-mount_lenses and take your pick regarding focal length and budget.

The cheapest ones will be at least a few hundred euros and the expensive ones well over a thousand, but they will all be much better than any old design.


I agree with this statement. From an old ultra wide angle can be identified unless distagon 21mm c/y but it is comparable with the price on a Loxia 21mm, it makes no sense. You can still add Firin Tokina 20mm f2.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

willy35 wrote:
What about the fujinon EBC 19mm 3.5 ? I got it this year for 150 euros, didn't yet had the chance to test it and can't found a lot of input about it.


That Fujinon must be quite rare I suppose. But you can´t be dissapointed with that glass.


My copy of Nikkor 20/2.8D is fine performer. Small, sharp and fast. Can only recommend it.


PostPosted: Thu Dec 07, 2017 8:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I received a few days ago, Canon nFD 24mm f2.8 and the adapter to it for my A7r. Test for sharpness in the far field F11. You can download full size bed.



p.s I have not, and never was old 24mm fixes. From what I see I conclude a very good picture. I think it is worth the money I paid for it (120$)


PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 12:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another vote for the Fujinon 19mm, I've had mine for years, 42-screw, still love it Smile Also the Fujinon 16mm f/2.8 full-frame fish-eye if you can find one, and if you can live with a zoom, look out for a Sigma 21-35mm f/3.5-4 ... all glass and metal ... love it!


PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That Canon 24mm is an excellent lens (I've owned a couple and really like them). Canon also made an FD 20mm and 17mm, both of which are fine performers, and which should also be considered. Neither are particularly cheap when you find them, though.

Regarding Nikon 20mm, I've always been a big fan of the old pre-AI 20mm f/3.5 UD. It's really a great lens and works well on digitals, from the photos I've seen. But I don't own one (I used to about 25 years ago Cool ), so I can't vouch for it personally. But I've seen lots of shots taken with it posted to flickr and it sure seems to do a fine job.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I found a cheap Exakta 24 2.8 (cosina made) on ebay and thought - Give it a try... At F11 it should be enough for the ocasional city trip. And I'll see If I'll really use this focal length and yearn for something wider. If the answer is yes I can always look for a Canon or Minolta.

In the meantime I think I'll either wait if a bargain for the better UW options floats along or I'm gonna save till I can afford a modern lens. The last days it was always the Minolta MD 45 f2 on my A7.


PostPosted: Fri Dec 08, 2017 9:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Almost forgot my old Russian lenses! Assuming you can get an adaptor for your new camera to take 39mm "Leica-screw", the Russar MP-2 20mm f/5.6 can be quite awesome and the FED 28mm f/4.5 "pancake" is so thin it's almost invisible (and fiddly to operate). Although this FED lens looks like one of the collapsible 50mm lenses it is in fact perfectly "normal" in design.


PostPosted: Sat Dec 09, 2017 5:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:
Almost forgot my old Russian lenses! Assuming you can get an adaptor for your new camera to take 39mm "Leica-screw", the Russar MP-2 20mm f/5.6 can be quite awesome and the FED 28mm f/4.5 "pancake" is so thin it's almost invisible (and fiddly to operate). Although this FED lens looks like one of the collapsible 50mm lenses it is in fact perfectly "normal" in design.


Why the Russar MP-2 20mm f/5.6 is so expansive ? I just looked on ebay, is it that good ? Is it rare ?

The black version is cool.