Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Wide Angle for APSC around 160 usd ? M42? Retrofocus?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 11:28 am    Post subject: Wide Angle for APSC around 160 usd ? M42? Retrofocus? Reply with quote
hello

I advised a friend of mine to buy a camera that I find exceptional for the actual prices theses days, the XM1 from fuji with the well known 16MP APSC sensor.

I was using the same for years with fuji or Leica M Mount lenses.

I would like to ask you some advice as he need my help. He wish to buy as first lens something:
- good for landscapes photos
- maximum 160 usd or even a bit more if you found something exceptionnal
- a compact lens (or not giant) - hum, the adaptor might be an issue too...
- Manual focus, vintage one=)

I didnt remember if it is important or not to found something retrofocus for such lenses?

hum, might it be interesting to look on a different mount than Leica M if he plan to buy many others lenses around 50 usd? I specially have in mind the M42 Mount as I'm not use to this special one.

I had in mind to advise him something between 16mm (27mm APSC) and 26mm (39mm APSC) even If it is a certainly too much....

I'm totally open mind about all advices and he is really impatient to see which good lenses you will be able to speak about, thanks in advance


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
No vintage wideangle lens can come even close to a modern lens, at least not for this kind of money (or possibly any kind of money). In fact I would expect any APS-C kit zoom (18-55 or 16-50 or similar) to wipe the floor with any vintage wide at the same focal length. If not that, then at least the Sigma 19mm/2.8 (which is actually a very modest lens and can be bought new for less than 100€ with some luck) makes any vintage wideangle lens of similar focal length (say 17-21mm) look so bad it's embarrasing.


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tokina 17mm F3.5, Sigma Super Wide II 24mm F2.8, Pentax-M 20mm F4


PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2017 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
If you're interested in the looks and handling of vintage lenses instead of modern plastic AF ones (which i can understand) then i would recommend the Tokina RMC 3.5/17 or the Tamron Adaptall-2 3.5/17 (both the 51B and 151B are nice).


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 12:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
Tokina 17mm F3.5, Sigma Super Wide II 24mm F2.8, Pentax-M 20mm F4


Thumbs up for sigma super wide ii. You can get the quantaray equivalent too.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 2:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The problem with any of these vintage ultra wides when used on an APS-C camera is the sensor just can't handle the angle of view. I've tried both the Tokina-made Vivitar 17/3.5 and the Tamron 17/3.5 with two different APS-C cameras and the results were very disappointing. Mushy is the word that comes to mind. My 18-55 kit lenses perform MUCH better at 18mm than either of these two highly respected 35mm film camera lenses. Your friend is much better off getting a WA zoom intended for APS-C, or perhaps a Samyang wide designed for APS-C. $160 ain't gonna cut it, though.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
I've tried both the Tokina-made Vivitar 17/3.5 and the Tamron 17/3.5 with two different APS-C cameras and the results were very disappointing. Mushy is the word that comes to mind.


No problems on my NEX-3 and A3000, which ones did you try them on? I always thought that this wide-ange performance problem occured when using rangefinder lenses, not SLR lenses.
I'm now using them on FF, Sony A7 and Canon 5D, no problems as well.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 5:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
TrueLoveOne wrote:
cooltouch wrote:
I've tried both the Tokina-made Vivitar 17/3.5 and the Tamron 17/3.5 with two different APS-C cameras and the results were very disappointing. Mushy is the word that comes to mind.


No problems on my NEX-3 and A3000, which ones did you try them on? I always thought that this wide-ange performance problem occured when using rangefinder lenses, not SLR lenses.
I'm now using them on FF, Sony A7 and Canon 5D, no problems as well.


I agree. I have no problems with my Tokina 3.5/17 on Sony Alpha A6000 and Canon EOS5D MKII.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have used the Nikkor UD 20mm f3.5 on the Fujifilm X-E1 with great success.
It can be found for around your budget.
The lens is not compact with its adapter, but it is very manageable.
Here are some recent samples.
T


#1


#2


#3


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 6:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've tried both lenses on my old 10.1mp Canon XS (1000D) and my 24.3mp Sony NEX 7. I'd post some example pix, but I don't think I bothered keeping any, they were so disappointing. I have seen many photos taken with these lenses on the Sony A7 series and the Canon 5D series and I agree, the results are beautiful on those cameras.

I am by no means the only one who's run into this problem. It's been pretty well documented and the ongoing theory is that APS-C sensors are not designed to handle the angles at which light coming from these vintage ultra-wides hits them. WA lenses designed specifically for APs-C cameras are designed so that this problem is eliminated. Somehow.

Well, well -- I found a few taken with my NEX 7. Here is a pair of shots taken of my overgrown backyard. Each lens was set to f/8. The shutter speed with the Tamron was 1/160 and with the Vivitar was 1/200. I've reduced the images to 1600x1067 for viewing here, but if you'd like to see the full-size ones, just ask, and I can provide links to them.

The Tamron 17mm:


The Vivitar 17mm:


See what I mean? Mushy.


PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't like the Spiratone YS 18mm f3.5 made by Sigma.
I posted this pic on another forum. It was shot without a hood,
Because I'm looking for hood recommendations.
The lens has low contrast, contrast was boosted in post.
You can see the other issues with the lens.



PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2017 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
i have the sigma 19mm 2.8 and samyang 12mm f2 and samyang 21mm f1.4

all are very good on my sony nex 6. very sharp even corner.
i get (second hand)
sigma = 100e
samyang 12mm = 225e
samyang 21mm = 150e


PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Take this with a grain of salt since I've never owned a modern ultrawide, but I can also recommend the Tokina 17mm f3.5.
At f/3.5 its extremely soft, but once you stop it down it becomes very sharp and is just generally a joy to use.
Here are a couple of pics I've taken with it on my fuji x-pro 1:
#1


#2


#3


Edit: Flickr link because this site seems to compress the hell out of it...
https://flic.kr/p/SS6Upq
https://flic.kr/p/SkoPMf

Last edited by Drosovila on Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:34 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 5:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Image posting for newcomers here is disabled. So one of us has to quote your post. Now that you'll have a post count greater than one your images will show.

Drosovila wrote:
Take this with a grain of salt since I've never owned a modern ultrawide, but I can also recommend the Tokina 17mm f3.5.
At f/3.5 its extremely soft, but once you stop it down it becomes very sharp and is just generally a joy to use.
Here are a couple of pics I've taken with it on my fuji x-pro 1:
#1


#2


#3


Since you mentioned how soft your Tokina is at f/3.5, this got me to wondering about the two photos I posted above. As you can see, those two images are pretty soft. Might I have disremembered the aperture settings? Well . . . one way to find out. So I loaded up both the Vivitar and the Tamron and took a stroll out into my backyard. It looks a bit better now than it did before -- now that we have a regular gardener. I started out with our backyard fence, though. That old fence has a lot of texture, especially when you include the old broken gate that I've had to board up.

I took a shot of the fence with both the Tamron and Vivitar wide open at f/3.5 and they were both terrible. The Tamron's shot was just soft, but the Vivitar's was terrible. But by f/8 --- wow, what a difference! I took another shot with both lenses at f/16 and things were even a bit sharper. However, with both lenses, there is rather pronounced red and blue fringing which is still there at f/16. So here are both pics at f/16.

Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 @ f/16:


Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 @ f/16:


And I decided to try and duplicate the earlier shots I took -- those two above mushy ones. The yard looks a bit better now, but the angle is roughly the same. I shot the two new ones at f/8. Here they are:

Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5 @ f/8:


Vivitar 17mm f/3.5 @ f/8:


I still wouldn't characterize the results with either lens as "great," however. Much better, yes. But "great," no. I didn't do any sharpening or really any post processing to the images other than what I did within Photoshop's raw conversion utility. I've since done some pp to a couple of the images and it actually helped quite a bit -- but still not "great."


PostPosted: Sat Apr 01, 2017 10:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Tokina 17 / 3.5 every time on my Sony A6000. It's a very good lens.



PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
There's also the Vivitar 20mm f3.8 (Kiron made). Needs to be stopped down a bit and has a largish front element but can be focused quite closely.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 6:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
coase wrote:
There's also the Vivitar 20mm f3.8 (Kiron made). Needs to be stopped down a bit and has a largish front element but can be focused quite closely.


That lens was a big disappointment on my NEX3. I sold it right after the first day out with it. Not a single picture that i was happy with! Although i am pretty sure it wasn't a Kiron but a Cosina made lens.

Tamron SP 17mm on Sony A7:

Seissingel Middelburg by René Maly, on Flickr

Tokina 17mm on Canon 5D:

Drama in the air by René Maly, on Flickr


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 11:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
miran wrote:
No vintage wideangle lens can come even close to a modern lens, at least not for this kind of money (or possibly any kind of money). In fact I would expect any APS-C kit zoom (18-55 or 16-50 or similar) to wipe the floor with any vintage wide at the same focal length. If not that, then at least the Sigma 19mm/2.8 (which is actually a very modest lens and can be bought new for less than 100� with some luck) makes any vintage wideangle lens of similar focal length (say 17-21mm) look so bad it's embarrasing.


hello
still didnt had time to reply better, will try asap, thanks for your help and understanding

about :
No vintage wideangle lens can come even close to a modern lens

why? it is due to the optical formula? (retrofocus might have one impact on UW or W lenses?) or another variable will impact this difference? thx


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
immortalblue wrote:
No vintage wideangle lens can come even close to a modern lens

why? it is due to the optical formula? (retrofocus might have one impact on UW or W lenses?) or another variable will impact this difference? thx


Perhaps it is because they are specifically designed to work on certain capturing surface size?

cooltouch wrote:
The problem with any of these vintage ultra wides when used on an APS-C camera is the sensor just can't handle the angle of view. I've tried both the Tokina-made Vivitar 17/3.5 and the Tamron 17/3.5 with two different APS-C cameras and the results were very disappointing. Mushy is the word that comes to mind. My 18-55 kit lenses perform MUCH better at 18mm than either of these two highly respected 35mm film camera lenses. Your friend is much better off getting a WA zoom intended for APS-C, or perhaps a Samyang wide designed for APS-C. $160 ain't gonna cut it, though.


I agree. It is also my experience.

Happy shots!


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 1:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Tokina RMC 24mm/F2.8 does also fit into the origin posters criteria.
Performance can be seen here: http://forum.mflenses.com/24mm-lens-comparison-minolta-pentax-tokina-t76783.html
It works perfectly well on APS-C.


PostPosted: Sun Apr 02, 2017 3:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
immortalblue wrote:

about :
No vintage wideangle lens can come even close to a modern lens

why? it is due to the optical formula? (retrofocus might have one impact on UW or W lenses?) or another variable will impact this difference? thx


The protective glass of the sensor in digital cameras is the main reason why old, film era, wide RF lenses have problems on the new digital bodies and the SLR lenses usually don't.

Big advances have been achived in lens design due to the computers and the new technologies (new glass, the use of aspherical elements, etc).
The way lenses are evaluated today focus mainly on even sharpness across the frame and how well the CA are corected (vignet and geometrical distorsions, too - but they are easyer to correct by softwear). This created a race between the lens manufacturers and a shift in market requirements similar with the megapixel race - all the new lenses have to be sharper and sharper across the whole frame and better CA corrected. These are clearly the main qualityes a wide lens must have and that's the reason the progress in the lens design is more pronounced and more visible in wide angle lenses and zooms.

In special lenses, portrait lenses, street photography lenses, close up lenses, tele lenses, etc, what's really important is the subtile balance between sharpness, controled CA and spherical aberation. That's not easy quantifiable and usually not outlined by the lens evaluation sites. Little progress have been made in this regard (compared with wides), IMO.

My recommendation is a modern wide lens, too.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Page 1 of 1