I'm looking for wide angle lens, would love to hear your...

[vanylapep]

... suggestions.

I already own a Nikkor 28mm f/2.8 AI-s, but I am now looking for something a little wider, sometimes the 28mm is missing a little bit.

I usually do low light shooting so large f/ would help.

I am on a full frame camera, A7rii.

Thanks!

[tb_a]

If you consider 24mm as wide enough, then I would recommend the Minolta MD 24mm/F2.8 lens (version MD III 8 lenses/8 groups).

Watch this: http://artaphot.ch/systemuebergreifend/objektive/450-24mm

My comparison posted earlier today may also help: http://forum.mflenses.com/24mm-lens-comparison-minolta-pentax-tokina-t76783.html
Although it's APS-C only.

[marcusBMG]

I think Attila has a point when he suggests most 24's are pretty good - a bit like 135's. Personally my choice is my sigma superwide II.

Dan Eurritt has done some extensively discriminatory testing of wide angle lenses on his A7r - see here for example:

http://www.codectest.com/2014/28mm-prime-lens-comparison-shot-on-sony-a7r-second-round

[jamaeolus]

I am still looking for a great superwide. I have the Canon FD 20mm 2.8, the Asahi Pentax 20mm 4.5, the Minolta AF 20mm 2.8. I like all three but don't LOVE any of them. I had the Sigma 11-14 EX DG (Or some such) and it was phenomenal on my Canon EOS 60D but that is APS-C. I have heard great things about Zeiss loxia 20mm 2.8 but it is out of my budget for now. I also see great images from Voigtlanders Heliar 15mm.

[DigiChromeEd]

I agree with the suggestion of the Sigma Superwide II. If you are looking for something wider then I recommend the Tokina RMC 17mm f3.5, although you may be looking for a faster lens.

[kds315*]

Tokina RMC f3.5 17mm and be done...

[dan_]

For my A7R2 I opted for the Voigtlander Super Wide-Heliar 15mm III and the 25mm Batis as wider than 35mm lenses. Both are very good, top in their class, lenses. I can recommend them both without hesitation.

IMO, as you go wider the character of the lens is less important and less manifest. Sharpness, high resolution, corner corrections, the geometrical distortion corrections become the most important requirements - exacly the areas where the actual evolution in lens design is more advanced. That's why I opted for modern lenses in the wide range and not for older ones, as in the portrait and close-up ranges.
It's a pitty not to take advantage of your A7R2 high capabilities.

Voigtlander Super Wide-Heliar 15mm in its third incarnation has well corectected corners on A7R2. You can find it in Sony E-mount but I preferred to buy it in Leica M-mount and use it with a helicoid Leica M to E mount adapter - this way I can focus it much closer without loosing the infinity focus. It's an advantage that should be considered if you decide to get it.

[vanylapep]

Just a quick comment on the Tonika 17mm. I will do more research on it, but one advantage of the full frame A7rii is that I can use it as a 17mm or as a 25.5mm if set to APS-C.

[Lloydy]

[Lightshow]

I'm happy with my Konica 21/4 and Nikkor 18/4.
Other options I'm interested in are the CV21/1.8 because I do like my CV15III for night shooting on a tripod,l.

For night shooting, I really liked my OM 21/3.5 on my NEX-7, the OM 50/1.4 too, it vignettes quit a bit on my A7r so haven't used it much, the A7rII may reduce this effect, because the r is so sensitive to lens-sensor geometry.

[vanylapep]

"the r is so sensitive to lens-sensor geometry" what does this mean?

[evilhomura89]

No one vouching for the legendary Zeiss Flektogon 20mm f2.8?
I reckon it's a little overpriced

[tb_a]

[blotafton]

[DConvert]

[Prasanta]

No one mentioned about the Quantaray/Sigma 24mm f/2.8. This is great if you are looking for something cheap and cheerful. I have got one in Nikon mount and here is a sample from my Sony alpha 5000. I believe I shot it at f8. If I remember correctly, I paid less than $40 for a near mint version.

#1

[Lightshow]

[Lightshow]

[vanylapep]

[stevemark]

Coming from a good 28mm lens, the next step would be something in the 20mm range.
Personally, i like 20mm lenses very much, and maybe 40% of my published work is shot with them. Recently, i did test about 15 lenses in the 17mm to 21mm range, among them the following:

Canon nFD 2.8/20mm
Canon TS-E 4/17mm L
Konica Hexanon AR 4/21mm
Minolta MC 2.8/21mm
Minolta MD 2.8/20mm
Minolta AF 2.8/20mm
Nikkor AF 2.8/20mm (same optical core as the AiS 2.8/20mm)
Pentax A 2.8/20mm
Tokina RMC 3.5/17mm
Topcor RE 4/20mm
Yashica 3.5/21mm
Sony Zeiss ZA 2.8/16-35mm
Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21mm

To make it short - the Zeiss Loxia 2.8/21mm is that much better than even the Canon 17mm L in the not shifted state (!) that i must say "it's a class on its own". All other lenses mentioned here have their drawbacks, especially when using the 42MP FF sensor of the A7RII. The Loxia is fully usable at f2.8, even on 42MP - the Zeiss Loxia is better at f2.8 than the other lenses at f8 ... f11!

If you insist on using a vintage lens on your A7RII, i would recommend the Nikkor or the Minolta AF (or maybe the Topcor).

Stephan

[vanylapep]

Regarding the Minolta AF 20 f2.8, can that lens be used as a manual lens? (focus and aperture)

[Mike Deep]

Zuiko 24/2.8 dominates on value here.

[stevemark]

[buerokratiehasser]

People paid unreasonably for something called Soligor/(whatever rebrand) 19-35

Never got one so I cannot tell you how good it is. Presumably f8 needed, and presumably people wanted the 19mm FF.

The other lenses in this style (28-80?) are nothing special I think

[cooltouch]

Several years ago, I did a comparison test between a Nikkor 24/2.8 AIs and a Tamron 24/2.5. I used an APS-C camera, so I couldn't evaluate the edges and corners, but with what I was able to compare, the results were surprising. Once both lenses were stopped down a little, the Tamron actually bested the Nikkor in sharpness. Wide open, the Nikkor had a slight edge.

So if you keep your eye out for the Tamron 24, often you can pick one up for half or less than half what you'd pay for camera-mfgr versions.

Now, for ultra wide, the Tokina 17/3.5 has been mentioned and perhaps the Tamron as well -- I didn't read through all the posts. I have the Tamron and a Vivitar branded Tokina. The two lenses are more or less equivalent when it comes to resolution, but when it comes to operation, they're quite a bit different. The Vivitar behaves the way you expect an ultra-wide to behave. That is, the focusing collar feels almost useless past about six feet or so, cuz it doesn't seem to make a difference. Whereas the Tamron behaves more like a 35mm or even a 50mm. There's quite a bit of focusing involved.

The Vivitar version of the Tokina has a bit of a built in hood, whereas the Tokina doesn't. From what I've read, the Tokina has a slight edge over the Vivitar in terms of performance because it has a better set of coatings. OK, whatever. The Tamron was made in two versions, the early one has a set of built-in filters. The later one doesn't. I have the later one, and it came with a hood that is held in place with a set screw. It's a nice hood, so if you're thinking about a Tamron, think about one with a hood. I see the hoods on ebay and when they appear, people want quite a bit for them.