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: Mon Dec 11, 2017 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Olympus wide primes are very good on the A7 series. I thought the Zuiko 24/2.8 was the best I tried out of Canon, Olympus, Tamron, Tokina and Yashica. Special mention for the Sigma Super-Wide II also, it’s almost as good as the Oly and much cheaper. Canon 24/2.8 seems to have big sample variation.

I can’t recommend the Tamron 17 as my copy was one of the worst lenses I used on the Sony - no way to get the edges and centre fully sharp at the same time.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

willy35 wrote:
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.


I believe the Russar is very rare. Probably no better than any other lenses of it's era, but today's collector market has raised the prices very considerably ... 20 years ago you couldn't give away an Industar 50 or Helios 44 and other Russian lenses were similarly priced, everyone wanted bayonet-fit autofocus zooms.

Now the prime lenses are very fashionable, especially with the advent of mirror-less cameras, and the asking prices reflect this. If you just want to take photographs, there are probably better and cheaper lenses to do the job, but if you want to make a fashion statement then you'll have to pay the price (or get very lucky)!


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 9:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

canon nfd 24mm f2.8



distagon 28mm f2.8 c/y



p/s By the way I in an urban environment it is difficult to find the plot for a 24mm.


PostPosted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 1:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just remembered another ultra-wide. The Canon FL 19mm f/3.5 retrofocus. I used to own one -- it was a very impressive lens. They can be found on eBay, but they usually sell for a good chunk of change, too, usually for substantially more than the later 17mm f/4.

Note how almost the entire arc of the sunset colors are contained within the view of this image. This sort of thing can only be accomplished with an ultra-wide. Canon F-1, FL 19mm f/3.5, Kodachrome 64.



Vivitar 17mm f/3.5, Canon F-1, Fuji Velvia 50:


Same view as above, but with a 24mm
Canon F-1, Canon FD 24mm f/2.8 SSC, Velvia 50:


I used my image processing software to straighten the perspective in both of the above shots. Now the building's sides are parallel to the frame, but instead of looking right, to me there is an optical illusion that the sides are actually angling out. The mind wants to see a taper when looking up. I should have left a little taper in both images.

For example, I shot the below pic with my 85mm, and I left some taper in the photo. It looks much more natural as a result


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 4:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The AD2 Tamron 17mm can be 'ok' and is relatively cheap. The 24mm is quite good for the price. Is the 19-35 mentioned above the one also marketed late in the day as Vivitar Series 1? Smile If so i'd pass, it has heavy CA. Ok for B&W.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 7:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Since I guess, we do not consider a 24mm lens a superwide lens, we need to look for a 21, 19 or 17mm lens.
There are plenty of really good and still rather affordable 24mm lenses out there, but as soon as you go wider, it gets a lot more expensive and most lenses don't perform as well.

The equations go like this:

superwide + supergood = superexpensive

superwide + cheap + good ≠ possible

I have a Tokina 4/17 which is not too bad, but it really suffers from flare on my A7II.
The Tamron Adaptall-II 4/17 is better than the Tokina, but also a tad more expensive.
My Leica Elmarit-M 2.8/21 shows a good resolution, but the corners are really bad on the Sony.
My Voigtländer 4.5/15 is still pretty usable, but the newer versions are much better. They are, however, not cheap at all.
My Voigtländer 5.6/10 (!) is the most extreme wide angle I have ever shot with and it's surprisingly good, but it sets you back one grand.


In order to find a matching wide angle for my A7II, I recently went for the Sony FE 2/28 and the wide angle adapter which gives you the FoV of a 21mm lens and it has AF (which can be a nice extra every now and then when shot wide open). The price is quite affordable.

With the set of 10 - 15 - 17 - 21 - 24 - 28... I am rather content.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 9:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"superwide + cheap + good ≠ possible "

Its a question of personal standards -
How good is good enough?


PostPosted: Tue Jan 02, 2018 11:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:

Now the prime lenses are very fashionable, especially with the advent of mirror-less cameras, and the asking prices reflect this. If you just want to take photographs, there are probably better and cheaper lenses to do the job, but if you want to make a fashion statement then you'll have to pay the price (or get very lucky)!
Did you consider that historic interest could be a motivation for purchasing certain types of lenses?

Maybe you are very fashion-aware, but I have no clue about it Thank You Dog

I do agree though that prices sometimes can be hilarious when considered purely in view of the optical qualities of certain lenses Smile


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 3:59 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.

I bought one 2 years ago it was not worth keeping, my Nikkor 18/4 and Konica 21/4


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Got me a Tokina 19-35 AF 3,5-4,5 with a defective AF-motor for 18 EUR. I use it with a manual MinAF-Nex Adapter (with aperture control). Now I'll just have to wait for better weather...


PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

luisalegria wrote:
"superwide + cheap + good ≠ possible "

Its a question of personal standards -
How good is good enough?


Of course. It always is.
But if the corners are too weak for landscape photography, it's no longer "good enough".
Any really cheap (<80€) superwide lens (<21mm) will generate problems that are not easy to cope with and restrict their use.
They might be OK for indoor shots in dimmed light but not for general photography (when sharpness and corner performance is not important anyway). That's at least my experience.


PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Canon FD20/2.8 is probably the best 20mm for edge to edge sharpness for "cheap".
But its rather big.
I seldom use it as its big and I need a separate FD adapter and then all the other adapters for other lenses.

For wider, the Samyang 14/2.8 is better than any of the legacy options and often for cheaper.
Sit and enjoy the view by jenkwang, on Flickr

20170211-IMGP6983-1 by jenkwang, on Flickr

IMGP2476-CompAdj-1 by jenkwang, on Flickr

Sharp corner to corner at f11 on FF


PostPosted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sjak wrote:
kypfer wrote:

Now the prime lenses are very fashionable, especially with the advent of mirror-less cameras, and the asking prices reflect this. If you just want to take photographs, there are probably better and cheaper lenses to do the job, but if you want to make a fashion statement then you'll have to pay the price (or get very lucky)!


Did you consider that historic interest could be a motivation for purchasing certain types of lenses?

Maybe you are very fashion-aware, but I have no clue about it Thank You Dog

I do agree though that prices sometimes can be hilarious when considered purely in view of the optical qualities of certain lenses Smile


Doubtless historic interest can be a factor, but what "historic interest" can be associated with a 1950's-'60's Russian lens, unless it went on a space trip or something?

As for fashion ... I bought some once, I'm still wearing it Wink


PostPosted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://forum.mflenses.com/smc-pentax-k-mount-20mm-f4-t74308.html


PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 11:16 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

For anyone interested:
The 18 EUR (incl shipping) Tokina 19-35 AF 3.5-4.5 with defect AF-Motor. So in my defense: still a MF lens! Mr. Green

#1
Wide open. Well... see for yourself:


#2
might be f8 or f11 (as are the following) - can't really tell with my adapter. Corners still quite mushy.


#3
not the sharpest lens. Might also be poorly focused. But Corner shapness isn't a major factor with a wide angle lens I'd say.


#4
Also strong CA. But that can be handled in Post.


Conclusion: There are better lenses but for 18 EUR I can't really complain. Next time I'll use smaller apertures.

But I really, really like the 19mm field of view - perhaps I'm gonna bite the bullet and get me a modern WA-lens. Smile


PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kypfer wrote:

Doubtless historic interest can be a factor, but what "historic interest" can be associated with a 1950's-'60's Russian lens, unless it went on a space trip or something?
Historic interest can have different meanings for different people I guess.

For me, items from former commie-times/places are generally interesting already just because of that. A magazine or car doesn't have to have traveled to the moon, or be signed by Brezhnev, to be interesting.

kypfer wrote:
As for fashion ... I bought some once, I'm still wearing it Wink
Like 1 small


PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big R wrote:
For anyone interested:
The 18 EUR (incl shipping) Tokina 19-35 AF 3.5-4.5 with defect AF-Motor. So in my defense: still a MF lens! Mr. Green

Conclusion: There are better lenses but for 18 EUR I can't really complain. Next time I'll use smaller apertures.

But I really, really like the 19mm field of view - perhaps I'm gonna bite the bullet and get me a modern WA-lens. Smile

Probably the pics would benefit from edits giving a more vintage look (whether in color or B&W)

Besides, it was a cheap taste of the field of view, and as such already useful.

Not sure about the performance of Samyang FF-lenses, but I am quite happy with both my Samyang APSC lenses (8mm 2.8 and 12mm 2.0); the lenses are also sold under the brand names Rokinon, Bower, Walimex. I paid under 300 for the 12mm (new incl warranty, display model) and 308 for the 8mm (new, at a store in Tenerife while on vacation)


PostPosted: Thu Jan 25, 2018 6:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Big R wrote:
Conclusion: There are better lenses but for 18 EUR I can't really complain. Next time I'll use smaller apertures.

But I really, really like the 19mm field of view - perhaps I'm gonna bite the bullet and get me a modern WA-lens. Smile


If you "bite the bullet" then I would recommend to go for the Minolta AF 20mm/F2.8 which should be available for apprx. 250,- Euro second hand (the new identical A-mount Sony lens sells for 600 to 750 Euro in my country). Most probably you won't get any better comparable FF lens for your A7 for less money. Obviously there is no E-mount FF lens in that focal length available.
It should perform like on my A850 which shares the same 24MP FF sensor.

Here is a worst case example shot fully open at F2.8 on my A850:



Stopped down it performs much better. Wink