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

17mm lens : which one?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 11:01 am    Post subject: 17mm lens : which one? Reply with quote
I have a RMC Tokina 17mm f/3.5 that I use with a Fujifilm XT20. I'm not obsessed with sharpness but with the 17mm lens I want to make urban shots that are sufficiently sharp from corner to corner. The Tokina lens guarantees me adequate sharpness in the center but not at the edges.
I am an amateur photographer and therefore mine is not a real need but if I wanted to improve my photos, which lens do you recommend? Budget is an important aspect.
Thanks


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
There are not really many rectilinear UWA lenses in 17mm available, actually no lens for little money.
My clear recommendation is the Minolta MD 17mm/F4 which should be able to deliver very good edge to edge sharpness on your APS-C camera already wide open at F4.

Here is a example test picture wide open at F4 (worst quality) from my Ricoh GXR-M APS-C camera (clickable for best quality viewing):



Most probably the best and cheapest option is a modern zoom lens in FX mount.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 12:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I bought the Vivitar 17 mm 3.5 some years ago (eq Tokina) and found a Minolta 17mm f4 late last year... I second tb_a and I use it with my A7rii (full format) and am quite happy with it (I am not pixel obsessive but I have a IMAC 5k and pictures look good to me).
By the way, I am looking to buy a photo printer to develop a few A3/A4 in these times of confinement... If anybody has some strong recommendation, this would be welcomed...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
I bought the Vivitar 17 mm 3.5 some years ago (eq Tokina) and found a Minolta 17mm f4 late last year... I second tb_a and I use it with my A7rii (full format) and am quite happy with it (I am not pixel obsessive but I have a IMAC 5k and pictures look good to me).
By the way, I am looking to buy a photo printer to develop a few A3/A4 in these times of confinement... If anybody has some strong recommendation, this would be welcomed...


Well, on the A7R II you have to stop down considerably to get similar edge to edge sharpness like on APS-C. However, it's not bad at all.

I'm quite happy with my Epson ET-7750 A3 printer. Not exceptionally cheap but very nice printing quality on photo paper at by far lowest running cost for the ink.
After almost 2 years of usage I can say that would buy it again. Definitely.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't see much use for a 17mm on aps-c unless you are using a speedbooster. You could get the pretty cheap Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 instead.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I don't see much use for a 17mm on aps-c unless you are using a speedbooster. You could get the pretty cheap Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 instead.

+1 for the XC 15-45mm.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Antoine wrote:
I bought the Vivitar 17 mm 3.5 some years ago (eq Tokina) and found a Minolta 17mm f4 late last year... I second tb_a and I use it with my A7rii (full format) and am quite happy with it (I am not pixel obsessive but I have a IMAC 5k and pictures look good to me).

Is the optical difference between the two lenses evident?


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 1:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
D1N0 wrote:
I don't see much use for a 17mm on aps-c unless you are using a speedbooster.

1: I like vintage lenses Wink
2: I don't like zooms Neutral
3: I usually use an Olympus OM 24mm (36mm on APSC) but on some occasions I need a wider lens.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Get a FF MILC if you use vintage wide angles. Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Turtleskinny, I'm not familiar with the Fuji XT20, so I don't know how it handles the bent light rays of UWA lenses, like a 17mm. If you're not satisfied with the sharpness you're getting out of your Tokina 17mm, blame the camera, not the lens. The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is one of the finest 17mm lenses made. Bar none.

I own the Vivitar 17mm f/3.5, which was made by Tokina, and also a Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5. Both are excellent lenses, but both behave differently. Neither of my APS-C digitals care for 17mm lenses, so I haven't been able to evaluate them with a digital camera. A full-frame is much more likely to give better results. However, I have used these lenses with film cameras and they really do a fine job. Excellent sharpness, color, and contrast.

So, don't be so quick to blame that lens of yours. Think seriously about upgrading your camera to a full frame model. I know it represents a major expense, but hey, nobody said that photography was a cheap pastime.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
My search for a good vintage ultrawide for my Fuji ended up with modern Samyang 12mm f/2.0 Rolling Eyes


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 2:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
The Tokina 17mm f/3.5 is one of the finest 17mm lenses made.

I am pleased with what you say, so I have chosen well.

cooltouch wrote:
If you're not satisfied with the sharpness you're getting out of your Tokina 17mm, blame the camera, not the lens.

This makes me less happy Wink

cooltouch wrote:
A full-frame is much more likely to give better results.

Why? I know that vintage lenses on APSC guarantee better performance because the central part of the lens is optically better.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TurtleSkinny wrote:

cooltouch wrote:
A full-frame is much more likely to give better results.

Why? I know that vintage lenses on APSC guarantee better performance because the central part of the lens is optically better.


It has to do with the way vintage rectilinear lenses bend the light rays, especially the Ultra Wides. I wish I knew more about this technically so I could explain it better, but apparently the way the sensors on an APS-C camera gather light just doesn't work well with the old ultra wides. They can't handle the sharp angles that are created with these old rectilinear lenses. Now, from what I understand, the new batch of modern ultra wides that are specifically made for APS-C cameras do a fine job -- like the 12mm mentioned above. And best of all with lenses like a 12mm is it will give you ultra wide coverage with your APS-C frame. A 17mm in APS-C format is roughly equivalent to a 25mm in 35mm format. Not at all Ultra Wide, just decent wide.

So, save that 17mm for when you finally get a full frame digital, or use it now with a decent 35mm camera. And consider picking up something like the Samyang 12mm f/2 that Alex mentioned. Modern Samyang lenses are excellent and very reasonably priced.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 3:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
It has to do with the way vintage rectilinear lenses bend the light rays, especially the Ultra Wides.

Thanks for this info, I did not know. Wink
With the 24mm lens I don't have this problem or it's not that "serious".

cooltouch wrote:
A 17mm in APS-C format is roughly equivalent to a 25mm in 35mm format. Not at all Ultra Wide, just decent wide.

A 25mm lens is enough for me, I don't like focal lengths that are too different from human vision.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 4:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TurtleSkinny wrote:
A 25mm lens is enough for me, I don't like focal lengths that are too different from human vision.


Cooltouch is certainly right when he recommends a FF sensor camera. That yould allow the usage of e.g. a 24 mm lens which would give you a slightly wider angle of view than your 17 mm lens on APS-C.
There are plenty of relatively good and not expensive 24 mm lenses available; i.e. that would save you a lot of money on the wide angle side but shifting the problem to the tele end. Wink

However, as already mentioned and proven, the Minolta 17 mm lens would also solve your problem with the unsharp edges. Alternatively a modern APS-C lens may also be an option for apprx. the same price.
I've recently acquired the modern Pentax 15/4 APS-C AF lens for my Pentax APS-C camera for little money and it delivers tack sharp pictures from edge to edge already fully open as well.
I doubt that any other vintage 17 mm lens would give you better results than the Minolta lens or alternatively a modern APS-C one.

The very nice Pentax lens would be an option as well if you don't like zoom lenses but you would need the special adapter for the Pentax DA lenses with the aperture ring functionality; i.e. Pentax DA to Fuji (cheaply available from China).


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 5:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I don't have a 17mm rectilinear prime, but can recommend the Fujinon 19mm f/3.5 if you can find one. I've had my screw-fit example since the '80's and it still earns it's keep Wink


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 7:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
cooltouch wrote:
...

I own the Vivitar 17mm f/3.5, which was made by Tokina, and also a Tamron SP 17mm f/3.5. Both are excellent lenses, but both behave differently. Neither of my APS-C digitals care for 17mm lenses, so I haven't been able to evaluate them with a digital camera. A full-frame is much more likely to give better results. However, I have used these lenses with film cameras and they really do a fine job. Excellent sharpness, color, and contrast.

So, don't be so quick to blame that lens of yours. Think seriously about upgrading your camera to a full frame model. I know it represents a major expense, but hey, nobody said that photography was a cheap pastime.


+1 Tamron

Cooltouch, I had same problem with old Canon 350D aps-c but chalked it up to my inability to see accurate focus through the viewfinder, as some photos were very good.

Sensor angles are much less steep with slr and smaller aps-c sensor., shouldn't be a problem @17mm.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
TurtleSkinny wrote:
...
vintage lenses on APSC guarantee better performance because the central part of the lens is optically better.


I think you mean to say the central part of the image circle is better. Smile

Sure the center part of the lens is optically better however light rays reaching the center of the sensor can come through the entire front surface of the lens. Only stopping down cuts of the perimeter light rays, use only the central part of the lens.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
calvin83 wrote:
D1N0 wrote:
I don't see much use for a 17mm on aps-c unless you are using a speedbooster. You could get the pretty cheap Fujifilm XC 15-45mm f/3.5-5.6 instead.

+1 for the XC 15-45mm.


+1 Modern wide zoom likely better than vintage prime...


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 8:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
tb_a wrote:
However, as already mentioned and proven, the Minolta 17 mm lens would also solve your problem with the unsharp edges.

Okay, thanks for helping me Smile


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The Samyang 12mm on Fuji is about an 18mm equivalent on FF.
It is reasonably cheap and @ f2 faster than almost everything else.
Here is a shot on Fuji.
Tom

#1


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I've had my Tokina 17 for a long time and used it a lot on my NEX5 and A6000, it was probably my most used wide lens. However, I find that I'm using it far less on my A7II. I still like it, and it's sharp enough, but I find that when I want a wide lens I'me using the Zeiss FE 24-70 / 4 autofocus lens I bought with the A7II Shocked Heresy ....I know.

But, I won't part with the Tokina, it is very good, and certainly better than the Sigma 17 that I borrowed for a while. I like the rectilinear ability of the Tokina, hated the Sigma's distortion, and that's the decision maker for me.


PostPosted: Mon Mar 30, 2020 10:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
As the 17mm on your sony nex is equicalent to 27.2mm on your a7II I am not suprised you use the zoom.

A 28mm would probably be a comon MF lens if you wnt to aproximate to the 17MM


PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2020 2:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lloydy wrote:
I like the rectilinear ability of the Tokina

Yes, I like that too.


PostPosted: Tue Mar 31, 2020 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
I used the rectilinear Tamron Adaptall-2 17mm in my film days.

The hood/filter holder was/is quite rare as a separate item and the lens was often sold without it.
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2