I am in the market for a 21mm wide and the Olympus OM 3.5/21 Auto-W is a fraction of the price of the Distagon 21 (even the old version in C/Y mount).
I can live with f/3.5 and I'll use the lens 95% for landscape stopped down for maximum sharpness, but wide-open performance is also important for occasional night shots.
Any sample, opinion, and comparison to the Distagon 2.8/21 is appreciated.
Thanks in advance !
It's an excellent choice. Easily the smallest/lightest 21 ever. Good contrast, quite sharp. Good wide open too. I have lens tests from Modern Photography posted at www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/ - including the OM 21/3.5.
I have one, have considered selling it since I have the OM 21/2 and I hardly use the 21/3.5 anymore.. it's such a little gem.
Any reason why Canon's own 17-40mm f4 shouldn't be considered? It's relatively inexpensive, has the flexibility of various focal lengths, autofcuses, has full electronic connections with Canon and it's distortion can be corrected in Canon's own software. Just a thought.
wolfloid wrote:
Any reason why Canon's own 17-40mm f4 shouldn't be considered? It's relatively inexpensive, has the flexibility of various focal lengths, autofcuses, has full electronic connections with Canon and it's distortion can be corrected in Canon's own software. Just a thought.
Corner sharpness (main drawback), size, cost, and 1/3 stop darker (duh) comes to mind. If I thought about it I'd find some other reasons. But it reaches 17mm, which is very nice to have.
I have the Olympus 21/3.5, and while it is small and excellent from f5.6, it too has weak corners at f3.5. Is the Canon really weaker wide open at 21mm?
The review I read from 16:9 (Cogitech, Paul?) for the 17/40 seemed to make very little of corner blur. Indeed it seemed to do pretty well in the comparison with the best of all at that FL the Zeiss 21/2.8.
I've been using the Oly 21 3.5 on my 5DII for a few months now and just love the thing! It's tiny, weighs practically nothing and I love what I get from it. True, the corners are quite weak at 3.5 but it's not the end of the world for me I've got loads and loads of samples but here are some faves!
LOVE the cobblestones !!
I'd love to see that shot tried on a 17-40L
Corner sharpness (main drawback), size, cost, and 1/3 stop darker (duh) comes to mind. If I thought about it I'd find some other reasons. But it reaches 17mm, which is very nice to have.
For LESS than the cost of the 17-40L ... with it's above issues, I've got an Oly 21 3.5 AND a Tamron 17-35 2.8-4.0 AND money left over for another Oly i.e. 24 2.8, 28 3.5, etc.
I'm not bashing the 17-40L ... it was my intended direction originally and it is what it is. BUT, with a little creative thinking ... you can do better (imo). The Tamron will never make the oooh-ahhhhh, All-Time Hall of Fame, but the 17mm does get you that extra width when you need it (FF coverage), plus some AF for those times when you might want it, and the convenince of the zoom when you need that.
I use my 17-35 Tamron much less than my 21 3.5, since my 21 is usally wide enough and I usually have the time to play with the Oly manual glass ... but I won't sell the Tamron, and it's always in my bag. I had a job to shoot some interiors ... out came the Tamron for the 17mm. I also have the Tamron 17-50 2.8, which I REALLY like (but it's a Nikon 'crop' lens), so when I upped my game to the 1D MK II ... the Tamron 17-35 was an obvious choice to me ... AND I've kept my 17-50 2.8 to go with my D70s as my small rig.
I've tested the 17-35 against both my Oly Primes and my Z/Y 35-70 ... and it holds its own until you get deep in the extreme corners ... very surprised at it's actual performance, since it is a 3rd party zoom. I was expecting it to be noticeably worse. As such, it make a very nice 'safety net' lens ... which lets me play with the primes and not feel like I have totally sacrificed 17mm, AF or Zoom for when I need them.
Go for the Oly's ... worse that can happen is that you'll fall in love with them.
I was interseted in bettering my 17-40 canon and tested the 21 olympus along side of it. I really could not see a performance increase to merit purchase of the olympus. I also tested the canon against 2 copies of the Tokina 17mm prime. Canon was better. Recently got a Ze21 ... and I am pleased with that.
I guess I can just say not to write off the canon zoom as sub par.
If looking to buy a 17 and 21, compared to the zoom, you are not really saving any money with bargain Alt primes. Not to mention not having the 24 to 40 range.
jpeter wrote:
I guess I can just say not to write off the canon zoom as sub par.
If looking to buy a 17 and 21, compared to the zoom, you are not really saving any money with bargain Alt primes. Not to mention not having the 24 to 40 range.
jp
Speaking for myself here:
I never said 17-40L is sub-par, it's a very capable lens.
And obviously every prime has the inherent drawback that it's not a zoom
Having owned 3 copies of the 17-40 I will say flat out that it is sub-par in the corners. The Oly 21/3.5 is superb on the original 5d, but doesn't hold up as well on the 5d II. Still pretty good, but makes me want to try the ZE 21.
Ed Sawyer wrote:
Frankly, from what I have seen the OM 21/3.5 beats up on the Voigtlander 20/3.5
Having had both I disagree. They're pretty equal with the Voigtlander having more contrast, especially wide open. Both are good lenses, but seeing as you can't get a OM 21/3.5 for under $400 these days I'd much rather get a new, auto-apeture lens for $100 more.
TWoK wrote:
Having had both I disagree. They're pretty equal with the Voigtlander having more contrast, especially wide open. Both are good lenses, but seeing as you can't get a OM 21/3.5 for under $400 these days I'd much rather get a new, auto-apeture lens for $100 more.
I've seen heaps of Oly's go for between $250-320 lately..
Personally I love mine. Punches my old 20-35/2.8L square in the teef
Just a reality check: this is what SLR.com says in their test of the Tamron 17-35: some of the worst corner performance we've seen in a lens to date. Wide open at wide angle, the corners of the frame are just unusably soft, unless you're looking for extreme softness to use as a special effect. The corner softness does improve as you zoom towards the 35mm end of its range, but is still very pronounced.
They also say: Full-frame camera owners would be well-advised to look elsewhere and/or save their pennies for a lens like the excellent Canon 17-40mm F4L optic, if they're on the Canon platform.
I have no experience of the lens, but was interested to get some more objective opinion.
I've also been looking at some examples of the Canon 17-40 on line, and what I see seems to be pretty much as good as the Oly 21/3.5 that I use - only a little sharper wide open. The great advantage of the Oly and the CV 20/3.5 is their size, and with the new Canon mount CV, open aperture metering is also included.
As for the remark about the cobblestones on the above picture, as far as I can tell the Canon 17-40 would do just as well, providing the lens was appropriately stopped down. Why all this hyperbole?
At one point I had both the OM 3.5/21mm and 17-40L and I found them to be very comparable as far as performance. If I didn't have either, I would be more than happy with the Zuiko at the lower cost. However, since they were close in performance stopped down I sold the 21 and decided to use my OM 2.8/24mm alternatively. Its faster and a better performer for me. But the 17-40 has been too versatile to give up, its just works to well despite its flaws. Its my primary landscape lens, and to replace what it gives me would cost quite a bit.
Paul
I've got loads and loads of samples but here are some faves! 
