Steve Spencer Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
Here are my thoughts on wider lenses by focal length.
At 24/25mm:
You say you do not want ultra-expensive or ultra-big lenses and that rules out some of the one's that perform really well (e.g., Leica 24 lux ASPH--really expensive; Canon 24 f/3.5L TSE II; Zeiss ZE/ZF 25 f/2), but there are some other interesting lenses. As people have mentioned the Zeiss 25 f/2.8 in Contax/Yashica mount is a nice small size. I think you will find it is sharp and has nice colours, but I think you will also find it lacks strong micro contrast (i.e., resolution for small structures) in the outer part of the frame. Still it is a very nice lens. If you can live with a lens that is a bit bigger the ZF/ZS 25 f/2.8 has better micro contrast in the outer part of the frame.
The Minolta MC/MD 24 f/2.8 (and the Leica R 24 f/ 2.8) which have the same optical formula are nice lenses, but they do have a noticeable zone B dip even at f/8 at infinity. For close up shots this lens is very good, but less so for infinity focussed landscapes. One intriguing variation of this lens, however, is the Minolta MC/MD 24 f/2.8 VFC (stands for variable field curvature). I would love to see someone try this out on the Sony cameras. The lens lets you manually set the amount of field curvature which may improve its performance with the thick sensor glass on the Sony cameras. The VFC model is the same length as the non-VFC, just a few mm fatter.
If you value the smallest size then the Olympus OM 24 f/2 or f/2.8 are very nice lenses with good across the frame sharpness and are very small.
There is also the Nikon 24 f/2.8 that several have mentioned and noted its performance. The Zeiss C/Y, Minolta MC/MD, and the Nikon are all very similar in size and fairly close in size to the FD 55 f/1.8.
At 21mm:
Again the clear very good performers are either large or uber expensive (The Leica WATE or lux ASPH and the Zeiss 21 f/2.8). If you want small the Olympus OM 21 f/2 or f/3.5 are tiny, and I think realistic options, but they do have their limitations. There is also the Voigtlander 21 f/1.8, which really isn't that small (it is about 50% bigger than the FE 55 f/1.8) and from samples I still see issues in the corners and edges. If you are willing to consider this big of a lens, then I think it is also worth considering the Leica R 19 f/2.8 vII, which is only about 10% bigger and looks to me like a lot better performer. There are other small DSLR lenses, but I am not impressed by any of them.
At 17/18mm:
Again the clear non-problematic options are either large or uber-expensive (the Leica WATE, the Canon 17 f/4L TSE), so what is left some issues. One option is the Olympus OM 18 f/3.5, which is again a very small lenses. It has heavy vignetting and good across the frame sharpness, but lacks strong sharpness, IMO the colour could be better, and contrast. This is the profile for Olympus OM lenses. If you like it, then you have some very clear options. If you don't, then it is much harder finding what works. In addition, there is also the Zeiss ZM 18mm f/4. It is quite small (smaller than the FE 55 f/1.8) and shows good performance across much of the frame, but the last part gets pretty bad. I have thought about this lens as a potential 21mm with a bit of cropping and I think it is a fairly strong option using it that way, but as an 18, IMO, it is clearly compromised.
That's my take. If you have the patience and can pick up a Minolta 24 f/2.8 VFC (there is currently one for sale at KEH for just over $1,000, which is a high price compared to what they have gone for on ebay), it would be great to see how it performs. Perhaps someone will get one and let us know if varying the field curvature can counteract the problem with the thick cover glass on the Sony cameras.
|