p.1 #2 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
I don't suppose you are ever in Berlin? I have a Flektogon 20/2.8 MC lying around which I bought when I had a 5D, but I found that it performed similarly to my 17-40L, so I just didn't use it that much. It needs lubing, but other than that is in fantastic condition. If you are ever in the area, you are welcome to test it to see if you are interested. I don't have my 5D any more, so I can't do any testing for you though.
p.1 #7 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
thanks all,
those samples look very good indeed stevenpa ! well done there.
distortion is a big factor for horizons in landscapes particularly
so the Zuiko sounds good.
I can only see G-Zuikos on offer at the moment,
are you guys using the 3.5 non MC versions by chance?
I have been in contact with carstenw and one thing I have to consider
is that I dont have any adapters for the M42 but have them for the F and
OM mounts . . . sorry that is just an aside.
Still juggling the old Nikkor UD . . . there doesnt seem to be many users of this.
this is the most extensive review I have come across on this lens . . .
p.1 #9 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
I am surprised people still struggle over which (ultra)wides to use on a Canon FF. There are several good-great choices out there, depending on your budget and tastes.
CV 20/3.5 is tiny, affordable new, and great glass.
OM 21/3.5 can be had cheap, is super small, and also great glass.
Nikon 20/4 is small, great like the above two, similarly priced i think?
OM 21/2 is small, fast, great glass (stopped down), expensive (~$1000).
C/Y 21/2.8 Distagon is sharp sharp sharp and great color, but big, expensive, and distorted.
p.1 #11 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
the Zuiko is very good, tiny, and excellent optically. the big brother 21/2 is even better but at least double the price. Either beat the Fleks IMO, and better the 17-40 generally too. I don't think you can go wrong with the OM 21/3.5... Mine is single-coated but unless you shoot in extreme situations single coating does 95+% of what multicoating does. (e.g. MC is nice, but don't obsess over it).
I have lens tests posted from Modern Photography of the Zuikos, and some of the nikons too I think. www.edsawyer.com/lenstests/
p.1 #12 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
truth be told, i have had the 21/2, several wide nikkors, both 16-35L's, and the 17-40L also. I was impressed at the time by my 21/2 (on 5Dmk1), but the 16-35mkII was waaaaaaaay easier to work with (and i do have lots of alt/manual focus experience), providing great files more reliably.
Now that i am shooting w/ the D700 and my 18/2.8 AF-D's, i'm comparing my current files to those i got out of those other lenses on my 5D's, and the D700 + 18/2.8 is realistically giving much better looking files in most situations.
p.1 #13 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
Given OP does not *need* extra speed I recomend the Zuiko 21/3.5.
Only 'bad' things of it are flare control and, say, bokeh.
Given your shooting style, none are an issue.
p.1 #15 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
I've had a couple Zuiko 21/3.5's , but prefer the Nikon 20/4. Very little distortion (less than the Zuiko I recall) and I prefer its flare and corner performance. I also like the colors better for landscape photography.
p.1 #16 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
I have had several Oly 21's & still have an Oly 24 and my preferred landscape/architectural lens was always the 24 due to it's better corner sharpness and low level of distortion.
Now that I have a 24 TS-E II though, the Oly 24 sits unused.... so if you can be a little flexible on the focal length, I think the 17 & 24 TS-E lenses are worth serious consideration for landscape/architectural work (as is the Oly 24 over the 21 for that matter). Of course cost may be an issue between these options.
"A petite lens replacing the big 20 mm f/3.5 (72 mm filter thread) from the Nikon F era, and also producing better pictorial results. Field curvature and corner coma could be bothersome for some applications of this lens, though. Needs to be stopped down a bit to give adequate corner sharpness - f/11 is a useful setting.
Some reviewers rank this lens much more favourable than this. I have no means of disproving or confirming their claims. It all boils down to how you, the end user, are satisfied with your particular sample. Remember the finite probability of sample variation.
I recently acquired a mint sample of the AI version and after adding a CPU, put it to use on DX (for IR) and FX cameras. On the D3 and D3X, I observed a good on-axis sharpness and very severe loss of quality into the corners for close subjects, while more remote scenes were rendered more evenly sharp across the frame. Still not what I'd call a peak performance, and the 14-24/2.8 Nikkor will blow the old-timer away."
As alexandre and Rustybug have mentioned the Zuiko 21 3.5 is very much on the table along with an offering on a Flek 20 2.8.
I also had a 17-40 and found it to have very bad CA, I aquired a sigma 15-30 and did me own comparison indoors and found it to be a slightly better performer. sold both so the widest FL I have now is 24mm and can get close to 21mm with a pentax 645 33-55 on a Zoerk PSA.
funds will certainly not stretch to any canon TSE and I have all the shift I need with the above setup.
My understanding of the CV 20 3.5 is that it is only available for Nikon and Pentax?
The Zuiko 20 2 and dist 21 . . . way out of my financial league.
p.1 #18 · ultra wide [20-21mm] for 5D? still looking
I've never seen any obvious distortion issue, and if it is there it is the easily corrected type. I noticed more distortion in the Zuiko 21/3.5. I've been around the FF alt lens forum well over five years. I know an excellent alt lens when I get one. Sure, the Nikon 14-24 might be technically better, but it can lack character, is huge/heavy - and forget about a filter. I was afraid to get it dirty or wet. The Nikon 20/4 has much better build for harsh environemnts than the Zuiko.
