CheshireCat Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.2 #4 · OM 3.5/21: samples/opinions ? | |
Thanks for all the comments and images, I really appreciate any single one.
Sean, I have also checked your site and photostream, great shots !
I must confess that while before I was torn between the Distagon and the Oly, now that more lenses are in the arena, I am more puzzled.
But this is just fine: the more the gladiators the better the winner ! 
By the way, I forgot to say that the arena is a 5D Mark II.. so corner performance cannot be ignored.
I did not consider a zoom like the EF 17-40L, because I assumed it could not match a prime. Perhaps I am wrong and I've never tested one personally, but examining raw files on a 5D2 I am not happy with the performance at the wide end even at f/8. Furthermore I just need a ultrawide because I already have a C/Y Distagon 28/2.8 and a Summicron-R 35/2 (and I don't mind changing lenses). I love the Distagon rendering for landscapes.
If the Oly is going to perform like the 17-40L at 21mm f/8 then it is definitely not an option !
I think that rules out also the Tamron 17-35.
I hear also that the Oly 21/2 is better than the 21/3.5 little brother but it is almost double the price and not as compact. It is also more difficult to find. Performance is probably due to floating elements, but is it so much better at infinite ?
The Oly 24 may be optically better than the 21, but having the Distagon 28 I need something a little wider than 24.
I didn't know about the Voigtlander 20 SL II, so this is definitely something to check. What about the EOS mount ? I don't need AF, so the price must be justified by better performance.
Of course the Distagon 21/2.8 ZE is still an option, but is it so much better than all the contenders ? It is not if we talk about price, compactness, and probably distortion.
Thanks again for your help !
|