No, the stop on the 21/2 (and my other OM lenses, the 100/2, and 200/5) is exactly on ∞. I can't say for the 18mm, but I imagine it will be the same.

Most of the adapters have a little tolerance on the thin side to guarantee infinity focus. If an adapter is made too thin, for internal-focus lens, I would not be surprised to see it increases vignetting, as well as decreases the image quality. Adapter quality matters I guess.

I bought fairly high quality Japanese adapter and got perfect ∞ focus.

RustyBug wrote:
Hmmm ... wondering @ adapter thickness coming into play @ the tips. Most times the discussion @ adapter thickness relates to infinity focus. How would adapter thickness relate / impact the corner vignetting.

BTW ... interesting to see your 21mm view of Horseshoe Bend vs. my 18mm view of the same from nearly the exact same vantage point.

^ I was thinking exactly the same thing!

I have the Olympus "The OM system lens handbook", and it has a page that shows all the lens angles for the OM system lens.

Pretty cool, I wonder if it would be OK to scan that page and post it here?

Kent, have you any more examples with the Nikkor 20/2.8 AiS? Another problem with the Zuiko 21mm is a surprising lack of depth of focus, even at F11-F16, which I have heard mentioned here before. I may try to pick up a Nikkor cheap to compare, as I can resell without losing much if it doesn't suit me.

rtester, are the waterfall pics from the Castle Hot Springs area?

azbill wrote:
rtester, are the waterfall pics from the Castle Hot Springs area?

Sabino Canyon but not where most people visit.

This is interesting. I have the Tokina 17mm and it doesn't vignette on either my old 1Ds or my F5 - wonder what is causing this?

Just create a custom lens profile and use Lightroom or ACR. Problem solved.

Just heard from the repairers that my 21/2 is in A1 condition and doesn't need any re-calibration. Worth the postage x2 to get that reassurance, but on the other hand it would have been nicer to have had it back without any vignetting.

Easy to say, "just use Lightroom" Andy, as my preferred processor is DPP and I don't find LR anywhere near as intuitive for me.
Will have to do some testing, (again), Zuiko 21/2: Voightlander 20/3.5 : Canon 17-40, to see which I'll be using!

Unfortunately, that image circle is just too small. Without correction, you end up with a decent 22mm lens once you crop in enough to remove the worst corner areas.

LR custom lens profile isn't a magic solution. Those black areas have to be filled in with something. Usually, they are just lightened, leaving a crude matching of the surrounding area -- blotchy and noisy,similar to raising any shadow area a couple of EV. A better handling will be more work and involve using more sophisticated PS layers to give a perfectly smooth transition to any important images. The LR profile will be a quick semi-fix, but not a real solution.

More quick tests on return of the 21/2 Zuiko and I think I'll return to the 17-40L until I can afford the ZE 21/2.8.
IF I could combine the good centre sharpness of the Voigtlander with the edge performance of the Zuiko I'd be fairly happy, although both have strong purple fringing. Even happier if the centre of the Voigt was carried out to the edges, as in the centre it is very acceptable.
The 17-40L gets closest over all, darn it, as I don't like using zooms. (From memory the Canon 20/2.8 USM had similar centre but worse edges, to the 17-40L.)
None of them is brilliant.

Yup,

Those are the trade-offs @ UWA lens design ... central sharpness vs. edge sharpness vs. aberrations. If you don't need the speed of a 2.8, the Oly 21/3.5 is very worthy and shouldn't be overlooked before you head for the ZE. I don't recall having any fringing issues with it, with good overall sharpness.

Thanks Kent. Before I sell on the Voigt I'll give it a test on an APSC camera, it may make an acceptable 32mm there, because it looks lovely in the centre on FF.
I'll also retest the Zuiko with another adapter I have lying around, just in case there is an adapter problem but I don't think It's worth trying a Leitax seeing the one I used is a pretty decent one anyway.

Voigt...it's going! The acceptable centre is too small even for my APSC IR 40D, the 17-40L looks much better even here. Pity, the Voigt is a lens I have really tried to love as it's mechanics, size and weight are lovely..the silkiest focus movement I've ever come across...but IQ is what matters!

I haven't ruled out getting the OM 21/3.5, though for the later MC version they are going £250-300 now, (though that's still half the price of the F2 version._
Retesting the 21/2 with a different adapter...no different, didn't really expect anything else. However I have realised that diffraction cuts in very early on the Zuiko, At F5.6 and 8 it is the sharpest of the bunch right across, but has a very shallow depth of field compared with the others. Even at F11 the depth is quite a lot less than the Voigt or 17-40L. At F16 the depth picks up a lot but diffraction artifacts are awful, (softening and sl. distortingin centre).
I imagine that the 21/3.5 would be very similar in this respect?
As I want good depth for my style of shooting, (Landscape, with large, close foregrounds, through to distant backgrounds) F16 would be needed. The 17-40L shows far less diffraction effect in comparison.

carstenw wrote:
If the size isn't a problem, I would really recommend saving up for the Zeiss. It is just a brilliant lens, and you can probably save a bit of money by getting the ZF (1) version. What will the Olympus 21/2 get you?

That's my thinking now too. I've put the 21/2 on ebay along with the Voigt. Ishould net £520 on the 21/2, which is half way to a used Zeiss 21/2.8.(The sale of the Voigt should just enable me to get a used ZE 100/2 which I have been saving for as my first priority.)

Concerning size (and weight) that has put me off going for the Z* 21/2.8 before, but if I find I need an "interim solution", the OM 21/3.5 should fill it for about £250, I believe the IQ is very similar to the 21/2.
EDIT: Keep forgetting that the 21/3.5 smears edges in IR, maybe the SMC Pentax M 20/4 a better bet.

Well ... if you're striving for the foreshortening effect through to infinity ... what you really want is going to be the 17L TS-E or 24L TS-E II. If your budget is able to handle the ZE, it can handle the TS-E's ... get the right tool for the job. You won't be happy with anything else until you do.

One additional beauty of the TS-E usage is that you can achieve your immense DOF at f-stops that are not diffraction inducing, i.e. 5.6 or 8 vs. 11 or 16.

That being said, I'm still a fan of the Oly 21/3.5. ALL UWA optics have their limits and compromises ... you just gotta "pick your poison" and stay away from that which bothers you most ... mustache distortion, first order distortion, CA, vignetting, contrast, bokeh, corner vs. center resolution, size, weight, cost, etc.

The reality is that no UWA glass serves all, as certain things are optically diametrically opposed in design. Those great corners come at the expense of central sharpness or mustache distortion or are achieved by a larger image circle. Superior central sharpness comes at the expense of weak corners or 'nervous bokeh'. Great contrast comes @ the expense of vignetting ... and so the story continues.

Pick your poison ... but for your goals of foreshortening to infinity without diffraction... TS-E is the way to go. The poison of TS-E being slightly less contrasty than the ZE (very easy to dial in to taste in post) with it's larger image circle. I'll take the contrast reduction over the mustache distortion any day to achieve the diffraction reduction and DOF increase that you seek, along with the added benefit of miniscule vignetting (larger image circle). People, ooh & ahh over the ZE (and for good reason), but the "extra" contrast that people love @ the ZE doesn't help you achieve your goals @ foreshortening DOF with low diffraction the way a TS-E will.

It takes a bit to get the hang of tilt if you've never used one before to get the DOF / foreshortening effect dialed in ... but you really ought to take one out for a spin (rent, borrow, etc.) just to shoot straight ... you'll find that it is great, well corrected glass ... clinically boring maybe compared to sooc from the ZE, but great glass nonetheless that gives you a wonderful file to work from with smooth transitions (opposite the more rapid transitions employed by Zeiss).

Yes, you're right of course Kent, It's just that they're SO big and heavy...but then I suppose so is the ZE 21.
I've really been trying to keep things simple and light, hence the Olys and the Voigt!.
Also doesn't Tilt really only work well for subjects that are obligingly flat, like lake sides to distant mountains, when you start trying to use it with trees sticking up close by, their cone of sharpness can't cope can they?
The ZE21 is one lens that does have a renowned good depth of field too.

Yes, the cone does have some limits ... but, if you turn your orientation 90 degrees

24L TS-E II ... shot @ 5.6

I can only imagine what kind of DOF / foreshortening you could get with the 17L TS-E

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1121827/0#10712774