Hi
Regarding for the best prime (super)-wide-angle lens for my full-frame Canon 5D (20mm or less), I am wondering what your experiences are.
There is the Zeiss Distagon 21mm f/2.8, the very expensive Canon TS-E 17mm (Tilt/Shift), newly also the Cosina-Voigtlander Color-Skopar 20mm f/2.5 (for Canon), the old Nikon 20mm f/4 (with EF Adaptor), even the old Pentax Takkumar 20mm f/4.5 with M42 mount and EF adaptor, the old Zeiss Flektogon 20mm f/2.8 also with M42 mount and the Tokina RMC 17mm f/3.5 - do I forgot the most important?
The most impressive AF-S Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G Zoom? Well, it's a heavy weight (expensive) zoom and I am looking for the best competitive (bargain) prime.
Thanks for help

there's the canon 14l mk ii as well which is a great lens.

Hi rolart53. Welcome to FM.

Over the last few weeks, I've compared the Voigtlander C-S 20/3.5 SL II (not f/2.5 as you mentioned), SMC Pentax 18/3.5, Tokina AT-X 17/3.5 AF and 17-40/4L at 17mm and 20mm. The 17-40L is sharpest in the middle, the AT-X is sharpest in the corners, and pretty good in the middle. The Voigtlander and Pentax are now in my 'for sale' pile.

It's interesting that your Tokina was sharpest in the corners. Mine wasn't great at all
in the corners, but I think mine had some decentering.

rolart53 wrote:
I am looking for the best competitive (bargain) prime.
Thanks for help


Many of the lenses listed are not "bargains" -- and you left out the Zeiss ZE 18mm/3.5.

The 20mm/2.8 MC Flektogon is generally a good value, the Voigtlander Color-Skopar 20mm/3.5 is value priced but both have some shortcomings. I guess to determine what might be a good bargain for you would depend on what you are going to use the lens for. This way we can determine what aspects of performance are most important, center sharpness, corner sharpness, distortion characteristics, flare resistance, CA performance, etc. Finally, do you want AF, do you need autro aperture, or are you will to use a lens totally manually -- stopping the aperture down manually as well as manual focusing? For some that might be a non-starter.

Contax 21 2.8, smile when you see your first shots and keep smiling long ways down the line. Period

For Canon:
Reasonable/Best bang for $$$: Tamron SP 17mm f3.5
Good value lens: Voigtlander Skopar 20mm f3.5
Impressive: Canon 17mm TS-E
Impressive and good value: Olympus OM 18mm f3.5
All rounder (as good as primes): Nikon 14-24mm f2.8 with the adapter
The Ultimate: Converted Zeiss 17-35mm f2.8


The Canon 14mm f2.8 and even the Sigma 14mm f2.8 Asp DG are decent alternatives for super wide angle. Based on images posted, the Zeiss 21mm f2.8 is definitely an excellent lens and the next on my list.
I have not owned the Canon 17mm TS-E and am basing my views on samples posted here and elsewhere.

From the rest of the lenses listed, my current favorite is the Skopar 20mm f3.5 on my D700 since it is so compact followed very closely/tied in with the Tamron SP 17mm f3.5

Hello again
The time lag makes not easy to chat.
Lotusm50 asked me about my preferences. I do not care if I have to handle everything manually. I just want a sharp lens, also in the corners. I do some architecture and panorama stuff, see:
http://www.faesser.com/welcome/PANO/PANOfaesser.html
and therefore I am also happy not to have to much distortion, vignetting and chromatic aberration - to much for a "bargain" lens. I know, the TS-E 17mm and the Zeiss 21mm are probably one of the bests, but also pretty expensive.
I thought much more (with the appropriate adapter) to bring a forgotten exquisite old (bargain) lens to new life.
The 20mm/2.8 Flektogon is such an example, but when it comes to the crunch (see following link) it does not really satesfy my claims. LInk: http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/reviews/lenses/zeiss_flektogon_20.html#more_info
Bargain and best out of it - probably a contradiction?

trumpet_guy wrote:
It's interesting that your Tokina was sharpest in the corners. Mine wasn't great at all
in the corners, but I think mine had some decentering.

Hi Tim. I'm pleasantly surprised by the performance of the AT-X 17/3.5 AF. I just received it last week, in the hopes of getting something better than my SMCP 18/3.5, which has shown some warts in comparison with the 20/3.5 and 17-40L (esp. flare - probably due to the 18/3.5 internal filters). A couple of weeks ago, I took the 20/3.5, 24-105L and 180/4 APO-Lanthar to Sweden. The 20/3.5 images are fine (there is good enough and then there is better), but I was wishing that I had something wider than the 20/3.5, that was smaller and maybe better than the 17-40L. Now I have it. Jim.

Why insist on a prime? The 17-40 is very good stopped down (and BTW, not bad at all wide open as well), and in landscape you usually stop your lens down. All things considered, I think this offers the best bang for the buck.

Welcome to FM.

Happy shooting,
Yakim.

rolart53 wrote:
I do some architecture and panorama stuff, see:
http://www.faesser.com/welcome/PANO/PANOfaesser.html


Now there's an eclectic living space. :-)
Yours?

Yes, actually I do much more sculpting than photography.
Nevertheless I love professional tools - my favorite lens is still the Zeiss Distagon 21mm.......