weekh wrote:
I've just grabbed one BRAND NEW Zuiko 21mm f2 lens.
Looking for an adapter now....
But I will consider selling it immediately if the offer is attractive.
\i'm glad you got it and hope you enjoy it, but if you are looking to depart with it, you might be better served by posting that in the buy sell forum than here under the test for the zuiko 21 F3.5......imo, your parting comment is inappropriate.......
regards
stevei gave me the hot tip that Ffordes in the UK has some 21mm f/3.5's available in the 335-375GBP range. Shipping to the U.S. is 18GBP, or 35GBP for express. They have 3 in stock as of today.
Marco wrote:
Well... I was actually one of the first mad people who gave the Zeiss 21 a try after have been so disappointed with all Canon wides.
Indeed the first "full frame" try was by Jan Brittenson with my lens, see this old post.
Marco
Man, I wish I was reading this forum two years ago but wait, I didn't even have a DSLR by then
Went to look at one and it's a beaut Tiny little thing, and heavy compared to my CZ 50 1.7. And it didn't cost me $1700 either
I live in a smallish town ( 35,000ish ) and of all places to find one--a drugstore that sells used cameras and lenses. I called down there yesterday and they had just gotten a bag of 4 OM bodies and maybe 6 lenses. And the 21 3.5 was in there.
Allow me to recommend Trader Joes Old Fashioned Steel Rolled Oatmeal instead of the Quaker Oats. Overall a much firmer texture, but it comes in smaller cylinder container.
FWIW, everyone likes watching a good train wreck, so keep those tests coming!
Seriously though some top shooters in here posed some good questions about the lens under scrutiny which make for an even more incisive and interesting examination of the lens in general.
However, the price-gouging/ulterior motive crackpot stuff gets boring/tiresome.
I a gree as well. However, if the price elevation was the only motive and it turns out to be a bad product.. reputations will be tarnished including mine. I stand behind my experiences and comments with this lens.
Phil Bonner wrote:
FWIW, everyone likes watching a good train wreck, so keep those tests coming!
Seriously though some top shooters in here posed some good questions about the lens under scrutiny which make for an even more incisive and interesting examination of the lens in general.
However, the price-gouging/ulterior motive crackpot stuff gets boring/tiresome.
Note: this is a self-portrait. Focus is not perfect on my face but on my collar. OK, sigma is very soft at f1.8 but ihmo usable for short distance object ... like me
Not with the Zuiko 21mm F3.5, but you can with the Zuiko 21mm F2 lens.
But you are missing the point, you have a 1.6 crop sensor body, any of the Canon offerings will look good with your camera, it is cutting off and hence masking all edge distortion and sharpness problems.
If you want real lens speed, have a look at the dinky little Zuiko 50mm F1.2 lens and weep..... 55mm front filter instead of your gargantuan 82mm on your 20mm lens and a full aperture stop faster. Likewise the 21mm F2 Zuiko is a 55mm filter ring lens compared to your behomouth 82mm job.
Right, but at f1.2 i think that the Zuiko 50 is not sharp like at f8 ... Like Canon 50/1.4, 35/1.4 etc ...
When i use my lens wide open i know that the corner ar soft. But in handheld low light situations it isn't a real problem.
I don't know anyting about zuiko 21 f2. But Sigma f1.8 is a cheap lens that cover a good range of situations despite some defects like flare, internal reflections or wheight.
Actually, for the record, the Zuiko 50mm f1.2 has a 49mm front filter thread. The older, slightly larger 55mm f1.2 used the 55mm front threads, however.
Devis - I agree, the Sigma is a more convenient "general purpose" lens, especially with it's auto-focus. In low-light, or walk-around situations, I would pick it over the Zuiko 21.
The Zuiko 21 is really suited for landscape work, where it easily outresolves the Sigma 20 at the edges of full-frame. You might not notice much difference between the two on a 300D, but the difference is obvious on a 1DsII.
;-)
.
but wait, I didn't even have a DSLR by then 
