AGeoJO wrote:
Paul,
I have been using one for almost two years and yes, I am fully aware of the optical quality of this lens. But to fully exploit this lens, you will have to use a FF camera as this lens gives performance all the way to the corners, which will get cropped on, well, a crop body.... Plus, the difference of 12mm in the wide angle range is huge but almost negligible in the tele range.
I tested my CZ21 on both a 5D and 1DsMkII and, yes, it is definately in its element on FF. Amazing, actually!!
And yes, the difference of 12mm on the wide end is huge, but does this make using the CZ21 on a crop camera somehow "less good" if a 33.6mm FOV is sufficient for the photographer's needs? It proved to be very useful to me, like I said. In fact, my widest lens is still a 21mm (for my crop bodies) and it covers my wide-angle needs quite well. Maybe the OP would find the same thing. If not, then the options are what Lasse and I mentioned and none of them will produce results even close to the CZ21. The only way to avoid sacrificing width or quality would be to stick the CZ21 (or Leica 19, or Nikon 17-35, or Zuiko 21/2 or Zuiko 21/3.5) on a 5D (or 1Ds or 1DsMkII) like I plan to do eventually.
Which reminds me, if the OP is OK with losing AF, then the best choice for both crop and FF (to get some more width on the crop and maintain excellent FF quality) would be the Nikon 17-35.
"If not, then the options are what Lasse and I mentioned and none of them will produce results even close to the CZ21."
This sounds more like a love affair Paul, not rational reasoning because you make it out as if exotics are the only "viable" option. Cost, adapters and inconvenience are left out of the conversation.
There's many options; Canon, third party and exotics (no AF and manual stop-down aperature). A thought: And what about those who don't need the sharpness of the CZ21/2.8 (A lense I'd like to have)? What about those who need the AF cause their eyes aren't the best anymore? What about those who need AE and AF, because they're chasing children or shooting children's sports. What about those who are just starting out in photograph and whom wouldn't appreciate what the CZ21/2.8 (doesn't notice awful corners) brings to the table?
My WA stable consists of a four lense solution; 14/2.8 Tamron, 16-35L, 35L and 28-70L because I don't see WA as a one-lense-fits-all solution. Can the CZ21/2.8 do all that? Sorry, no zooming with your feet cause that changes image perspective.
We've had this discussion before. All I can do is refer you to the topic of this post and express once again that adapters and inconvenience are a non-issue for the most part, as long as you are interested and willing to learn a bit. Also, I don't know how many times I have explained that AE is not lost with manual focus lenses.
What you say about AF is true with regards to chasing children, but I have never found myself chasing my kids with a wide-angle lens or trying to shoot sports with a wide-angle lens. YMMV.
Just as there are situations where AF lenses are necessary (as you mentioned) there are as many situations where MF is a non-issue (and often preferred). In those cases, the CZ21 is the best you can get, without a doubt, for SLR cameras.
It is up to the OP to decide which of the discussed lenses meet his needs, but it is up to the rest of us to answer his question regarding "best wide angle lenses." If the discussion did not include the CZ21, it would be severely lacking.
Some day you may have the chance to fall in love with a CZ21 as well. I hope you do.
If you want super-wide I vote for the 10-22.
You say you want FF compatible, but here's the issue: If/when you upgrade to FF a 12-24mm lens will be ULTRA wide, really a specialty lens that you may no longer need at all and thus will want to sell at that point. Therefore it may not make sense to take EF-S lenses out of your consideration.
17-40 on FF is super-wide--I hardly ever use mine wider than 20mm, and I shoot interior spaces.
"Also, I don't know how many times I have explained that AE is not lost with manual focus lenses."
I now refer to it as "manual stop-down aperature" in the interest of those who like hair splitting. Check out the post above yours.
I know you've "explained" this to me but auto, to me, means without assistance. I've used "fully" manual where you needed a light meter or the sunny 16 rule and then had to set the exposure via the little speed dial on the top and twist that little ring thingy on the lense to set the aperture.
Auto exposure, to me, takes the meter reading and the body does everything (idiot mode) or I can adjust either Av or Tv via a thumb wheel. What you're calling AE is really just a built in meter system that's auto nothing cause it does nothing but read the light. Hardly auto considering my forty plus years of background dealing with fully manual and fully auto. Do you have an accepted industry definition you can post in regard to what "AE", supporting your explanation or is this a definition of your own making that you're sharing with me.
My definition agrees with the above definition. Please make note of the bottom heading; "Manual control."
"For the greatest control over shutter speed and aperture you may wish to use manual metering, perhaps even with a hand held exposure meter."
I'd love to see your supportive information in regard to a definition so we can both mutually use the term correctly as clearly there's a disagreement and I love being in agreement.
"Some day you may have the chance to fall in love with a CZ21 as well. I hope you do."
If it helps, I'm already in love with the CZ21/2.8 but it's a rational love that sees all sides of the coin. Even if I had (which one day I might) a CZ21/2.8, I'd recommend the 16-35L as well as all the other WA's that I recommend "...because I don't see WA as a one-lense-fits-all solution." Check out the comment in the post above your last. The CZ21/2.8 is not the "only" WA in the stable and all aspects of photography need to be considered as it's not a myopic world we live in.
In Av mode with a manual lens, you set the aperture and the camera automatically sets the shutter speed for the correct exposure. This is qualifies as AE, in my book.. My Contax 139Q is considered an AE camera and the only "auto" mode it supports is Av mode. The only difference is that it meters wide open and then stops down just before shutter release. This is more convenient, but the stop-down metering method is still considered AE because the camera is ultimately calculating the correct exposure and taking action by adjusting shutter speed. Full auto obviously allows the camera to adjust both the aperture and the shutter speed, and Tv is the opposite of Av. They are all AE. It just so happens that I use Av mode pretty much exclusively, regardless of what type of lens I am using, so the only *real* difference is that I have to stop down before releasing the shutter. A minor inconvenience, in many people's opinion.
The article you referenced states "this has to work with the lens wide open." This is simply not true, as far as I am concerned (and there is a whole group of people over in the alternative forum who agree with me). The camera still automatically determines the exposure when using stop-down metering, so it is AE, by definition. Less convenient, yes, but still AE and still very usable. The exposure, after all, is determined "without any assistance" as you say.
A quick google search will show that this concept of "stop down AE" is a widely accepted form of AE.
"My Contax 139Q is considered an AE camera and the only "auto" mode it supports is Av mode. The only difference is that it meters wide open and then stops down just before shutter release. This is more convenient, but the stop-down metering method is still considered AE because the camera is ultimately calculating the correct exposure and taking action by adjusting shutter speed."
This is supported by who?
You lose your above when you glue a CZ21/2.8 onto a Canon body. You have to manually stop it down. I'll look forward to you finding and linking to your supportive information.
"This is simply not true, as far as I am concerned (and there is a whole group of people over in the alternative forum who agree with me)."
By who's standards? It called preaching to the choir as it's convenient to parse words to suit their needs. Canon lenses work wide open and then stop down. I understand what you're saying. I lived with these manual features that you're want to call auto.
"Less convenient, yes, but still AE and still very usable."
Only by your standards. I'll look forward to your documentation.
I think from now on, I'm going call it what it is, loss of AE and you'll just have to jump up and down and keep posting your argument and I'm just going have to, at this point, ignore your complaint unless you can point me toward an universally accepted definitions which validates your comment in regard to a CZ21/2.8 and not losing AE functions.
Stop-down aperture control is not AE. Auto is auto and manual (by the intervention of a hand) is not auto. So I'll post that you lose AE and you'll dog me saying that AE is maintained when it's not. Fair enough?
For my money, the zuikos are the way to go. Much cheaper than the CZ and performance very nearly on par.
I have the 10-22 and 16-35 but they don't come close to the zuikos. Even the lowly zuiko 21/3.5 which costs around $300 will beat the pants off any Canon at that focal range, although you have to sacrifice AF... but AF at this focal length is not really a big consideration.
No. Because AE is not lost on any of these lenses. I surmise that you are the only person who thinks it is. "Auto aperture" is lost, but not "auto exposure."
"This is supported by who?" -- What you do mean? It has nothing to do with who supports it. The camera supports it!
Stick a manual lens on your camera, put the camera in Av mode and watch what happens. I know what it does, but apparently you don't.
Believe what you want, but you are simply wrong on this point.
This isn't my "opinion". It is a fact. With any of these lenses and the camera in Av mode, exposure is automatic. Period.
There is a huge group of people using these lenses who understand this and it is referred to as "stop down AE" as I already said. Look for yourself, it is documented all over the place.
"Aperture Priority auto exposure allows the use (sic) to set the aperture. The camera then sets the appropriate shutter speed to correspond to this."
I'm going to have to agree, that AE includes AV mode with stop-down aperture. It is not as fully automatic, but c'mon, it auto-exposes.
IMPORTANT: since AV mode states that the user must select the aperture... you still have to use your hand to make this selection... whether it is by pushing a button, turning a wheel, or clicking through the lens's f-stops.
Technically, you could set aperture, look through camera and shoot in AV... the only reason you compose with the aperture open is so that the VF is brighter... it has nothing to do with lack of AE.
"I'm going to have to agree, that AE includes AV mode with stop-down aperture."
I'm not going agree. Why? Definition of "Automatic" says it ain't auto cause you have the intervention of the hand. You're trying to change the meaning of "automatic" and I'm not going go there for anybody's convenience.
Once the hand goes in to make things right, it becomes manual.
Dictionary.com: manual:
1. done, operated, worked, etc., by the hand or hands rather than by an electrical or electronic device: a manual gearshift.
2. involving or using human effort, skill, power, energy, etc.; physical: manual labor.
3. of or pertaining to the hand or hands: manual deformities.
" the only reason you compose with the aperture open is so that the VF is brighter... it has nothing to do with lack of AE"
Actually, it has to do with AF. The more light, the more accurated the AF. Above, I think f/6.3, the consumer grade bodies lose their AF and in the case of 1-Series, they;'re good to f/8.0 before AF kicks out. But again, the more light, the more accurated the AF.
I'm going find the exit sign on this issue. From dictionary definition, if the hand is used, it's manual and that's how it's going stay with this photographer in the case of a CZ21/2.8 when put on a Canon body with adapter cause you lose both AF and AE no matter how much one jumps up and down saying that they don't.
Some here are just going have to get used to me posting this point or drive themselves nutty in the process. Their choice.
Edited by BeeMan458 on Dec 05, 2006 at 03:05 PM GMT
Beeman, I don't know what to say-- that hasn't already been said. But this...
Nobody is MAKING you compose with the aperture wide open, then stop down to shoot and let AV (one of the primary AE modes) do its thing. You could just as well have the aperture set, compose, shoot in AV without EVER introducing the "intervention of the hand" as you say.
If you disagree with this, you are trying to tell us that AV with EF lenses isn't AE because the user has to use his hand to turn a dial to set aperture?
Dude-- you're lost.
If you are using AV with an EF lens, and you need to change your aperture, you need to use you hand.
If you are using AV with manual aperture lenses, and you need to change your aperture, you need to use your hand. SAME.
HOWEVER:
If you want to compose with a bright viewfinder with EF lenses... you do nothing.
If you want to compose with a bright viewfinder with manual aperture lenses... you need to add the extra step.
How many times must we tell you that what you lose is the ability to COMPOSE WITH BRIGHT VIEWFINDER without using your hand... but you do not lose AE in AV mode.
If I'm in idiot mode, the body does it for me; selects and stops down for me. If I'm in Av mode, the body still stops down for me but I get to choose what I want the diaphram to "automatically" close to?
I'm not budging guys. Auto is auto, manual is manual. Call it what you want and i'll do the same in this matter. I really do want to exit the matter so this will be my last response.
Ok Thomas, new to this thread, I do not mean to pile on. I have likely read a couple thousand of your 5230'ish posts. I can say that I follow your normally rational line of thinking. On this issue, however, I do not find your point of view to be particularly lucid. To each his own
Sorry, no zooming with your feet cause that changes image perspective.