ISO1600 wrote:
man, you guys are all just pixelpeepers anyways, what do i care
If you want to seem even remotely rational and righteous in all your defensive fury, you should not post "that is not a sharp fisheye, don't put that shitty thing on a 5d mkII" and "you guys are all just pixelpeepers anyways" the same day. You come over as trollish and inconsistant. I'm sure you have good reasons for this behaviour, conscious or not, but try to keep it a bit.. consistant
I think if the price is right I may pick this little gem up for a comparison with my Leica 19! If the R10 isn't that great and I decide to stay canon for 35mm DSLR then I may sell the Leica and make some money on the resale.
pdmphoto wrote:
I am merely using the Oly 18/3.5 as a benchmark of what a good 20/3.5 should be able to perform. I am well aware of the different FOV between 18 and 20mm.
ISO1600, you apparently have never owned an Oly 18/3.5 (or at least a good copy with a good adapter)? The Oly 18/3.5 is not overpriced. There is no other 18mm lens that's as sharp across the frame on FF. It also has great color and "look". I can bet the CV 20/3.5 will NOT be as good. And it surely won't be have the great build quality of the Nikon 20/4.
How hard is it to find out a little info on the 20/4 It is smaller than a most standard manual focus 50/1.4's
Thrice: Don't sell the CV stuff short. Build quality on the 2 current SLII's is at least as good as late pre-AI Nikkors like the 20/4 and I expect the 20/3.5 to be similar in build to the other two. I don't expect the same corner performance as the Zuiko 18 though, but it should get close (The other two SLII's come in slightly behind the equivalent ZF lenses in performance. I'm expecting the 20/3.5 to almost match the ZF 18 in performance which would put it in shouting distance of the Zuiko 18, but not quite a match)
dpap1978 wrote:
I wonder if it is the same optical formula as the m-mount version...
Not even similar. The 21/4 Color Skopar is a non-retrofocus, non-aspherical design with 8 elements in 6 groups. The 20/3.5 Color Skopar is a retrofocus aspherical design with 9 elements in 6 groups.
all i know is i'm happier with my Nikkor 18/2.8 than any other wide prime has ever made me, and i can't use a zuiko to even 10% of the efficiency that i am using my Nikkor.....
mawz wrote:
Thrice: Don't sell the CV stuff short. Build quality on the 2 current SLII's is at least as good as late pre-AI Nikkors like the 20/4 and I expect the 20/3.5 to be similar in build to the other two. I don't expect the same corner performance as the Zuiko 18 though, but it should get close (The other two SLII's come in slightly behind the equivalent ZF lenses in performance. I'm expecting the 20/3.5 to almost match the ZF 18 in performance which would put it in shouting distance of the Zuiko 18, but not quite a match)
You may have misinterpreted my post. I may change from my Leica 19 (one of the best UWAs ever) to this if the price is right. I expect performance and build quality to be good for it's intended purpose. I know all about the SL and SLII build quality; I have a 180/4 APO Lanthar and used to have the 50/1.4 ZF.
ISO1600 wrote:
all i know is i'm happier with my Nikkor 18/2.8 than any other wide prime has ever made me, and i can't use a zuiko to even 10% of the efficiency that i am using my Nikkor.....
And why is that? I don't understand how a higher performing lens cannot be used to even 10% the efficiency of another heavier more flare-sensitive lens in the same focal length. Do you shoot 90% at f/2.8?
i shoot 100% F-mount Nikon, and at least 85% of that is AF, and most of all, i do shoot mostly f2.8....
if there was a "smug" smiley, i'd be dropping it right now.
Although, if CV made a sweeeet superwide prime(sub-20mm), i would be interested. I love their lenses.
Then please post some sample from you Nikon 18/2.8 on a full frame body. There is a very nice copy for a reasonable price available locally, but I've not seen good reviews on this lens.
Ken Rockwell does not recommend it due to lack of sharpness and excessive ghosting. He says the 17-35/2.8 zoom is a better overall performer at 18mm.
Bjorn Rorslett rates it a "3" (of 5). He doesn't tlike the residual colour aberrations and says its colors are greyish, and devoid of sparkle - with highlight color fringing.
ISO1600 wrote:
all i know is i'm happier with my Nikkor 18/2.8 than any other wide prime has ever made me, and i can't use a zuiko to even 10% of the efficiency that i am using my Nikkor.....
That's a pretty decent description of the 18/2.8 AF and AF-D. It's the second worst AF lens Nikon's made in FX form at that focal length (say what you will, but the 18-35's not as good at 18mm). It's sole advantage over the other options is the smaller size compared to the 17-35 AF-S.
Personally, given what I can get a 17-35 for, if I needed AF and f2.8 I'd go for the 17-35.
-Adam
pdmphoto wrote:
Then please post some sample from you Nikon 18/2.8 on a full frame body. There is a very nice copy for a reasonable price available locally, but I've not seen good reviews on this lens.
Ken Rockwell does not recommend it due to lack of sharpness and excessive ghosting. He says the 17-35/2.8 zoom is a better overall performer at 18mm.
Bjorn Rorslett rates it a "3" (of 5). He doesn't tlike the residual colour aberrations and says its colors are greyish, and devoid of sparkle - with highlight color fringing.
thrice wrote:
You may have misinterpreted my post. I may change from my Leica 19 (one of the best UWAs ever) to this if the price is right. I expect performance and build quality to be good for it's intended purpose. I know all about the SL and SLII build quality; I have a 180/4 APO Lanthar and used to have the 50/1.4 ZF.
I'm referring to this statement in the post I quoted:
And it surely won't be have the great build quality of the Nikon 20/4.
The SLII's have build quality at least as good as Nikon lenses from that era. I've compared them directly, most of my F mount kit is late pre-AI through early AI-S Nikkors and the SLII's.
i paid $200 for my 18/2.8 AF-D, and from what i've shot in the past 3 days w/ it on my new D700, it walks all over both 16-35's (mk1 and 2) i used on my Canons (5D, 1D, 1DII).
www.flickr.com/mx5chris, i have plenty of recent 18mm shots... some of which are art for art's sake, so please excuse me.
mawz wrote:
I'm referring to this statement in the post I quoted:
And it surely won't be have the great build quality of the Nikon 20/4.
The SLII's have build quality at least as good as Nikon lenses from that era. I've compared them directly, most of my F mount kit is late pre-AI through early AI-S Nikkors and the SLII's.
Oh, pdmphotos's post not mine, you addressed me directly in your post so I thought you were talking to me, when you were actually confused.
Before I get too excited about this lens, I would want to know:
1) If there are any issues mounting it (via adapter) to a 5d2.
2) US Price. The only price I've seen so far is 55K Yen. That's around $560.
3) If 1 and 2 are okay, then how does it perform? If it's anything like the other SLII lenses (or SL1 for that matter), it should be great.
Jim
jph1 wrote:
Before I get too excited about this lens, I would want to know:
1) If there are any issues mounting it (via adapter) to a 5d2.
2) US Price. The only price I've seen so far is 55K Yen. That's around $560.
3) If 1 and 2 are okay, then how does it perform? If it's anything like the other SLII lenses (or SL1 for that matter), it should be great.
Jim
Of course there are no issues mounting this lens on a 5D.
Yeah it is 55,000 yen and the other SL2s are 50,000 yen, so bust out the calculator and see that this will cost all of $50 more at most than the 58/1.4 and the 40/2...
I also have an 18/2.8, it is sharper than my 17-35/2.8 and much smaller. It is one of my favorite lenses. All of that and it has a massive gouge out of the rear element. The only valid complaint I've seen about the 18/2.8 is it's ghosting. I've had no major issues with flare, shooting with no hood and it is plenty sharp wide open, at least as sharp as any shot I've seen of the Zuiko 18/3.5 that people fall over themselves to buy. The corners are dark, but that doesn't bother me. I'm not shooting landscapes with the 18 and if I were f/8 or f/11 takes care of the dark corners. The color rendition in the 18/2.8D is ABSOLUTELY SUPERB.
The optical quality will probably be quite different, and I'm hoping for much better absolute corner performance, which we'll undoubtedly see. I'm not excited about the Voigtlander's 9 aperture blades though; I want nice star bursts from point sources of light at night. But I'm sure the wide-open bokeh camp will be happy.
Of course there are no issues mounting this lens on a 5D.
So no clearance issues like the Leica 19mm? That's good. From the pics I've see of the lens, I couldn't tell how far it would stick into the mirror box.
It sounds like Voigtlanders are more expensive in Japan. So the US price may be lower than the conversion price of 55K JPY.
Mounting it on a 5D/II (which I think is what the poster was getting at) and having it clear the mirror on any given 5D/II are two very different matters. Since the only shots seen so far have been from a D300, it's too early to tell if there would be any issues on Canon's problem child.
For ANY wide angle alternate lens, especially one that wide, I'd try and test it first - bearing in mind what clears one 5D/II may not clear another. A vendor with a good return policy is another safe avenue as well.
As for list price - if history is any indication, street price in NA will be less
It is smaller than a most standard manual focus 50/1.4's 