Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 24 Jun 2011 (Friday) 12:25
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Poor Man's Zeiss 21mm?

 
CJSmith
Senior Member
Avatar
390 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs
     
Jun 24, 2011 12:25 |  #1

Are there any cheaper lenses out there similar to the Zeiss 21mm? I've been reading Galen Rowell's "Inner Game of Outdoor Photography" and he talks about using a small 24mm 2.8 lens on his Nikon when backpacking. What is my best option in the Canon world? I'd like something small, less than $400, that has better image quality than my 17-40mm when stopped down, with a focal length of around 17-24mm. It can be manual focus and does not need to be a fast aperture lens. I was hoping to find something similar to the Samyang 14mm, but a bit less wide. Any ideas? Or am I thinking too much about this and should get the Canon 24mm 2.8? I have not heard much about this lens.


6D, Σ15 FE, 17mm TS-E, 24-105, 70-300L, 40mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 100L, 600EX-RT, Kenko 2X MC4, Kenko Tubes
www.OutofChicago.com:external link The Chicago Photography Experience
Flickrexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 12:28 |  #2

olympus om 21 f/3.5 would be your best bet


John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
banpreso
Goldmember
2,176 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Socal
     
Jun 24, 2011 12:49 |  #3

there are lots of options

sigma 20mm f1.8 comes to mind, along with 24mm f1.8

you could also go with adapted manual focus lenses, which includes that nikkor 24mm f2.8 you read about, along with olympus 21mm f2/f3.5, contax zeiss 25mm f2.8, 28mm f2.8, nikkor 28mm f2, and much much more.


Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpark42
Senior Member
307 posts
Joined Jul 2009
     
Jun 24, 2011 12:57 |  #4

The Canon 24/2.8 would probably be just fine if you are primarily going to be shooting it stopped down. That said, the 17-40L should be quite good stopped down as well, especially if you avoid 17mm. If you shoot it at 20mm-24mm or so (for example) the corner quality improves quite a bit over 17mm.

The previously mentioned Olympus OM 21 would suit as well. Pretty much any of the OM 21's, 24's, or 28's would be suitable. They are all small and pretty good stopped down. The 28/3.5 is by far one of the best bang-for-your-buck options at $50 or less typically, though it sounds like you want to go wider.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:01 |  #5

I might check out the Voigtlander Color Skopar 20mm f3.5

Although "better than 17-40L stopped down" is probably not realistic.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:06 |  #6

the 17-40 stopped down is no slouch.


John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:11 |  #7

crazeazn wrote in post #12651413 (external link)
the 17-40 stopped down is no slouch.

Yeah, that is kinda what I meant.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:14 |  #8

tkbslc wrote in post #12651425 (external link)
Yeah, that is kinda what I meant.

i was just re-affirming your statement :D


John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:16 |  #9

I guess we will have to agree to agree then.... :p


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CJSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
390 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:16 as a reply to  @ crazeazn's post |  #10

I just got the 17-40mm a couple of weeks ago and I find that it is not near as sharp in the corners as the Samyang 14mm was. I thought this was a common complaint with the 17-40mm. Maybe my original title should have been "A Little Bit Longer Samyang 14mm". I'd like something with the optical qualities of the Samyang, but at about 21mm.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I will need to buy an adapter for any of the Olympus/non-Canon lenses recommended, correct? If they are not any better IQ than the 17-40mm, then I will just use the 17-40. It's not very heavy.


6D, Σ15 FE, 17mm TS-E, 24-105, 70-300L, 40mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 100L, 600EX-RT, Kenko 2X MC4, Kenko Tubes
www.OutofChicago.com:external link The Chicago Photography Experience
Flickrexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:18 |  #11

"not near as sharp" really? Or "if I pixel peep really hard with side by sides at 200% view it is not quite as good but nobody but me would ever notice"? :)


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:28 |  #12

Smthrz wrote in post #12651452 (external link)
I just got the 17-40mm a couple of weeks ago and I find that it is not near as sharp in the corners as the Samyang 14mm was. I thought this was a common complaint with the 17-40mm. Maybe my original title should have been "A Little Bit Longer Samyang 14mm". I'd like something with the optical qualities of the Samyang, but at about 21mm.

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. I will need to buy an adapter for any of the Olympus/non-Canon lenses recommended, correct? If they are not any better IQ than the 17-40mm, then I will just use the 17-40. It's not very heavy.

1) its not fair to compare 14mm to a L zoom that doesnt even have the same range. :D
2) its much easier to make a manual focus only lense than AF equivalent..hence why the alternative lense community is so large.
3) like aforementioned the 17-40 is fantastic for what it is, great range and good and stopped down..if you have a newer body you can micro adjust if you feel that its sloppy.
4) any non native EF mount lense will require an inexpensive adapter.
5) I was under the impression that you wanted the lightest option possible since you wanted to use it for backpacking...the olympus is TINY.

good luck on your hunt!


John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:29 |  #13

here is a photo i found on flickr:

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Olympus Zuiko 21mm f/3.5 (external link) by *Depth (external link), on Flickr

Length: 31mm (1.2")
Maximum Diameter: 59mm (2.3")
Weight: 185g (6.5 oz) (newer version indicates 180g (6.3 oz).

John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CJSmith
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
390 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: Chicago Suburbs
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:32 |  #14

tkbslc wrote in post #12651464 (external link)
"not near as sharp" really? Or "if I pixel peep really hard with side by sides at 200% view it is not quite as good but nobody but me would ever notice"? :)

Oh no. I didn't want to be "that guy" :)

Looking back over my shots, I think you're right. The 17-40mm is doing a fine job. I really try not to pixel peep, but I do see a difference without zooming in. But, who else would notice? Good point. My goal this summer is to concentrate on my photography and stop worrying so much about gear. I must have forgotten that when I started this thread. One day, I'll try some of these other manual focus lenses.


6D, Σ15 FE, 17mm TS-E, 24-105, 70-300L, 40mm 2.8, 85mm 1.8, 100L, 600EX-RT, Kenko 2X MC4, Kenko Tubes
www.OutofChicago.com:external link The Chicago Photography Experience
Flickrexternal link

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
crazeazn
Senior Member
Avatar
398 posts
Joined May 2010
Location: Houston
     
Jun 24, 2011 13:33 |  #15

vs:
17-40L
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.3 x 3.8" (8.38 x 9.65cm)
Weight 1.05 lb (476g)

3.1 cm to 9.65cm... 3x the length!


John H.
some bodies, some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,955 views & 0 likes for this thread
Poor Man's Zeiss 21mm?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is MarcusBullen
817 guests, 184 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.