Poor Man's Zeiss 21mm?

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.

olympus om 21 f/3.5 would be your best bet

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.

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.

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

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

the 17-40 stopped down is no slouch.

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

Yeah, that is kinda what I meant.

tkbslc wrote in post #12651425
Yeah, that is kinda what I meant.

i was just re-affirming your statement

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

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.

"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"?

Smthrz wrote in post #12651452
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.
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!

here is a photo i found on flickr:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

tkbslc wrote in post #12651464
"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.

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!