20/21mm lens for Sony A7S

[jhe1971]

Hi again!

I'm after a 20mm/21mm lens. Zeiss 21mm ZF/ZE would be great but it is way over my budget at the moment. One option would be Sony 28mm with a 21mm adapter, but it's all just speculation at this point. I have 28mm covered with Zuiko 28mm/2.0 and will only buy the Sony 28mm offering if it is to be something very special optically. The ULTRA wide end I have covered with Voigtlander 12mm, which by the way works very nicely with A7S.

Has anyone had an option to compare Canon FD 20/2.8 with Zuiko 21/3.5 or Nikon 20/3.5 AI-s? Of course I will be open to other suggestions as well.

Thanks in advance!

Best regards, Jyrki

 

[Vivek]

I know the Nikon 20/3.5 AiS. Positively crappy on any A7 cameras, including the A7s. Very disappointing since I have had great use of it on Nikon D300 (APS-C).

AVOID

 

[hiepphotog]

I believe the CV 21/1.8 works reasonably well on these cameras.

 

[MikeEvangelist]

Before I bought the 16-35mm zoom, I found the Canon FD 20mm ƒ2.8 to be quite good on the A7R, especially stopped down a bit. And they are modestly priced.

Some examples -

Larger versions here -

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7294/15881788943_c30c565776_o.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7392/16500205671_e8222c7176_o.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8592/16314206988_7914c1d39e_o.jpg

 

[jhe1971]

I know the Nikon 20/3.5 AiS. Positively crappy on any A7 cameras, including the A7s. Very disappointing since I have had great use of it on Nikon D300 (APS-C).

AVOID

Thanks for the info, sounds like I can drop that one off my short list

BR, Jyrki

 

[jhe1971]

Thanks Mike, those Canon samples look good indeed!

 

[danlindberg]

I have a Canon FDn 20/2.8 and a Zuiko 21/2.
The Zuiko distorts a little more than the Canon but everything else is better with the Zuiko on the A7r. Atleast with my copies. In fact, I think the Zuiko 21/2 is a well kept secret for the 7r......

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Don't overlook the 16-35 FE. I have a excellent copy and on my recent workshop to Moab I used this lens a lot around this focal length and it is outstanding . Actually too my surprise as usually zooms especially wide angle zooms are not very good in the wide side. Here this lens rocks from 16-28 . I sold my 17TSE because this was so close if not better. I will say I have a very good copy of it. I'm a lens whore and shot just about everything in the market. This is very very good IMHO.

 

[Godfrey]

The Nikkor 20mm f/3.5 AI-S (52mm filter) was my favorite wide lens for many years. Very sharp, very contrasty, very small and handy too. It has a bit of corner falloff and a bit of softness in the edges and corners at very close distances, but I hadn't found that to be objectionable.

I cannot imagine that it would have any imaging problems fitted to the A7s.

G

 

[Vivek]

Thanks for the info, sounds like I can drop that one off my short list

BR, Jyrki

I checked with the lens (i bought it new) before I posted. The sample quality that Mike shows can not be achieved by the Nikon lens.

 

[gurtch]

I have an outstanding Minolta 20mm f2.8 with original shade, and special Minolta wide angle polarizer meant for this lens. Used with the LAE4 adapter, I get auto focus, lens data, etc. Photoshop camera raw even has a Sony 20mm lens correction module (the Sony 20mm is a rebadged Minolta). You could probably get a used Minolta 20mm plus adapter very reasonably. Here are a few samples using that lens. I have made 20"x30" prints, and they show nice detail.
Dave in NJ

 

[Godfrey]

I know the Nikon 20/3.5 AiS. Positively crappy on any A7 cameras, including the A7s. Very disappointing since I have had great use of it on Nikon D300 (APS-C).

AVOID

You always post these emphatic negatives, Vivek.

Please show some examples of the crappy behavior. I'm quite curious about it because it has done well adapted to FourThirds and APS-C formats for me. I don't own one at this point so I cannot test it on the A7 for myself.

You're also the one who said the Olympus BCL 9mm was unusable due to flare ... I haven't seen any flare with it yet.

G

 

[Jack]

The Nikkor 20/2.8 AIS was (and may still be) one of the best 20's I ever owned, and provided better corner performance than the 3.5 version. (Note, not talking the 20/2.8 AF-D, but the previous manual f2.8 version which IMO is a superior optic.) The Zeiss 21 is very good, but has more visible mustache than the Nikkor and corner/center resolutions are similar. The Voigtlander 20 SL2 was also pretty good IIRC, but a tad behind both the Nikkor and Zeiss.

But at the end of the day, my favorite 20mm primes of all time, were the Leica R 19 or the Zeiss 18, both cropped a little

Today, my favorite 20 is my 17-35/2.8 AF-S zoom... Center resolution beats them all, and while extreme corners fail notably, the usable portions of the corners remain usable -- again, I tend to shoot it a little loose and crop the worst out.

 

[Godfrey]

The Nikkor 20/2.8 AIS was (and may still be) one of the best 20's I ever owned, and provided better corner performance than the 3.5 version. (Note, not talking the 20/2.8 AF-D, but the previous manual f2.8 version which IMO is a superior optic.) ...

I agree with that, although I liked the f/3.5 model more for its small size; I also liked its specific rendering qualities.

I've got the Elmarit-R 19/2.8 v1 and Nikkor 18/3.5 AI-S now. They're both quite good on the A7, with interesting differences and their own minor issues. Like you, I shoot a bit loose with them and crop down to about the 20-21mm FoV, which cleans up any edge issues completely.

The Elmarit-R really shines best on film, and I know the v2 lens is even better than the v1. I haven't had a chance to test the Nikkor 18 on film yet.

G

 

[Jack]

For sure, the 20/3.5 was pretty small, about like the 50/1.8. And while the corners were not as sharp as the 2.8, they fell out pleasantly

 

[Vivek]

You're also the one who said the Olympus BCL 9mm was unusable due to flare ... I haven't seen any flare with it yet.

G

I do not recall saying anything like that. IIRC, I pointed at the right direction direction where samples for flare can be found.

On the 20/3.5 AiS: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/52835-digital-nikon-manual-lenses.html Nikon users are looking for alternatives.

Before trying to insinuate anything please check the relevance of a thread and the context of a post. Any mount lens can be used on the A7 series and the OP's question and my posts relate to that.

 

[Godfrey]

I do not recall saying anything like that. IIRC, I pointed at the right direction direction where samples for flare can be found.

On the 20/3.5 AiS: http://www.getdpi.com/forum/nikon/52835-digital-nikon-manual-lenses.html Nikon users are looking for alternatives.

Before trying to insinuate anything please check the relevance of a thread and the context of a post. Any mount lens can be used on the A7 series and the OP's question and my posts relate to that.

The question is whether your statements are credible. That's relevant to any thread. Just like you citing banding in that photo on the M240 thread that you refuse to point out when asked.

Never mind. I'll just put you on ignore so I don't have to query you for evidence supporting your claims.

G

 

[Vivek]

I'll just put you on ignore so I don't have to query you for evidence supporting your claims.

G

Thank you!

I would appreciate that instead of having to deal with slander based on conjured up statements.

 

[MikeEvangelist]

I'll just put you on ignore

I wish you two weren't on opposite sides of the globe, so we could all get together for a pint, and a deep discussion of glass and brass and other fancy stuff.

 

[Godfrey]

I wish you two weren't on opposite sides of the globe, so we could all get together for a pint, and a deep discussion of glass and brass and other fancy stuff.

That would be good.

He's made so many statements that are diametrically opposed to what I know to be true from my own experience with the same gear, then he refuses to provide any evidence to back them up. Sorry, but I don't accept the truth of statements spoken like fact that are counter to what I know from my own experience without evidence.

Sitting around a table and having a real discussion, not this one sided proclamation then silence and no evidence, would allow me to understand his perspective.

G