11-26-2011, 04:45 PM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1322315899' post='13257']
Hi VL,
I have the Nikon 20mm and I can say that it's an average lens in terms of resolution and color rendition. But very compact and does it's job for street use. I could use a bit more magnification ratio and less vignetting at wide open... And for landscapes, I'd rather use the 16mm of my Tokina 11-16 (with reservations for further croping in post process of course).
And now that I saw some samples from Wim's suggestion (Zuiko 21mm, the F/2 version), I will check the second hand of it as soon as possible (if I can find one). First impression was a quick negative concerning the bokeh. I saw some samples with really harsh bokeh. But despite it's compactness, the edge to egde sharpness on FF when stopped down is very impressive. But I did not came up with close-ups to evaluate the magnification and resolution.
I did not use Zeiss 21 nor the Nikon 17-35, but people who like landscape and close up photography say a lot positive for Zeiss 21mm because of it's resolution capabilities, color rendition, higher magnification and bokeh. This makes it a serious candidate I guess... But the mustache style distortion should maybe checked for architecture photography usage. And the Nikon at 21mm is said to have almost the same characteristics. I think what makes difference for Zeiss is the color rendition, bokeh and BQ, where OTOH we can count AF and a very usable zoom range for the Nikon... Hard to choose, if you don't limit the expectations...
Serkan
[/quote]
Thanks Serkan for your advice. What I like especially about the Nikon is the small size and weight and still AF and of course the somewhat reasonable price. The results may be average, but that may be good enough <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I will not buy the 17-35, as I have already tried the 16-35 and sold it for size reasons.
Hi VL,
I have the Nikon 20mm and I can say that it's an average lens in terms of resolution and color rendition. But very compact and does it's job for street use. I could use a bit more magnification ratio and less vignetting at wide open... And for landscapes, I'd rather use the 16mm of my Tokina 11-16 (with reservations for further croping in post process of course).
And now that I saw some samples from Wim's suggestion (Zuiko 21mm, the F/2 version), I will check the second hand of it as soon as possible (if I can find one). First impression was a quick negative concerning the bokeh. I saw some samples with really harsh bokeh. But despite it's compactness, the edge to egde sharpness on FF when stopped down is very impressive. But I did not came up with close-ups to evaluate the magnification and resolution.
I did not use Zeiss 21 nor the Nikon 17-35, but people who like landscape and close up photography say a lot positive for Zeiss 21mm because of it's resolution capabilities, color rendition, higher magnification and bokeh. This makes it a serious candidate I guess... But the mustache style distortion should maybe checked for architecture photography usage. And the Nikon at 21mm is said to have almost the same characteristics. I think what makes difference for Zeiss is the color rendition, bokeh and BQ, where OTOH we can count AF and a very usable zoom range for the Nikon... Hard to choose, if you don't limit the expectations...
Serkan
[/quote]
Thanks Serkan for your advice. What I like especially about the Nikon is the small size and weight and still AF and of course the somewhat reasonable price. The results may be average, but that may be good enough <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> I will not buy the 17-35, as I have already tried the 16-35 and sold it for size reasons.