11-26-2011, 08:49 PM
[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1322325516' post='13260']
Strange to hear YOU ask that question. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> [/quote]
I know, I know <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I was just wondering whether you were going for portability, or the best, that's all. I don't think there is a better UWA in the Nikon stable currently than the 14-24, hence my question <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I had one for a while, with G-EOS adapter, but I found it was a pain to use for stopping down to a precise aperture (too time consuming), which is exactly what I normally want to do <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
Other than that, certainly better than the 17-40L, and especially considering the 17-20 mm extreme corners on the17-40L (where I always seem to have something in the frame <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />). Just that on Canon the TS-E 17 beats it again, IMO anyway, and it has auto aperture <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.
In that case, by all means, do look into the Voigtländer 20, it is a better lens than the Nikon 20, I hear from my friends who use Nikon. Same with the Canon 20, though - they are both old (school) designs.
Kind regards, Wim
Strange to hear YOU ask that question. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> [/quote]I know, I know <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />. I was just wondering whether you were going for portability, or the best, that's all. I don't think there is a better UWA in the Nikon stable currently than the 14-24, hence my question <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I had one for a while, with G-EOS adapter, but I found it was a pain to use for stopping down to a precise aperture (too time consuming), which is exactly what I normally want to do <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Other than that, certainly better than the 17-40L, and especially considering the 17-20 mm extreme corners on the17-40L (where I always seem to have something in the frame <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />). Just that on Canon the TS-E 17 beats it again, IMO anyway, and it has auto aperture <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.Quote:I need it because I find the zooms too big and heavy. I tried a 16-35 for a while and the results are quite nice, but I am not prepared to carry all that stuff around all the time. Maybe a 24-70, but that is for a different purpose. I think I will end up with a Nikkor 20 or the Zeiss, unless someone has very good things to say about the Sigma.I am also going to look into the Voigtlander 20, but I am not prepared to go the adaptor route to get a Zuiko.
In that case, by all means, do look into the Voigtländer 20, it is a better lens than the Nikon 20, I hear from my friends who use Nikon. Same with the Canon 20, though - they are both old (school) designs.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....