11-30-2011, 08:06 AM
[quote name='Frank' timestamp='1322628448' post='13369']
The Zeiss 21mm is not light also (600g vs 16-35's 680g) so I bet you will finally take the Nikon AF-D 20mm f2.8.
[/quote]
Funny, yes. The Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX is lighter and smaller than the Zeiss. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
The only two light options are the Nikon 20mm f2.8 and the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II. I'd go for the Voigtlander.
The Zeiss 21mm is not light also (600g vs 16-35's 680g) so I bet you will finally take the Nikon AF-D 20mm f2.8.
[/quote]
Funny, yes. The Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX is lighter and smaller than the Zeiss. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
The only two light options are the Nikon 20mm f2.8 and the Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II. I'd go for the Voigtlander.