Looking for an wideangle lens about 20mm

[Hjalmarg1]

Ok, I found one dealer, who sells the Voigtländer 20mm.
What would you do to shoot landscaper?

Canon 24mm 2.8 IS and Voigtlander 20mm 3.5
or wait for the new Canon 16-35 4.0 ?

Simply wait for your new 16-35mm f4L IS

 

[eml58]

If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.

I initially purchased the 17TSE, after a month I thought I'de get the 24TSE as the 17 felt too wide, plus at the time my Lee Filter system could only be used on the 24TSE & not the 17 TSE.

I now find I use the 24 very little, and I've solved the Filter System for the 17 via the Wonderpana system.

 

[Random Orbits]

If you have the 17mm TS-E where do you use the 24mm? Is it when you need the added sharpness (vs 1.4x) or added depth of field (f/3.5 vs f/5.6) or use of filters. Can you post some illustrations?
I have purchased both the TS-Es recently, and I know the 17mm will definitely find ample use in architectural photography, which I like doing a lot. It had been a dream lens for me. But I purchased the 24mm mostly to compare, and I was wondering if there is any justification in keeping it.

Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision. If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination. The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17. The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17. I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor. I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.

I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much. Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).

 

[NancyP]

I am in love with the Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE. Sharpness, color, microcontrast, even out to the edges.

I found a clean used copy of Zeiss 21 mm f/2.8 ZE at my local dealer for $1,200.00 . No lens hood, but I don't care about using aftermarket hoods and caps - in fact the OEM cap is not that great, I put a beefy Tamron 82mm pinch cap on it instead, and keep the dainty OEM cap for spare. The one bad thing about the lens is weight. My wide prime landscape lens kit weighs 3 kg (Samyang 14, Zeiss 21, Sigma 35 Art, AIS Nikkor 50 f/1.2 plus its adapter). Fine for hikes in the Ozarks, my home territory (well, St. Louis), with repetitive elevation changes of 100 to 300 feet, but if I ever got in shape for serious peak hiking in CO, I'd probably swap out the 14, 35, and 50 for a 40 f/2.8 STM and the Zeiss (or Scopar 20 f/3.5? I haven't seen this lens) and a pano kit for wide angle.

 

[noisejammer]

OP - I have a Zeiss 21/2.8 - it's a fine lens but I strongly recommend you read this article before purchasing one. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/how-to-use-ultra-wide-lenses.htm . People can say what they like about KR - in this case he nailed it.

If you're planning to use the lens for landscapes rather than enhanced perspective, I'd recommend a really good 35-80 mm + stitching rather than a wide lens. I've tried this with a variety of lenses and the Zeiss 50/2 seems to offer a good compromise of image detail, file size and usability. On this topic - If you go to a longer lens, don't loose sight of the problem that atmospheric haze can create with image resolution.

Keeping the TS-E 24 while having the TS-E 17 is mostly an economic decision. If you can afford keeping both, it's a great combination. The TS-E 24 can also tilt more than the 17. The TS-E 24 has better resolution than the 17 and the difference is even greater with a TC attached to the 17. I tend to use the 17 more indoor or for buildings and the 24 more outdoor. I also use the 24 more for stitching, just because the UWA shots tend to be more interesting with a stronger foreground element and I have more difficulty keeping the element strong with a 17 without distorting it too much when stitching.

I've mounted a 1.4x to the 17 just to see that it works, but I didn't like it all that much. Mostly because it interferes/or comes close to interfering when the rear element (near MFD, if I remember correctly).

I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.

There is a difference however - I found that field curvature plays a significant role in determining which appears to be sharper. To get around this, I focused each lens in the region I was examining.

I didn't try to compare the images with the lenses tilted or shifted. Maybe I'll try this experiment sometime.

 

[mackguyver]

I did a direct comparison of the TS-E 17 + 1.4x against the TS-E 24. I set both up at f/8 and focused using a live view and a loupe. My images demonstrated conclusively that the my 17+1.4x combination was equally sharp on axis and at least twice as good in the corners.

I haven't had my TS-E 17 & 24II long, but if you're talking about the original 24, that sounds right. From what I can tell of my copies, the 17 & 24II are equally as sharp, but the 24II takes the 1.4IIIx much better, and the 17+1.4xIII isn't as sharp as the 24II.

 

[DRR]

I've been looking at picking up a used copy of the Tokina 17mm f/2.5 PRO. Seems to be a good buy at this FL ($200-300)

I have not been able to test one but at that price I'd be pretty comfortable buying to try.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=233

 

[sdsr]

As far as ultra wide angle lenses go there are only a hand full from any manufacturer that aren't terrible.

You think the EF-S 10-22 is terrible? Not that the OP is looking for EF-S lenses, but I asked since you include them in your list.
I think it is actually pretty good, and I have used it for more than 2 years.

And the new EFS 10-18 should surely be on the list - reviews say it's better than the 10-22 and it's half the price (I'm happy with mine, anyway, for all that I prefer FF).