Let's discuss MANUAL-FOCUS ONLY, THIRD PARTY ONLY, Super-Wide-Angle Lenses

ic-racer · Oct 17, 2022

In its day this was Super WIde for SLRs being wider than the Angenieux and Enna 28mm lense. It was one of the first 24mm Retrofocus lenses made. It is an Enna Lithagon 24mm f4 (M42) attached to a restored Edixa. Both the camera and lens are West German origin.

It is not as wide as the well-known East German 20mm Flectagon, but when this Enna Lithagon 24mm came out the Flectagon 20mm did not exist!

Moose22 · Oct 26, 2022

Well, this thread did it to me.

I went with the screw mount 15mm super wide heliar. I can already see that the finder with the framelines will be needed, though I still haven't killed a roll yet to see results.

GRHazelton · Oct 26, 2022

ozphoto said:
I had a Tokina 17mm (FD) that was an absolute joy to use. When I switched to the EOS system, I grabbed the EF version, which IMHO, is not as good. I offloaded it when I purchased a 17mm TSE, but always wanted a 17mm Tamron.

I found myself missing the smaller lightweight version (the TSE is far too bulky to carry around when shooting landscapes and late last year, I landed my "dream" non-OEM ultra-wide, the Tamron 17mm SP. This is the early version (1979 build), with in-built filters, no plastic covering on the f-stops and the rubber grip matches the early 28mm I also own.

This 17mm is outstanding and I highly recommend it to anyone who is after a cheaper alternative to OEM wides. When first released, it was more expensive than the Tokina and Vivitar, and after using both the Tokina and Tamron, I can definitely see why. The specs for this amazing lens are here:

Tamron 17mm SP Adaptall Lens

I've been a fan of the Tamron Adaptall lens system since I purchased their outstanding 180mm f2.5 Anniversary Edition lens, when it was first released in 1988. The hardest part of leaving the FD world for EOS, was offloading my Tamrons: 300mm f2.8, 90mm f2.5, 180mm f2.5 and the 28mm f2.5. In fact, I missed them so much, I ended up buying a 28mm only a few years after selling mine.

I now run both with original OEM Tamron EF mounts - they actually cost me more than the lenses they're mounted on . . .

I can feel your pain about giving up your Tamron 300mm f2.8. I have that lens with mounts for both Pentax (my major system) and for Nikon, which is becoming a secondary system. The Tammy is fabulous! Talking with some fellow shooters at a bird preserve in South Carolina I mentioned the Tammy and one asked if I wanted to sell it. I replied with a small smile, "No."

Moose22 · Oct 27, 2022

@Huss Does the metal Voigtlander finder clear the speed knob on your III ?

Took this rig out to give it a try and the plastic finder has to be removed to change the speeds. Quite annoying.

I can definitely see where the framelines would make a difference, too.

Roseha · Nov 1, 2022

Does anyone know if the lens hood for the older 17mm f3.5 Tamron will fit the newer version?

xkaes · Nov 1, 2022

You need to be more specific because Tamron made 17mm lenses with two differnt front diameters -- 67mm & 82mm -- some with filters built-in, some not. And what do you mean by "older"?

Roseha · Nov 4, 2022

I meant the Tamron 51B and the 151B, the 2 versions of the 17mm with 82mm filter size.

I was just wondering because there appear to be two versions of the lens hood but I think both are marked for 82mm.

Thanks

Huss · Nov 4, 2022

Huss said:
My two 15mm lenses. Replaced that crappy finder with Voigtlander’s much better metal version which has frame lines.

@Moose22 you can see my 1F has no issues w the shutter speed dial. And that is with the miserable bloaty plastic finder. The much nicer metal finder is smaller.

Moose22 · Nov 4, 2022

I didn't realize the If was different... but yeah. The IIIf is blocked by the fat finder. And it's a PITA.

Still haven't gotten one, but I'll trade it out for a metal one. I went out and burned a roll this week and 15mm is enough more than my 18 and 20 Nikons to be a keeper.

ozphoto · Nov 5, 2022

GRHazelton said:
I can feel your pain about giving up your Tamron 300mm f2.8. I have that lens with mounts for both Pentax (my major system) and for Nikon, which is becoming a secondary system. The Tammy is fabulous! Talking with some fellow shooters at a bird preserve in South Carolina I mentioned the Tammy and one asked if I wanted to sell it. I replied with a small smile, "No."

I agree - if I had to do it all over again, it would still be mine.

Moose22 · Nov 7, 2022

So, should I just go ahead and admit here that this isn't the only shot I ruined by getting my fingers in the way?

In my defense, it's 1/15th and it was very dark, I was trying to stabilize against the wall, and... well, I don't have any excuses for the others where I did it.

The 15m Heliar is a pretty nice lens for the buck, though! I'm definitely going to get a metal finder for it and use it more.

halfaman · Nov 7, 2022

It is curious that nobody has mentioned Samyang, in particular 14mm f/2.8 ED AS IF UMS (latest model). Manual focus and aperture selection, good building quality, neither big nor heavy (550 gr or 1.2 lb), really nice image quality, affordable on second-hand market (mine for 200€), and available for Nikon F, Canon EOS, Pentax K and Minolta/Sony A mounts. It accepts no filters but there are some third-party solutions if you really need it (but cost almost the same as the lens ).

Below an example with a Nikon FM2n and Lomochrome Metropolis film.

Sirius Glass · Nov 7, 2022

Moose22 said:
So, should I just go ahead and admit here that this isn't the only shot I ruined by getting my fingers in the way?

In my defense, it's 1/15th and it was very dark, I was trying to stabilize against the wall, and... well, I don't have any excuses for the others where I did it.

The 15m Heliar is a pretty nice lens for the buck, though! I'm definitely going to get a metal finder for it and use it more.

I use a post handle screwed into the tripod mount to keep my hands and fingers out of my WideLux F7 photographs.

Moose22 · Nov 7, 2022

Sounds like a good way to keep an extra grip. I should cut a stick of the end of a boom and screw the camera to that. Like Chuck Yeager when he couldn't close the door to the X-1.

I kid about this, but I've only used ultrawides through an SLR to date. And this Leica is new to me, so I'm still a little ham-fisted in using it. With the diminutive size of the lens it it just a tiny little baby camera and I simply need to hold it "properly". I shot two rolls of that catlabs stuff and have a few fingers in there on each roll.

I have a roll of HP5 in the camera now, and it still wears the 15mm, so I'll pay better attention as I finish off the roll. The results themselves are sharp enough and surprisingly low distortion.

Moose22 · Nov 9, 2022

Just to follow up, in case anyone tries this lens on a IIIf, the metal Voigtlander 15mm viewfinder doesn't obscure the speed knob on a IIIf at all. I just got one and tried it out.

The plastic one is squat and wide, and you have to remove it to change speed on that camera. The framelines are nice on the metal one, but the problem of blocking the speed setting alone is enough reason not to use the plastic finder.

ph · Nov 11, 2022

I presume the Zeiss 18/3,5 qualifies. Reasonably sharp & contrasty-

p.

ts1000 · Dec 8, 2022

Well, there is another thread going on -- about the worst lens you tried.
It happened that the widest angle and worst -- was the same lens for me.

21mm Soligor 3.8 72mm filter
looks like this

Soligor 21mm

I came across a Soligor 21mm f3.8 FD mount lens and had to try it out. With an optical FD to EOS adapter the colors are typically washed out but you get infinity focus. With a no-glass FD to EOS adapter infinity focus is about a quarter of an inch from the front of the lens but you get some...

www.flickr.com

I have to say, that I look at every lens as a 'brush for painting'. It is really up to me, how to use that brush -- do I want 'detailed' mechanical-pencil-like image details, or do I want a wide grainy brush.

So I do not want to 'criticize' any lens ... but I would like bit more sharpness, flare control and a bit less distortion.

Henning Serger · Dec 12, 2022

xkaes said:
There are a lot of them, but....

First, this means manual-focusing ONLY lenses. I know that auto-focusing lenses can be used in manual-focus mode, but that's not the point of this discussion. If you want to discuss them -- start your own thread.

This also means let's NOT talk about EOM super-wide-angle lenses. Sure, Minolta, Pentax, Canon, Yashica, Contax, Nikon, Olympus and other camera manufacturers made super-wide-angle lenses, but if you want to discuss them -- start your own thread. Camera manufacturers' lenses are made to fit on their cameras, while 3rd party lenses are made to fit on multiple cameras.

This thread is about independent lens manufacturers' manual-focusing, super-wide-angle lenses. By "Super-Wide-Angle", I mean anything wider than 24mm -- and NON-FISHEYE lenses. If you want to discuss them -- start your own thread. I also don't mean wide-angle adapters. If you want to discuss them -- start your own thread.

I had the opportunity to examine five 3rd-Party, super-wide-angle lenses, but this is not meant to cover the entire range available. There are other 3rd-Party companies that made super-wide-angle lenses, and there are other super-wide-angle lenses in other focal lengths than the five I had access to.

Well, some further options for super-wide angle lenses really worth to be mentioned here are the current Zeiss Milvus lenses for Nikon F and Canon EF mount:
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/15
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/18
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/21
- Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25

ZEISS Milvus Lenses

Full Frame | Manual Focus | For Canon EF-Mount | For Nikon F-Mount

www.zeiss.com

There you also found extremely detailed data sheets with real MTF data measured in real lens tests (not like other lens manufacturers who publish theoretical MTF data).

All of them are offering outstanding optical and mechanical performance. The Nikon F mount version has also a CPU included up to Nikon standards.

Best regards,
Henning

xkaes · Dec 13, 2022

ts1000 said:
Well, there is another thread going on -- about the worst lens you tried.
It happened that the widest angle and worst -- was the same lens for me.

21mm Soligor 3.8 72mm filter
looks like this

Soligor 21mm

I came across a Soligor 21mm f3.8 FD mount lens and had to try it out. With an optical FD to EOS adapter the colors are typically washed out but you get infinity focus. With a no-glass FD to EOS adapter infinity focus is about a quarter of an inch from the front of the lens but you get some...

www.flickr.com

I have to say, that I look at every lens as a 'brush for painting'. It is really up to me, how to use that brush -- do I want 'detailed' mechanical-pencil-like image details, or do I want a wide grainy brush.

So I do not want to 'criticize' any lens ... but I would like bit more sharpness, flare control and a bit less distortion.

I can't claim it's the same lens, but it might be. I have a Vivitar 21mm f3.8 (72mm thread) -- made by Tokina. From the Soligor serial # in the photo, that one was made by Tokina as well. Maybe you got a bad one -- or maybe we have different standards. Mine has a removable Vivitar mount (T4?) and works great. Really focuses close -- one foot -- and has a long 270 degree focusing throw.

xkaes · Dec 13, 2022

Henning Serger said:
Well, some further options for super-wide angle lenses really worth to be mentioned here are the current Zeiss Milvus lenses for Nikon F and Canon EF mount:
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/15
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/18
- Zeiss Milvus 2.8/21
- Zeiss Milvus 1.4/25

Best regards,
Henning

It's unfortunate that they limited their camera mounts.

Henning Serger · Dec 13, 2022

xkaes said:
It's unfortunate that they limited their camera mounts.

Well, when Zeiss started their new lens line for (D)SLRs in 2006, they also offered Pentax K mount. So you could choose ZE (EF mount), ZF and later ZF.2 (with integrated CPU), and ZK Zeiss lenses.
That have been (at that time) the only really market relevant mounts of current (at that time) DSLR production (KonicaMinolta camera production was bought by Sony at that time and its future was uncertain; the A mount later has not been really supported by Sony, and four years later Sony introduced its new E mount for EVIL / DSLM cameras, and the A mount has been meanwhile discontinued).

In 2015 the new Zeiss Milvus line was introduced with completely new lenses, improved coatings and mechanics, and in some cases improved former ZE/ZF.2 lenses.

So from a market and demand perspective Zeiss did it right. Later they discontinued K mount because of too low demand.

And that now "only" EF and F mount Zeiss (D)SLR lenses are available is not really a problem:
If you are for example generally a Pentax, Minolta, Yashica, Leica, Olympus or Contax 35mm SLR user, but you are interested in these outstanding Zeiss lenses:
Just buy a Nikon or Canon camera body on the used market. With both brands you can get even some of their excellent (semi)professional models at real bargain prices, for almost next to nothing.
Because if you go for an outstanding +1,000 bucks lens, then paying another 50 or 100 bucks for an excellent used camera body is a no-brainer.

Best regards,
Henning

lxdude · Dec 13, 2022

Henning Serger said:
So from a market and demand perspective Zeiss did it right. Later they discontinued K mount because of too low demand.

Best regards,
Henning

That's because Pentax lenses are so very good.

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2022

lxdude said:
That's because Pentax lenses are so very good.

This, but unironically.

Reminder that during the financially-troubled years of Zeiss at the start of the 1970s, they had a business alliance with Pentax. Part of the collaboration was the K mount (designed by Zeiss), and the K-mount 28/2.0 ("Hollywood") and 15/3.5 lenses, designed by Zeiss.

The 15/3.5 was then redesigned by Pentax to dispense with the aspheric element, with no loss in performance

Pentax later designed the Pentax-M 28/2.0 lens, which was less than half the size and had the same resolution than the original 28/2.0.

Don't get me wrong, I love german-made zeiss lenses. however Pentax was an optical giant and could hold its own with any other company.

lxdude · Dec 22, 2022

flavio81 said:
This, but unironically.

Reminder that during the financially-troubled years of Zeiss at the start of the 1970s, they had a business alliance with Pentax. Part of the collaboration was the K mount (designed by Zeiss), and the K-mount 28/2.0 ("Hollywood") and 15/3.5 lenses, designed by Zeiss.

The 15/3.5 was then redesigned by Pentax to dispense with the aspheric element, with no loss in performance

Pentax later designed the Pentax-M 28/2.0 lens, which was less than half the size and had the same resolution than the original 28/2.0.

Don't get me wrong, I love german-made zeiss lenses. however Pentax was an optical giant and could hold its own with any other company.

Very highly respected. I've seen references to Pentax in publications from the 50s and 60s as "The Japanese Zeiss", and as the premier optical shop in Japan. Also remarks in American photo magazines in the early 70s that some pro photographers put up with the increasing obsolescence of the Spotmatic (stop-down metering, screw mount) just to use Takumar lenses, and that SMC extended that for a while.

flavio81 · Dec 22, 2022

lxdude said:
Very highly respected. I've seen references to Pentax in publications from the 50s and 60s as "The Japanese Zeiss", and as the premier optical shop in Japan. Also remarks in American photo magazines in the early 70s that some pro photographers put up with the increasing obsolescence of the Spotmatic (stop-down metering, screw mount) just to use Takumar lenses, and that SMC extended that for a while.

I'll add an interesting story...

Once i went to my local photo lab to pick my negatives.

Some rolls were shot with a Nikon F2, others with a Canon F-1, other with a Canon New F-1, and lastly one with a Spotmatic F.

The Nikon and Canon images were made using good Nikon and Canon lenses, respectively.

However the best image quality was from the Spotmatic negatives. Truly stunning. My Spotmatic kit at the time was 28/3.5 SMCT, 35/2.4 Carl Zeiss Jena, and 135/2.5 SMCT.

It was surprising that up to the elite of Nikon and Canon, the Pentax (and CZJ) lenses more than held their own, be it with the 28, the 35 Carl Zeiss, or the 135.

I think it was the combination of the microprism focusing screen, which is really great for nailing focus, and the excellent lenses. Indeed those three are some of the best 28, 35, and 135 lenses you can get at any price, any brand.

Sometimes I think of selling all my Canon and Nikon lenses and have all Takumars. Then I remember that some lenses don't exist in Takumar guise, like my 28/2.0, my shift lenses, my Canon Tilt-Shift, my FD 50/1.2, my FD 35/2.0 concave, and my FD 24/2.8.

Let's discuss MANUAL-FOCUS ONLY, THIRD PARTY ONLY, Super-Wide-Angle Lenses

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency