Legacy superwides: 20/21mm

[nomad]

Owning most of the beautiful Contax C/Y lenses, I could never really decide to spend the massive $$$$ for the 21mm Distagon. I might have gone for it if it wasn't so heavy and bulky too and it seems it's distortion is even more than the 18mm. I think nobody denies that it took the crown in 21mm in it's time, and most others in that range didn't even get near. Nevertheless, there are a few other mothers with beautiful daughters.

 

So, what about alternatives in vintage glass?

 

Recently, I tested two other famed ones side-by-side on my Sony A7R, the Minolta MC W. Rokkor 21mm f2.8 and the tiny Olympus Zuiko 21mm f3.5 (the later multicoated version). They can both be bought for a fraction of the C/Y Distagon.

 

Both are floating element designs, the Rokkor is focusing down to 25cm and the Olympus to 20cm, and both have a front thread that doesn't rotate. My Rokkor is in good, used condition and the Zuiko is a limited edition version and like new, a true collector's item.

 

Observations: stopped down the Rokkor has the lead in corner sharpness, both are sharp from the start in the center. Remember, this is pixel peeping on A7R FF with 36 mpx, you may have difficulties to see a difference anything less. Distortion is complex mustache for both, but a bit less with the Zuiko. CA is visible in the corners on both, but manageable. WO, the Rokkor has more vignetting, at f8 both are excellent. The colors are warmer with the Rokkor.

 

Conclusion: You can't go wrong with these, they are head-to-head, choosing one is more about personal preferences. I like the colors of the Rokkor better, but it's heavier, built like a tank. The Zuiko ist tiny for it's performance.

 

I checked a Rolleinar 21mm too. While many Rollei lenses were built by Zeiss and just had a different coating, Zeiss never gave their 21mm design away. The 21mm Rollei is identical (apart from the mount) to the Mamiya Sekor, so let's see:

Not too bad either, but a bit weaker than the Olympus 21mm f3.5 in most categories: A tad softer in the corners, more vignetting, a bit more distortion and a tiny bit less wide. 

Worst point though: T stop seems to be much weaker (or they are lying about f-stop): wide open @3.5 the Olympus is a full stop faster than the Rollei/Mamiya at f4!

 

So, if you are looking for a cheaper, much smaller and lighter vintage alternative to the Zeiss Contax Distagon in 21mm, the Olympus is it! It's only fault is the red ring that can show up on rare occasions with heavy backlight. Check this site: http://www.stefanrohloff.de/20_olyspecial.php?en=1

 

The Zeiss (Jena) 20mm Flektogon is another interesting alternative, but I didn’t test it here – sample variation of these lenses from former East Germany is massive and a test of a single one wouldn’t give you really useful info.

[Steve C]

Interesting post,the Zuiko does sound like a winner. I would have been interested to read your tests on the Hexanon 20 and 21 mm versions.

[Vivek]

Rolleinar 21/4 works well for me.

 

Untitled by Vivek Iyer, on Flickr

A7r, Rolleinar 21/4

[Cheatah]

Don't worry, the C/Y Distagon 2.8/21mm is the best WA lens money can buy! No wonder, that the price level for used lens is quiet high!

[Golem]

Put the 20:4.0 IC AI Nikkor on your adapter

and the EVF image alone will blow you away.

It's THAT obvious !

 

Then go make some pix. Beats me whether

this eyeball is a pixel peeper's delight or test

target champ, but when you need impressive,

subjectively-judged REAL pix, it delivers like

no other extra-wide I've ever had, and I'm a

freakster about uuuuultra wiiiide stuff, so I've

been around the block and back, backwards

[as in "all around the world"].

 

Wide-wise this is not ULTRA-wide, but on its

own turf [18-21] it's a real alpha dog: Minimal

distortion and vignetting, snappy renderings,

great resistance to ghosting, hazing, etc.

 

`