Jump to content

Which "Super-Wide" Lens for an a7R ?


Recommended Posts

Background: Photography is a hobby, not my profession. But, I still want to do as well as I can. To that end, I'm a perpetual student/question-asker (and a lover of technology:-)

 

I presently shoot raw mode using:
a7R
Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm F4 ZA OSS (SEL2470Z)
Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS (SEL70200G)

 

and already plan to buy:

Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS

 

My post-processing is presently done in Lightroom 5 and Photoshop Elements 13 on  my calibrated-display Mac.

 

Now I also want to buy a rectilinear "super" wide angle lens for my a7R. My list of candidate full-frame lenses includes…
Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS (SEL1635Z)
Voigtländer 15 mm Super Wide Heliar, version III
Samyang 14mm f/2.8

 

Question (1): Should other candidate lenses be added to my list?

Question (2): How do my candidate lenses compare? (A rather open ended question :-)

 

Thanks in advance for your thoughts and comments.

 

Marty

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in a similar position, (non-pro etc). 

 

I went with the 16-35 for landscape & building, and I think it is a good choice if:

  • If you would like a zoom with 24mm being a sweet spot. (The 16mm end of the range is still very good, the 35mm not quite so good).
  • You would like optical stabilisation and reasonably good auto-focus.
  • You don't mind the size/weight.

I have to admit I'm still on the look out for a small, wide prime lens in the 15-21mm range. I have a day bag with my A7S and a couple of primes, the 16-35 is more of a trip lens for me.

 

The Voigtländer seems like a good choice (I don't need a wide aperture for wide angles), the Samyang I haven't seen but is quite big. I'm holding on to see if Zeiss do any more Batis lenses at that end.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't mind correcting for its strong&complex distortion (LR lens profile here) I can vouch for the cheap 14mm Samyang/Rokinon/Bower. It's the sharpest lens I own and will likely out-resolve all the others. It is rectilinear and smaller than the specs suggest - only the front element part is large.

The tiny Voigtlander also gets good reviews if you want something more compact and don't mind using an adaptor, having f4.5 max, and going on a hunt to find filters that will fit it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Steve C,

 

The Zeiss is made to measure so to speak but do you need the zoon and size? C/V 15mm is a great and tiny lens. Have you also considered an SLR lens like a Konica 15mm AR lens or equivalent from Zeiss Nikon Olympus etc?

 

The Konica 15mm AR that I found on line are fisheye lenses. I'm more interested in a rectilinear lens (don't like the fisheye look :-)

 

Thanks,

 

Marty

Link to post
Share on other sites

LeButler,

 

If you don't mind correcting for its strong&complex distortion (LR lens profile here) I can vouch for the cheap 14mm Samyang/Rokinon/Bower. It's the sharpest lens I own and will likely out-resolve all the others. It is rectilinear and smaller than the specs suggest - only the front element part is large.

The tiny Voigtlander also gets good reviews if you want something more compact and don't mind using an adaptor, having f4.5 max, and going on a hunt to find filters that will fit it.

 

Thanks for the link to the LR profile !

 

Glad you mentioned filters. I'm going to raise that issue shortly.

 

Best,

 

Marty

Link to post
Share on other sites

iiiNelson,

 

Rokinon 14/2.8 (or 14/T3.1 Cine.) They're the same lens and both cover FF. The Cine version has a clickless aperture if you're into that sort of thing. I personally am not... At all.

 

Now you got me wondering about click versus clickless :-)

 

Thanks ?  :-)

 

Marty

Link to post
Share on other sites

About filters for the lenses I mentioned at the start of the thread (and about filters for super-wides in general)…

 

I think that I'll want to be able to use stacked filters, up to 2 from amongst

  • circular polarizer: (to reduce reflections from surfaces)
  • neutral density filter to enable long-exposure shots
  • gradient filter (hard or soft edge?) to reduce sky brightness

Perhaps CPL + ND for streams in woods…

Perhaps CPL + (hard or soft?) gradient ND for scenes that include sky…

 

I'm leaning towards these possibilities…

 

Fotodiox WonderPana and WonderPana FreeArc



http://wonderpana.com

 

Lee Filters

http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera
http://www.leefilters.com/index.php/camera/system-sw150

 

Samyang SFH-14 (not yet available in US ?)


http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-sfh-14-filter-holder.html
http://www.samyang-lens.co.uk/samyang-cokin-filters.html

 

As always, comments and suggestions are most welcome.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Marty

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget the Voigtlander 15mm f/4.5. The first version (Leica screw mount), which I have, is absolutely tiny and weighs very little, it's easy to focus and the performance is outstanding. The third version, which has just been released, is larger but from what I've read it has been optimised to prevent corner issues and is available in the native Sony E mount. If, as some have claimed, it is better than the first version then I think it's set to be a best seller. There are lots of reviews out there with results on the A7R.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I have the Voigtländer 15mm III. You might check that thread: http://www.sonyalphaforum.com/topic/509-voigtlander-super-wide-heliar-15mm-f45-iii/

I dismissed other options due to the following points that are important for me, at least:

* Compared to the older ones versions the new one wouldn't give you purplish edges (that also could be removed by a program called corner fix)

* As it's so small and light weight, it fits nicely into any photo bag. The other options are so much more bulky

* It's pretty much distortion less (lines will be lines ... )

* Like the Color Rendering

* On APS-C it provides a useful 24mm FF equivalent focal length.

* It also has a 58mm filter thread available (the Rokinon 14 for example has a bulky lens front) ... useful for grey filters for long exposure shots,

* On the downside: Slow (but you shoot landscapes at F8 anyway),  It shows vignetting, but that could be corrected in post in Lightroom. Manual Lens only (& no EXIF transmission). No removable lens hood.

As for alternatives (as 15mm maybe is often too wide): Voigtländer 20mm F3.5 for Nikon (with aperture ring) and a Nikon-NEX adapter.

When you want to check out my comparison of the 15mm and 20mm, here's a blog post I wrote: http://www.mopswerk.de/voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-test/

Disclaimer: I am a Voigtländer fanboy .... so please be advised to debias my comments :D  ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I recently got an A7II and am getting promising preliminary results with the Voigtländer 15, original version in LTM mount (using two adapters, Leitz LTM to M, and Voigtlander M to NEX).

 

There is definite falloff and color shift in the corners, but I'm going to try the Lens Correction app and post-processing. Otherwise, the results are very sharp and the colors in other than the corners are nicely saturated.

Link to post
Share on other sites

About filters for the lenses I mentioned at the start of

the thread (and about filters for super-wides in general)…

 

I think that I'll want to be able to use stacked filters,

up to 2 ........

Not sooper ultrawide but, even by 21st century norms,

an "extra wide":

 

I'm extremely pleased with an old Nikon 20:4 adapted

to an A7M2. Even in the EVF the difference between

this eyeball and all my other wacko wides just screams ...

 

It's verrrry snappy, very low distortion, very compact

and easy to tote along, and it has a 52mm front thread

with no recess between filter and front element. If you

wanna stack filters, you use a 52-72 or 52-77 step up

ring [depending on your filter's mount ring thickness].

 

This is an AI [pre-AI-S] lens of absurd built quality, a

tactile treat to operate, and as mentioned above, it's

a real high quality imager. It's "new" enough to feature

excellent multicoating ["Nikon Integrated Coating"] and

it is not easily provoked, reflections-wise.

 

----------------------------------------------

 

 

If mine were the last one on earth I could get $10K for

it. Fortunately for you, mine is NOT the last one :-)

And pre-AF lense go cheeeap, even classic Nikkors.

 

I feel confident that if you get you one, and even if it

still leaves you GASsing for something more modern

and or more extreme, that you will have no intentions

of parting with this gem, even if you someday bag your

personal "holy grail". REALLY !

 

 

`

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody has mentioned the Minolta 20/2.8.

It's a relatively cheap great performer.

Had one years ago. So, IIRC [iF!] it is

really great, unless you can't stand the

"moustache" effect. Again, thaz IIRC !

 

`

Link to post
Share on other sites

About the filter thing. Something important

to understand and keep in mind is the actual

location of the optical center of a complex

lens, especially the retrofocus types which

are the best choice for dense pixel sensors,

but can be problematic, filter-wise.

 

A tiny lens has two filter-use advantages:

 

The obvious one is that it's easy to deploy

a significant step-up ring yet still wind up

at only 67, 72, or 77mm. 82 and 95 are the

next steps beyond 77mm and it's best not to

go that far.

 

The less obvious reason is similar, but not

as plainly obvious as the first:

 

A tiny lens is not just small in diameter

but has a physically SHORTER construction.

 

Almost all extra wide and ultra wide lenses

are located, physically in space, somewhere

well beyond their own optical center. Easy

example would be 14mm retrofocus. The optical

center is, by definition, only 14mm forward

of the photo sites on the sensor/filter pack.

Consider that this puts the optical center

INSIDE the camera, BEHIND the lens mount !

 

It is from that point, the optical center,

that the sensor gets a focused image of the

subject scene. OK, an arcane fact ? Just a

big "so what ?" Here's "what", filter-wise:

 

Filter-wise, we all know that the further you

distance your filter ahead of your lens,

then the larger the filters hafta be. But the

distance in question is not measured from the

filter thread ring on the front of the barrel

of the complex lens. It is measured from the

real optical center, located [for 14mm - 20mm

lenses] approximately right at the lens mount

itself, often completely behind all of the

physical construction of the lens.

 

OK, so if you followed the previous paragraph,

it's clear that a shorter physical construction,

the shorter barrel of the tiny lens, will put

your filter threads further back toward the

optical center of the lens. Optical center is

the point-in-space FROM which the wide angle of

view is projected out to the subject scene. Put

your filter closer to that point, and they

"look bigger" to the sensor [for any given size

of filter], and that is, acoarst, the goal here.

 

So, your sensor wants a retrofocus construction

but your filter situation wants a tiny lens.

Welcome to the No-Free-Lunch zone :-/

 

Fin ! "Roll Credits !" :-)

 

`

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I am a new member making the switch from Nikon to the A7R M2.  My go to ultra wide has been the Nikon 14-24mm 2.8.  After doing a good bit of research I am leaning toward the Sony 10-18mm f4.  I know it wasn't designed with full frame cameras in mind but many people report it does very well on a full frame camera between 12-16mm.  This is a nice range for an ultra wide and the price is attractive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the Lee 100mm and SW 150 filter system although they are the older versions.  I use and like the 100mm system and never use the SW150 which I find too bulky for field work.  I carry a mix of standard ND filters and graduated (hard & soft).  I carry a case on a belt and am able to quickly mount a graduated ND filter quite quickly.  I always leave the adaptor ring on my lens. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

I have the Heliar 15mm III and am astounded by its performance - way less distortion than recorded for both the Distagon 15mm and the Rokinon. The big draw-back for me is the non-removable hood, but I've spoken to an engineer friend who has offered to help me remove it, allowing me to use a filter holder on it. I'm not too worried by flare, as in my experience it handles flare remarkably well. Its on the to-do list for tomorrow, so if you're interested I can report on the feasibility - here's a link to someone else who has done it. http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1088351/0#10371819 - one of the examples looks very rough, but the other was obviously done with a great deal of care.

 

Regards, John

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...