Full Frame UWA choices

[artington]

Go for the Minolta 17-35/3.5 G if you can find one. Fantastic lens with great Minolta colours. Not quite as good as CZ at extremities but half the price. I never liked the 17-35/2.8-4D. But it is fair value at current prices.

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/Minolta-AF- ... ens26.html

[Birma]

Thanks for the recommendations Mark x2

[classiccameras]

Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

[artington]

Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

These things are always subjective to a degree but my unequivocal opinion is as I stated. The G is a much better lens IMO although I imagine the D is good enough for small prints.

[Birma]

Artington, there are a couple of interesting user reviews on the KM 17-35 F/2.8 D lens in SLRgear.

These things are always subjective to a degree but my unequivocal opinion is as I stated. The G is a much better lens IMO although I imagine the D is good enough for small prints.

I will certainly keep my eye out for one Artington. With these special second-hand lenses you seem to be able to buy and sell on with out losing much so they are good to try.

[Bruce Oudekerk]

If you really want to go rectangular WIDE, try the all manual Samyang 14mm. Its very inexpensive, yet quite sharp with little CA and quite good flair control for such a lens. The geometric 'mustache' distortion is very complex but the cheap plug-in or standalone, PTLens, controls it very acceptably...to the point that I can perceive no distortion. Of course in many images this type of distortion is irrelevant but when it is, its easily correctable. I haven't found an acceptably accurate ACR lens profile for this lens yet. The only strange value-minus feature is that the distance scale is often off. It can be easily readjusted apparently but I compensate.

Given huge DOF, the real issue with any 14mm on FF isn't getting objects in focus, it controlling what is OUT of focus.

Bruce

[Bruce Oudekerk]

Ouch !
Somehow I missed multiple posts recommending this lens. Just consider my post reinforcement:)

Bruce

[classiccameras]

Kurt Munger's review of the Minolta 17-35 F/3.5 G lens is quite surprising.

As said, these reviews can be subjective and in some instances a poor copy or good copy may have been the test lens.
I think Kurt ends up by saying the difference between the D and G lens is marginal rather than dramatic.

A lot depends on which format you are using the lens, on FF the D lens is just a 'good' performer, but on an APS-C camera due to the crop factor, a better optical performance is achieved. The same criterior applies to the G lens.
Physically the G lens IMO is far more appealing and less bulky with a sensible front element/hood size than the D lens.
Kurt told me in a PM, if you need your lens to start at 17-mm wide then the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 is the best option and he even preferred that to the 16-80!

[bfitzgerald]

Reviews are subjective and subject to testing/copy variation. There have been a few reviews that suggest the G lens isn't as good as the D one, but I would tread with caution esp with Kurt's reviews.

I've never used the G lens so cannot comment, though I find the Tamron 17-35mm (same design as the KM version) to be quite a good lens for the price
No doubt the Zeiss 16-35mm is the top performer, but it's fairly hefty price wise.

Sigma do a 12-24mm FF Lens and it seems to be popular enough and a not that scary price either, it's not that fast but then does speed matter here?
DK might have a better idea of what lenses to go for

[peterottaway]

I picked up the KM versions of the 17-35 and the 28-75 when one of the local retailers basically had a fire sale when KM announced that they had sold to Sony. I also picked up the CZ 16-35 some 3-4 years ago for about 75% of what they sell for now. The CZ is of course a better performer but you pay a lot for that bit extra.

The 17-35 is a more comfortable lens to carry which is always a plus when you are on foot. And if you accept the limitations of all zooms that they are no great shakes at both ends of their range, it is a decent performer when stopped down for landscape use. It doesn't have that CZ look and bight and doesn't do so well close to wide open but even here I find it a competent performer.

Depending on your requirements and your PP software you may need to put that bit extra into getting that something special out of what is a lower contrast lens.

[classiccameras]

Yes, Kurt does admit that he possibly had a good copy of the 17-35 D lens. As you know, its made by Tamron for KM so I suspect there won't be a huge diffence in performance between the 2 badges.

[Birma]

Thanks for all of the further thoughts on UWAs. I have picked up a previously enjoyed Sigma 12-24 mk1 ( ) but still waiting for the opportunity to put it through its paces after being side tracked by the new 70-400 at the other extreme.