Originally posted by Sandy Hancock Really? It has provided me with some of my favourite images.
Show 1:1 crops, please. The DA 21 has a nice rendering, I like it too. I wrote this above.
But in the aspect of sharpness it's average and the distortion is quite strong for a prime.
---------- Post added 07-19-20 at 07:44 AM ----------
Originally posted by dms Retrofocus design leads to easier handling of even illumination and can be acceptably high in resolution. And how does one get a wide angle on a dslr with the large distance to the film/sensor otherwise?
Sure, you are right. As I wrote, this optical constructions evolved a lot in the last 15-20 years.
I had so many of them ...
Quote: [...] one of the lenses used was Pentax Super Takumar pre SMC 28mm f/3.5.
This Takumar is one of few recommendable old wide angle primes.
On the other side 28 mm isn't really wide angle at APS-C sensors and it's fully manually (metering, MF).
Originally posted by Cerebum I do agree on going for the modern lens if he can afford it but that’s the thing. Vintage lenses are sometimes all you can afford. As for quality, I have both won and scored well in competitions using vintage glass and these are professionally analysed and projected onto a huge screen and nobody prints that big! Good modern lenses kick ass but they also cost A LOT more money, something I don’t have.
There are some modern and very good wide angle lenses for reasonable money, it's not worth to hang around with most of the old glass (Laowa, Samyang, Irix e.g.)
In practice one of the best lenses will be the DA 12-24/4. Some CAs, but good correctable. Nice rendering, good contrast, good sharpness. The DA 16-45/4 is okay too, but most older samples are decentered because ot the poor mechanics. if one get a cheap one which works, okay. The DA* 16-50/2.8 will be replaced by a better construction in the future by good reason. Poor borders and SDM trouble ... it's not worth the star. Sealing is overrated.
And now everyone hits me!