old lenses

[Kin Lau]

You're probably better off to get the EF-S 18-55/IS which gives you IS as well for an affordable wide.

There aren't many good wider than 20mm lens out there that are affordable. There are the Tokina and Tamron 17/3.5's, a a few 19/3.8 or similar models by Vivitar, Spiratone, and a few other off-brands.

Other than that, most of the rest like the Nikon, Zeiss and Leica fast wide primes are more expensive than a Sigma 20/1.8 .

[Michael Liebergot]

Yeah the EF-S 18-55 gives you IS, but it doesn't have constant aperture and isn't good in low light.

The Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 20mm 1.8 are good suggestions, as they will be great in low light, as woudl be the Canon EF 28mm 1.8.

But as pointed out the Zenitar-K 16mm f/2.8 might be a good option as well.

Personally speaking I'm leaning myself towards the Canon EF28mm or the 24mm 1.8 SIGMA EX DG, both are similar but of course the Sigma is a little cheaper in price.

None of these have IS, but really most of these wide angle primes don't need IS as they are fixed lenses and being wide angle don't show nearly as much vibration as zoomed lenses do. Hense the IS necessity on the ES-S 18-55 which is zoomable.

[Mark Von Lanken]

I don't own the Canon 28mm f/1.8, but my second shooter does. I shot with that lens Saturday night at the reception. In addition to the Zenitar 16mm, I have a Nikon 24mm f/2.8, but since I had his Canon 28mm f/1.8 I used it instead for a lot of the party dancing.

It's a good lens, but at $450 it should be. I realize $450 is not much compared to many lenses, but it is a lot compared to what I have paid for all of my vintage lenses.

Thanks again Chris for saving me a boatload of money and introducing me to some great vintage glass.

[Chris M. Watson]

Not a problem! You've helped me out over the years so I'm glad to give back. Can't wait to see your SDE shot with the Zenitar 16mm 2.8. I wish I had more time to play with it in Tulsa but from the little I shot with it, it seems like a pretty decent wide angle lens. And I know what you mean by how inflated the prices seem for AF lenses after collecting vintage glass for a while. I get the same kind of sticker shock.

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Robin,

Originally Posted by Robin de Lange

I find it strange that it is so hard to find a fast wide angle lens, while with zooms the problem of a large aperture always lies on the long end.. You can easily find old 50mm 1.4, but the best 28mm are all f/2.8. Then there's hardly any benefit compared to my Tamron 17-50 f2.8.. although the contrast and saturation will perhaps be better, I'd choose for the AF (for stills) and zoom of the Tamron. Also, do you know an old really wide-angle lens which is comparable to the Tokina 11-16? Preferably with a K-mount

There's a need for a fast super wide - something in the 14-15mm range and f1.4, but it doesn't exist. There must be something about lens physics that doesn't allow that to be designed. The fastest wide angle I've come across is the Sigma 20mm f1.8 which doesn't get good marks for sharpness and is rarely under $300-400 used. I'm currently using a Vivitar 24mm f2.0 when I need a semi-wide angle that is faster than the 11-16 f2.8 Tokina.

[Ian Holb]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

There's a need for a fast super wide - something in the 14-15mm range and f1.4, but it doesn't exist.

The Canon 5D mark II with a 24mm f1.4L II lens combo will give an equivalent 15mm f1.4 focal length on a T2i. That's the expensive alternative, but it does exist.

It might be possible to build a 14-15mm lens at f1.4 but the front element would be the size of a dinner plate.

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Michael Liebergot

Yeah the EF-S 18-55 gives you IS, but it doesn't have constant aperture and isn't good in low light.

The Tokina 11-16mm and Sigma 20mm 1.8 are good suggestions, as they will be great in low light, as woudl be the Canon EF 28mm 1.8.

But as pointed out the Zenitar-K 16mm f/2.8 might be a good option as well.

Just think of the EF-S 18-55 as a cheap 18/3.5, and it's just as good of a deal as any of the old 17-19mm's out there.

I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 (you don't want the K, you want the M), and on a 1.6x crop body, it's not very fishy, but at $200-, it's not quite the bargain it used to be. The Zenitar is very compact, and handles flare well too.

[Mark Von Lanken]

Originally Posted by Kin Lau

...I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 (you don't want the K, you want the M), and on a 1.6x crop body, it's not very fishy, but at $200-, it's not quite the bargain it used to be. The Zenitar is very compact, and handles flare well too.

Hi Kin,

Now you tell me. ;-) What is the difference between the K and the M? Thanks for your help.

[Chris M. Watson]

I'm not Kin but I think he's referring to the Zenitar that takes the M42 mount. Don't know if there's optical differences between the two or if it's just the mount and maybe better build quality.

Chris W

[Joel Peregrine]

Hi Ian,

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

The Canon 5D mark II with a 24mm f1.4L II lens combo will give an equivalent 15mm f1.4 focal length on a T2i. That's the expensive alternative, but it does exist.

Very good point. Full frame vs. crop frame has to be considered.

Originally Posted by Ian Holb

It might be possible to build a 14-15mm lens at f1.4 but the front element would be the size of a dinner plate.

I can picture that. My current obsession is the manual focus Nikon 200mm f2.0 which does have a big front element. I've set a low-ball price threshold for myself so when one comes along I'll jump on it. And currently en route from an ebay seller in Greece is a Porst 135mm f1.8 which is even more so shaped like a bullhorn.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Kin Lau

Just think of the EF-S 18-55 as a cheap 18/3.5, and it's just as good of a deal as any of the old 17-19mm's out there.

I have the Zenitar 16/2.8 (you don't want the K, you want the M), and on a 1.6x crop body, it's not very fishy, but at $200-, it's not quite the bargain it used to be. The Zenitar is very compact, and handles flare well too.

Kin true the 18-55 is a good cheap lens. But you're pretty limited to good lighting only, as the variable aperture will close down to quickly for my taste when zoomed in. Outdoors and in good light it is a very good value.

Personally I prefer glass with a constant aperture, as my lens won;t stop down when zoomed in. And fast primes are great, especially with fast apertures. the only drawback to prime lenses, is that you don't get IS capability on them. As it seems that IS only is built into zoom lenses. Which of course leads to variable apertures in many of them.

The ones that have constant apertures are expensive, but they hold their value very well.

[Michael Liebergot]

Originally Posted by Mark Von Lanken

Hi Kin,

Now you tell me. ;-) What is the difference between the K and the M? Thanks for your help.

Yep the M takes the EOS mount, which in many cases comes with an auto confirm M42 to EOS adapter for it. This is convenient as the EOS mount doesn't have AF confirm.

Besides the flickering issue I have read with AF adapter chips, I also read where some people who bought the Zenitar lens with EOS AF adapter complained that the adapter was too close to their mirror in the camera. I don't know if this was a full frame or cropped sensor camera, as the camera used wasn't mentioned.

I'm seriously considering picking up a Zenitar 16mm, but wondering if I should just settle for the non-AF confirm EOS mount.

BTW, Mark is this fisheye enough for your taste on a cropped sensor?
I liek the fact that it doesn't look extreme fisheye at all, but rather a subtle fisheye effect. Mor of a wide angle effect.

I am mainly shooting DSLRs for corporate work right now. And use it for some prep, establishing shots, and detail shots. So I was thinking that the Zenitar on a slider would make a nice detail style shot lens.

What do yo think?

[Chris M. Watson]

Originally Posted by Joel Peregrine

Hi Ian,



Very good point. Full frame vs. crop frame has to be considered.



I can picture that. My current obsession is the manual focus Nikon 200mm f2.0 which does have a big front element. I've set a low-ball price threshold for myself so when one comes along I'll jump on it. And currently en route from an ebay seller in Greece is a Porst 135mm f1.8 which is even more so shaped like a bullhorn.

Hey Joel,

Long time, no see. Didn't know you were into classic glass. What lenses do you have so far? I think since going manual focus, I've been considering the 5D for later down the road especially when it comes to wide angle shooting. There just aren't many affordable options when you get below the 28mm range. Do you find the 135 and above primes pretty useful on a crop sensor camera for weddings?

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Michael Liebergot

Kin true the 18-55 is a good cheap lens. But you're pretty limited to good lighting only, as the variable aperture will close down to quickly for my taste when zoomed in. Outdoors and in good light it is a very good value.

My point is just that if anyone is looking for a cheap/affordable wide (this is a thread on old/cheaper lenses), the 18-55 is a good choice.

[Kin Lau]

Originally Posted by Mark Von Lanken

Hi Kin,

Now you tell me. ;-) What is the difference between the K and the M? Thanks for your help.

The K stands for Pentax K-mount, M is M42.

There's a pretty good chance that the K-mount is just an adapter, and it's a M-mount under all that, but no guarantees.