Author Topic: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?  (Read 829 times)

Bill De Jager

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 454
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #15 on: July 08, 2020, 20:23:36 »
20-35mm AFD f/2.8 is a very nice lens, the MF fell is very nice and smooth and it's very compact, almost no geometrical distortion on top!

I like the lens but I don't like the poor edges and corners wide open.  My copy isn't just soft wide open in the peripheral regions but shows noticeable sagittal/tangential aberrations there.

Steven P.

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Cumpulsive Tinkerer
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #16 on: July 08, 2020, 21:46:39 »
Guessing depth of field, ie hyper-focal distance in setting focus for a digital camera is hit and miss, definitely not recommended, not even for ultra wide lenses. A scale on the lens barrel will not change that.
20-35mm AFD f/2.8 is a very nice lens, the MF fell is very nice and smooth and it's very compact, almost no geometrical distortion on top!


I am mainly speaking towards landscape photography, setting the DOF scale so includes fore and far ground. People, specific subjects all warrant somewhat precise face/eye focus.


With my 20 or 24 "locked" on f8, (aperture & focus,) it allows a lot less hassle trudging through the wooded areas and farmland. Just compose and click.

In my lifetime, I lost more shots due to Af not nailing the subject than my manual focus, point/shoot method.

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5480
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #17 on: July 08, 2020, 23:52:03 »
I like the lens but I don't like the poor edges and corners wide open.  My copy isn't just soft wide open in the peripheral regions but shows noticeable sagittal/tangential aberrations there.


Well, yes not up to high corner standards, fully open, but I guess this is not really what he is looking for, stopped down...
Erik Lund

Erik Lund

  • Global Moderator
  • **
  • Posts: 5480
  • Copenhagen
    • ErikLund.com
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #18 on: July 08, 2020, 23:55:25 »

I am mainly speaking towards landscape photography, setting the DOF scale so includes fore and far ground. People, specific subjects all warrant somewhat precise face/eye focus.


With my 20 or 24 "locked" on f8, (aperture & focus,) it allows a lot less hassle trudging through the wooded areas and farmland. Just compose and click.

In my lifetime, I lost more shots due to Af not nailing the subject than my manual focus, point/shoot method.
Did you try live view? To determine correct depth of focus. If not I would recommend to give it a try ;)


Sorry to hear Af is not working out for you...
Erik Lund

Steven P.

  • NG Supporter
  • **
  • Posts: 128
  • Cumpulsive Tinkerer
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #19 on: July 30, 2020, 00:23:41 »
There are several phone apps that I use for reference in setting hyperfocal distance and I'm fine with the results.


This is an older focusing approach that mainly involves using wider primes for landscape shooting.


I only ever use live view for macro on a pod. I also sometimes wish the camera didn't have that annoying rear display, or at least cover for the same.



Pistnbroke

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 168
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #20 on: July 30, 2020, 20:59:28 »
Being a bit cheeky but why Not the Samyang 14-28mm?  Well OK its not a zoom but its so sharp you can crop 50% and not notice so thats 28mm .. The Samyang 14mm  F2.8 On a D850  uses 30 MP of the available MP and just set it to F5.6  and 10ft focus and just click away.
Always listen to old people or when they die you live on in ignorance

paul hofseth

  • NG Member
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • You ARE NikonGear
Re: MF Utrawide Zooms. How many are there?
« Reply #21 on: July 31, 2020, 13:31:01 »
if the question  is primarily about MFwide zooms and not constrained by back focus distance, the Leitz 21-35 should qualify, it also is reasonably good.-

Its rear element retaing ring is a bil too long to clear a Canon 5DII mirror, but some careful filing of the  bil that the mirror hits solves the problem-The Leicaflexes and successors  had long flange distances and peculiar mirror mechanics- (a  rear mount lens- cutout is just like the kilfitt wide macro which also has a sloping bit to avoid the mirror (at least my made in Liechtenstein, Alpa-mount copy)

p.