Uncompromised Landscape Lens for A7R?

Started Dec 7, 2013 | Discussions thread
abortabort Senior Member • Posts: 1,734
Re: Uncompromised Landscape Lens for A7R?

DavieK wrote:

I'm getting a Canon 20mm f/2.8 FD - a slightly well-used one for only £150 off eBay - and also a Canon 17mm f/4 FD (or possibly two examples). I have done a reasonably clear review of the 10-18mm Sony OSS as used on A7R:


however there may be more to add, as the severe vignetting actually makes a profile difficult to create. Certainly you can get more than just an APS-C 10-15mm out of it on the A7R.

I've tried the Sigma 12-24mm and also 8-16mm. The HSM mechanisms don't work with CD, and they are surprisingly difficult to get right using peaking, and also large and heavy. I would second the Samyang 14mm recommendation, but don't buy the E-mount model; get one for Nikon, which has proper communication with the camera, use a dumb Nikon adaptor for now but there will be intelligent Nikon adaptors soon enough - and then the EXIF data including aperture reporting should be enabled. The Alpha mount version is not even focus confirm chipped and a bad buy in comparison (there's also a dumb Nikon version - you have to pay a little more for the AI compatible one).

As for the Sony/Minolta choices, I'm afraid I do not agree than the 20mm f/2.8 was one of the better lenses of its type. Used them for years but the extremely soft dark corners and moustache-form distortion on the A900 switched me over to preferring the 17-35mm f/2.8-4 D, which at 20mm is f/3.4 but better all round than the 20mm f/2.8 (at 17mm, the D is quite similar, soft corners and complex distortion). I will be using my 17-35mm on the LA-EA3, but trying the Canon FD lenses. Minolta's 1970s 21mm f/2.8 is a better lens than the 20mm f/2.8 AF, and maybe Canon's SSC 17 and 20mms are not bad (I didn't like them at the time and rated Minolta lenses much better than 1970s Canons).

Experiments to continue...


All good points. Though I will use the 20mm because it is a fair bit smaller than the 17-35mm. Compared to the Canon 20mm f2.8 the Minolta holds up well, or better. It isn't the best UWA, but it isn't bad.

Personally if I was looking for a "no compromise" landscape lens I wouldn't be looking for something small, I would be looking at a Canon 17mm or 24mm TS/E. But I think the OP is being rather unrealistic in expecting there to be something today, the system has barely been announced for 1 month and I still dont think that ANY zoom is going to be uncompromised, especially one that is small, though I suspect the upcoming Zeiss will be very good.

 abortabort's gear list:abortabort's gear list
Sony RX100 Fujifilm X100S Konica Minolta Maxxum 7D Leica M8 Nikon D700 +54 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow