Voigtlander 20mm 3.5 sl II

gad-westy

gad-westy

Messages
6,605
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
No
I've been offered one of these at what looks like a decent price but before I buy I'd like to get a few opinions from those that have used one. Reviews generally seem good but I did a search on here and read a few negative comments.

I'd be using this for landscapes on a d700.
 
I did quite a lot of research on the Voigtl 20mm 3.5 (Canon mount) a while ago as I was considering buying one but came to the conclusion that it wasn't a particularly good lens for the price.....Read quite a lot of gripes about performance until F11 I think.
 
I'll probably have said this a thousand times... I don't really see the point of non macro primes that are narrower than f2.8 as you can usually find a good zoom that'll cover the focal length and be more flexible. Unless a slow prime is really really cheap I personally wouldn't bother giving it a second look.
 
I'd consider an OM 21mm instead. Very sharp lens, both the f3.5 and f2.0 versions, and very limited distortion. Only downsides are the need for an adapter and some vignetting wide open.

woof woof said:
I'll probably have said this a thousand times... I don't really see the point of non macro primes that are narrower than f2.8 as you can usually find a good zoom that'll cover the focal length and be more flexible. Unless a slow prime is really really cheap I personally wouldn't bother giving it a second look.
Click to expand...

Small size + sharpness, especially if you shoot landscapes and are going to be stopping down anyway?
 
Last edited:
If the difference is size matters then yes some primes will offer an advantage. If you're stopping down there may be very little difference between a good prime and a good zoom. Personally I think that sharpness is generally overrated.
 
woof woof said:
If the difference is size matters then yes some primes will offer an advantage. If you're stopping down there may be very little difference between a good prime and a good zoom. Personally I think that sharpness is generally overrated.
Click to expand...

I guess it just depends on the lens then :). I've gotten smeary (non-recoverable in PP) corners and edges on the wide end of zooms, even stopped down, which I never get on small OM primes. Maybe there's more sample variation in the zoom lenses but I've always preferred old wide primes. That said, I've never used a premium wide zoom either.
 
Even the size depends on the lens. I have primes bigger than zooms.
 
Cheers all for the input. Just a bit more background which I should have included earlier but was typing on phone. I have a 24-70 which is a lovely lens but I don't think it's at its best at the widest end of its zoom range and it's also very big and heavy for carrying around particular if I'm in the hills.

I'd fancied a 16-35 but a couple of things put me off, firstly they're not particularly small or light either and having finally been able to try one in person, I found it a little bit cheap feeling giving the hefty price tag. I'd still like one but can't justify the high asking price to myself.

In an ideal world I think I'd go for a 21mm Zeiss but they're very expensive and not very light either. That's sort of lead me to the Voigtlander which I like the look of on paper and reviews look fairly decent for my use but still not actually heard from anybody who's used one. KR raves about it but that usually makes me wary :) The F3.5 max aperture doesn't put me off in the slightest as long as it performs where it counts in the F8-11 sort of range.

Oh and I really do value sharpness for wide angles but the other elements need to be right too. I don't want something that exhibits uncorrectable distortion either or something that flairs badly.
 
Well then definitely Olympus 21mm 3.5 - I just got one a couple of days ago :)

Depends how wide you want to go but the Olympus 24mm 2.8 is also stellar.
 
gad-westy said:
Cheers all for the input. Just a bit more background which I should have included earlier but was typing on phone. I have a 24-70 which is a lovely lens but I don't think it's at its best at the widest end of its zoom range and it's also very big and heavy for carrying around particular if I'm in the hills.

I'd fancied a 16-35 but a couple of things put me off, firstly they're not particularly small or light either and having finally been able to try one in person, I found it a little bit cheap feeling giving the hefty price tag. I'd still like one but can't justify the high asking price to myself.

In an ideal world I think I'd go for a 21mm Zeiss but they're very expensive and not very light either. That's sort of lead me to the Voigtlander which I like the look of on paper and reviews look fairly decent for my use but still not actually heard from anybody who's used one. KR raves about it but that usually makes me wary :) The F3.5 max aperture doesn't put me off in the slightest as long as it performs where it counts in the F8-11 sort of range.

Oh and I really do value sharpness for wide angles but the other elements need to be right too. I don't want something that exhibits uncorrectable distortion either or something that flairs badly.
Click to expand...

Agree that the Olympus sounds perfect. I have the f3.5, have been looking around for ages for the f2 which has a close focusing element. f3.5s are common and go for a very decent price on eBay, and as far as I'm know there's not much sample variation going on with that lens.
 
Think I need to look at this Olympus option. Anybody able to provide a link to the lens being discussed? What sort of money do they go for inc adaptor? Any issues with metering? Did someone mention vignetting?
 
About £300 from a reputable dealer... Ffordes have one at the moment. An adaptor won't cost you £10.

http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm
 
travellingcello said:
About £300 from a reputable dealer... Ffordes have one at the moment. An adaptor won't cost you £10.

http://www.mir.SPAM/rb/photography/hardwares/classics/olympusom1n2/shared/zuiko/htmls/21mm.htm
Click to expand...

Cheers. It's more than double what the voigtlander would cost me. I'll have a good read up though as if it's worth the difference I'll save some more pennies.
 
gad-westy said:
That was pretty much my thinking but i would like to know if it's any good.
Click to expand...

That's a really good price lol :lol:. In terms of sharpness the OM is quite a bit better in the corners wide open, but we're talking splitting hairs after stopping down a bit here, I'd grab the voigt with both hands :lol:.
 
joxang said:
That's a really good price lol :lol:. In terms of sharpness the OM is quite a bit better in the corners wide open, but we're talking splitting hairs after stopping down a bit here, I'd grab the voigt with both hands :lol:.
Click to expand...

Done deal. Fingers crossed that I like it. I'll report back.

Thanks all.
 
Just stumbled across this thread again whilst searching for something else and realised that I never reported back. So for anybody else interested in one of these little lenses, I've got to say I love it. First of all, it's tiny which makes such a refreshing change when you're used to lugging a 24-70 around. It's really nicely made and focussing is smooth and accurate, being designed for m/f probably helps here. I'm very pleased with the IQ but would have to say it really isn't a lens to use at wide apertures where the edges suffer badly. I stick to F/8 or F/11 where it works beautifully.

Not tried many of the most obvious prime alternatives other than Nikon's own 20mm AF-D. Maybe I had a bad copy but mine was shocking! Against most wide angles zooms I've used, it shines. Would love to test it against a Zeiss 21mm but with those at £1000+ I'm pretty happy with my lot for now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top