Ideal FF lens choice 2020 - 20mm/21mm Zeiss, Sigma, Rokinon, Nikon, etc.

[Zack Birlew]

Hi, everybody, I’ve been faced with a couple of Full Frame lens deals lately and I’m not sure which way to go considering today’s modern sensors. I currently have a few different lenses across different lines and some almost complete vintage filming sets here and there, whether they were test purchases, finds, or contest prizes. Mostly I’ve been on the lower cost end as well depending on project and need and these options are on the relatively pricy side.

Firstly, I have been won over by the Contax Zeiss series of lenses but understand that collectors have driven the prices high for many lenses in the line. This makes the Zeiss ZF and ZE lenses a welcome option based on my research which leads to the main lens under the lights, the Zeiss ZE 21mm 2.8. I also have the 15mm ZE to consider as well but I know that’s more optically modern than the Contax version and I wanted to focus on the main Contax line for the most part, unless I’m making a mistake and should get the 15mm at discount over the 21mm. The original 21mm Contax is simply too much of an investment and I’ve read the ZF/ZE is barely any different coating-wide, virtually the same optically, much cheaper and more plentiful.

Of course, the Zeiss lenses I’m looking at are older and the only other ones I have are a Contax 50mm 1.4 MMJ that I tried to see if I actually liked the Contax look first hand, which I did, and I’ve dabbled with the Jena 20mm 2.8 Flektogon and an as-is repair copy of a 35mm 2.4 Flektogon.

This started with walking into a pawn shop and seeing a Canon 16-35mm Mark II zoom for a really good value but comparing it online with these other deals, it’s not much of an option now even though I could probably put it to good use. But, since that was out compared to the 21mm ZE, I looked up my other options for similar pricing, there’s the much faster Sigma 20mm ART, filling out my Rokinon Cine DS set with the 20mm or 24mm, or adding a Nikon 20mm AIS to further my modest AIS set. There’s also the case of just saving up for a mint copy of the Zeiss Contax 21mm 2.8 MMJ if it really is all that great. My Rokinon Cine DS are my workhorses, I find my Sigma 18-35 1.8 to be a great option when using S35, and I want a decked out Nikon AIS set at some point even though I find the Rokinon Cine DS being good matches to mix with what few AIS lenses I have already.

So, what do you think? If you’re really just starting to invest in a set today and had the option for the more expensive wide 20mm/21mm lenses to start with at discount, which would you choose?

 

[Jon D Kline]

The Zeiss ZE series are great, basically the same lenses as the Compact Prime line, without cine features.
I've found I generally use Zeiss for "crispy" shoots and other brands for "gentle/organic" shoots. The older Zeiss don't really fit into either category for me, and I only use them when I want to be really heavy-handed with my lens choice, like a Biotar or a 200mm Jena. I never fell in love with Contax.
If you're planning long term, you can build a set of ZEs and then replace them with CP.2s when you find them on eBay for the right price.

 

[Clint Lealos]

Filling out your Rokinon set would make a lot of business sense and is likely your best move considering everything. Building on your Nikkor set would help your long term goals. If you love the Contax line, I'd try to save up for 3 lenses...and the expensive wide wouldn't be one of them (ie. 35,50,85). That way you can shoot most/all of a project with them. Having sets is important and its sounds like you already have at least 2 different sets partially completed. Focus on those and then move on to the next is my advice.

 

[Uros Zuraj]

Leica R cine mod?

 

[Satsuki Murashige]

I filled out my Contax MMJ set with a used ZE 21mm. Couldn’t justify spending 3x more for a vintage MMJ 21mm, and I got a good deal from a DP colleague. I’d say it matches fairly well, though I need more time with it to be definitive. I would say, get what matches the lenses you use most often. You don’t want a lens set that is all over the place in terms of character.

 

[Jiri Vrozina]

Best organic cheap set is Nikon AIS set. Best real up to date look is from Zeiss ZF set(do not get ZE, no manual Iris) or Milvus. I find Leica R series amazing, nice long focus throw. I do not like Rokinons, Sigma or others. Nikon AIS are undervalued and truly amazing.

 

[Matt W.]

Best organic cheap set is Nikon AIS set. Best real up to date look is from Zeiss ZF set(do not get ZE, no manual Iris) or Milvus. I find Leica R series amazing, nice long focus throw. I do not like Rokinons, Sigma or others. Nikon AIS are undervalued and truly amazing.

I think I agree.

For the money I like Nikkors, but they're a bit inconsistent. The 24mm f2, for instance, is not great. The 18mm f3.5 is boring. The 28mm f1.4, meanwhile, is anomalously good compared with other super speed Nikkors. The 58mm Noctilux, which I can't afford to even try, has an amazing look, but it doesn't look like other Nikkors to me. And the coatings change over time, so your set might have inconsistent contrast or bokeh or color. I've been using the oldest most beat up generally single coated pre-AI ones I can find–a set of five was under $500. I like them. The old 50mm f2 Nikkor-S has a great look. I'm not sure how consistent they are as I haven't used them on a project yet. They're all consistently a bit messed up, and maybe that will have to do.

I see the same issue with any still lenses. They're not designed like cinema lenses to be of the same t-stop and have the same exact look, so you're dealing with inconsistencies. To me, the 28mm f2 Contax Hollywood looks much more "vintage" than the 50mm f1.7 Contax and later Contax zooms. The careful curator will be able to make this work, or you can just mostly ignore it as I did with my Nikkors, but it's an issue for some.

I can't afford them, but I really like Leica R.

https://vimeo.com/433294674

https://vimeo.com/433252543

I don't own them, and I kind of want to, but ZF and ZE are the best deal on the market by far. I never cared for CP2s for the price... they're boring. But they aren't overly clinical and the 25mm f2 and 50mm f2 look like great performers. The 28mm f2 is way cheaper than the vintage version and performs better. There's a little less vintage charm, but they're consistent and have manual focus rings unlike Sigma and I don't think they have that annoying green flare I don't care for with Sigma. Given that these are not that much more expensive than Rokinon and you already have a few, I'd go with them. But at least with either there's a bit of consistency. In theory.

FDs are pretty popular, but I kind of dislike the LoCAs you get with them. The 55mm f1.2 Aspherical is kind of beautiful but also the bokeh has polluted color in a way older lenses like S2s don't.

The problem is a surplus of choice, not a lack of options. You can see in the 50mm video how the Zeiss 50mm changes over time. To say there is one "Zeiss" look is wrong, and Jena is east Germany and Contax west, further complicating matters.

For the money and because I don't like free-spinning focus rings, I'd get Nikon for a "vintage" look and ZF/ZE for a "modern" one. Nothing against Rokinon, but ZE/ZF is about the same price and better. But every other suggestion is valid here, too, and there are better options, just imo at diminishing returns.

Full disclosure: I own some Contax glass and am probably selling it. So I'm biased toward not thinking it's worth the money. Not because it's worse than the Nikkors, it's clearly better, but because the cost is so inflated right now. I do think it's better than Nikkor. Also 21mm on full frame is quite wide–similar to 15mm on crop. 25mm might be wide enough and the 25mm f2.8 Contax is affordable. I do understand that the 21mm f2.8 is a relatively late addition to the lineup and therefore likely more similar to the ZF/ZE variants, but you could also probably get away with the 21mm f3.5 Yashica lens from what I've read. Never used it.