Question for Wide Angle Fanatics


Status
Not open for further replies.

cy_j

New Member
Sep 3, 2004
727
0
0
Newton
cyril-jeane.smugmug.com
Have you ever regretted committing to the 4/3rds system? As far as the present conditions are concerned, the only super wides available is the 7-14 which costs 100-200 less than a Nikon D80 + Sigma 10-20 combo, with the added benefit of a bigger VF of a non 4/3rd system (sigh...)

The 11-22 is really quite close to the kit lens's 14mm wide end.

I do hope that prosumer wide they project in their lens lineup for next year get pushed forward. For now, I'm stuck with 28mm equivalent (just got no money no mo' fo' de wide guy).
 

halcy0n

New Member
Apr 12, 2007
449
0
0
hey,

This was exactly the same thought I had in my mind when I bought my 11-22 today! I was testing out the 7-14 and its awesome but the price is really really out of bounds. I mean the 11-22 is great in itself but I just can't help thinking the 4/3 system gets u the better end of telephotos but not wide angles.
 

holidaydom

New Member
Aug 18, 2006
941
0
0
I'm really looking forwars to the Standare Ultra Wide to be released sometime next year...

In the meantime - the widest I can go is only 28mm (on my 14-54)

Anyone ever tried a high-quality / low-distorsion wide-angle converter? Granted that a screw-on converter can never match the quality of a dedicated Lens, at around $200 for a high-quality converter it's easy to justify if you only go ultra-wide from time to time...

Has anyone tried using a screw-on converter on any OLY Lens?

If so - please contribute by posting pics with and without the converter yea! ;)
 

Mikefellh

New Member
Oct 9, 2005
1,864
0
0
Toronto, Canada
I admit I'm upset that the standard quality ~8-16mm lens won't be coming out till late next year (it even hasn't been officially announced yet), but then there are the benefits, considering it's so easy to get telephoto (I have the equivalent of a 2000mm lens with a 500mm mirror lens, and an OM 2x converter). In the past I've tried the 8mm fisheye, and the 7-14mm...while great lenses I can't judge the expense for my type of photography.

As for using wide angle converters that screw onto the end of the lens, they aren't recommended because the extra weight at the end of the lens will damage your Olympus lens. I've recently tried a light weight .42x converter lens, but the effect was minimal (not worth the expense).

Also just recently I tried the heavy Raynox fisheye converter lens at a camera show, but the camera couldn't lock into focus...nothing was sharp either at the near end of focus, or at infinity. So not all converter lenses are compatible with a particular camera lens.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,514
11
38
67
Visit site
Well, the 7-14mm is a pro-grade lens and is the world's widest digital zoom lens and the best optically corrected of all the ultra-wide angle zoom lenses currently available. According to the Camera Labs' review (http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/OlympusE714mm/page6.shtml) 'the 7-14mm exhibits virtually no geometric distortion, impressively low vignetting considering its extreme coverage, and is sharp in the corners throughout its focal range'
So I would say that the price is justified. In any case, both Canon and Nikon have lenses that cost as much if not more than the 7-14mm and nobody seems to blink an eye when they splurge on such lenses.

If budget is a concern, then the 11-22mm should be affordable enough. While it would not offer the broad coverage at the ultra-wide focal range, there is a lot of difference between 22mm equivalent and 28mm equivalent which could be a deciding factor as to whether a shot could be taken or not.
 

halcy0n

New Member
Apr 12, 2007
449
0
0
its about $1050 for cash
 

cy_j

New Member
Sep 3, 2004
727
0
0
Newton
cyril-jeane.smugmug.com
So I would say that the price is justified. In any case, both Canon and Nikon have lenses that cost as much if not more than the 7-14mm and nobody seems to blink an eye when they splurge on such lenses.

If budget is a concern, then the 11-22mm should be affordable enough. While it would not offer the broad coverage at the ultra-wide focal range, there is a lot of difference between 22mm equivalent and 28mm equivalent which could be a deciding factor as to whether a shot could be taken or not.
True but not at the wide end. Don't know about Canon, for Nikon their Nikkor 12-24 is ard 1.2k, half of the Zuiko's. It gets better with the Sigma where for 850 bucks you get the 10-20mm.

(Technically the Zuiko indeed is very wide but it's field/angle of view equivalence is only 1mm less than the above Sigma on a APS sensor.)
 

Blu-By-U

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2006
1,783
18
38
Selangor D.E.
11-22 is a good lens. This is one of the 1st lens that I actually bought new other than the ones that came with my kit.

If you need really wide shots, then take up panorama photography. In fact, it's more fun than a single shot!!!.

Here is one interesting shot that I did long last year at the Singapore bird park.

Think it's a 6 shot panorama done with the 14-54.

BTW, I am a wide fanatic.
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,514
11
38
67
Visit site
I'll say again, the 7-14mm is a Pro-grade lens.... and it is the cheapest Pro-grade lens in the Zukio Digital range to boot. ;)
To compare it to the Canon, Nikon and Sigma offerings is like comparing D24 durian with a China apple. The Nikon 12-24mm has some scary user reviews ranging from good to horrible and would indicate a very wide sample variation. I would be scare of buying such a lens myself.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=86&sort=7&cat=28&page=1

The Sigma lens has loads of vignetting and unusual distortion characteristics.
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1020_456/index.htm

Well, like they say... if you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.

And I like the way the Camera Labs' parting comment in their review put it... 'rather than just describing it as the only ultra-wide option for Four Thirds owners, we'd go as far as to say it's a compelling reason to buy a Four Thirds body in the first place'.
 

Blu-By-U

Senior Member
Aug 2, 2006
1,783
18
38
Selangor D.E.
uncle tom...one of these days I may get it, either the 7-14 or the 8mm fisheye.....but must find a sugar daddy (or mommy) first. but then again...that "standard lens" ultra wide zoom on the chart looks more tempting. ;p Don't think that would burn a hole in the pocket for people like me.
 

halcy0n

New Member
Apr 12, 2007
449
0
0
Blu,

don't settle for less la, buy the 7-14... HAHA I found myself resisting very hard not to pull more cash outta the wallet for the 7-14 instead of the 11-22.

but, I wonder, that lens is really going to be hard to protect and i get this paranoia that its going to shatter anytime just looking at the convex front element.

;oP
 

drakon09

New Member
Aug 12, 2005
3,874
0
0
Shattering?

Kena scratch will cry already. :bsmilie:
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,514
11
38
67
Visit site
Blu,

but, I wonder, that lens is really going to be hard to protect and i get this paranoia that its going to shatter anytime just looking at the convex front element.

;oP
Well, I travelled all over China and used it inside caves, climbing mountains, on river cruises etc and never had any problem with the front element. There is a tough built-in petal hood and the only way to damage it is to drop it on the ground which would seriously damage any lens in any case. So don't worry any more... it's all in the mind.... just buy, buy, buy. ;)
 

drakon09

New Member
Aug 12, 2005
3,874
0
0
Uncle tomcat, you also very helpful hor? :bsmilie:
 

tomcat

Senior Member
Nov 7, 2003
5,514
11
38
67
Visit site
Uncle tomcat, you also very helpful hor? :bsmilie:
Thank you. Just doing my civic duty. ;)
Good things must promote mah. Also, misunderstandings must dispel. :)
 

drakon09

New Member
Aug 12, 2005
3,874
0
0
Thank you. Just doing my civic duty. ;)
Good things must promote mah. Also, misunderstandings must dispel. :)
I must admit to be very tempted by the 7-14mm, but my wallet will commit suicide... :sweat:
 

tao

Senior Member
Jan 7, 2005
3,861
2
38
Beach Road
The 11-22 is really quite close to the kit lens's 14mm wide end.
Erhmmm... it is not.

You will do well to read this review: http://www.biofos.com/esystem/widecomp.html

It reveals that the 11-22mm is wider at 14mm than the 14-54mm at 14mm, which in turn suggests that its 11mm setting is wider than your typical wide angle lens at 22mm equivalent.

So far to me, the 11-22mm at 11mm feels more like a FOV that is equivalent to 20mm. Add in F2.8~3.5 fast aperture and a 2X zoom range that is super sharp and contrasty (I do not need a PL filter to achieve deep blue skies), this is a great lens that I reach for more often than the 14-54mm. :)
 

Panzer

New Member
Nov 7, 2004
276
0
0
NSW Australia
Erhmmm... it is not.

You will do well to read this review: http://www.biofos.com/esystem/widecomp.html

It reveals that the 11-22mm is wider at 14mm than the 14-54mm at 14mm, which in turn suggests that its 11mm setting is wider than your typical wide angle lens at 22mm equivalent.
Good article but I would wish that he had taken a shot at 11mm and made a direct comparison between the FOVs of the 14mm and 11mm.

Thanks for the link.
 

sunfish

New Member
Mar 26, 2005
551
0
0
52
East of Singapore
Add in F2.8~3.5 fast aperture and a 2X zoom range that is super sharp and contrasty (I do not need a PL filter to achieve deep blue skies)
Fully agree on this. I have always wonder why my 7-14mm and 11-22mm lenses produce very blue skies, anyone have a technical explanation for this? I always thought a CPL is necessary for such effects, but realized I don't need one for these 2 lenses...:sweatsm:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.