Question for Wide Angle Fanatics
- Thread starter cy_j
- Start date
- Status
from what I remember while playing with the 7-14, the 11-14 is sharper. The details are clearly distinct. Think Uncle Tomcat would be able to tell us more. Think he have both the 7-14 and 11-22.
11-14 ? ?
Well, the 7-14mm is a Pro-Grade lens while the 11-22 is a High-Grade lens so one would expect the 7-14mm to be as sharp if not sharper than the 11-22mm. I personally did not find the 11-22 to be any sharper than the 7-14mm in their common focal range but then I have the luxury of not caring since they are both well above average in optical quality and ... like Blu said, I have them both.
Which lens I would use depends only on whether the scene needed to be captured with the 7-14mm or the 11-22mm and whether or not I needed to use a polariser. In the 11-14mm common focal range, the 11-22mm would be my preferred choice if I needed to use a polariser especially if water is involved (the 7-14mm seems to do very well with blue skies and surprisingly does not need a polariser to bring out the blueness of the sky).
If the focal range is between 14-22mm, I would prefer to use the Leica 14-50mm kit lens which I find to be super sharp.
The 7-14mm does not suffer from any noticeable rectilinear distortions and is the only ultra-wide digital zoom lens available that is so. Perspective distortions are aplenty and increases as the focal length decreases... but this is to be expected with all ultra wides. The 11-22mm has obvious perspective distortions too at the 11mm end.
Just for curiosity sake, here's a couple of shots taken at the same spot with the 7-14mm at 7mm and 11mm so that you get an idea of the difference in the max. wide angle coverage between the 7-14mm and 11-22mm lenses.
#1 7mm
#2 11mm
And these 2 were between 7mm and 14mm between the 7-14mm and the Leica 14-50mm...
#3 7mm
#4 14mm (Leica 14-50mm)
There was a polariser on the Leica lens by the way.... compare the blueness of the sky in the 2 shots.
Gosh, the blue sky captured by the 7-14mm looks more polarised than that from the 14-50mm!!!
Difference in FOV between 7-14mm is just incredibly great, the 14mm looks like it is a tele lens in this comparison. :bigeyes:
Difference in FOV between 7-14mm is just incredibly great, the 14mm looks like it is a tele lens in this comparison. :bigeyes:
Tomcat,
Do have any pics to compare the FOV of 11mm and 14mm? 7-14mm too $$$ for me. Thinking of getting the 11-22mm but I already have 14-54mm. Thanks in advance.
Do have any pics to compare the FOV of 11mm and 14mm? 7-14mm too $$$ for me. Thinking of getting the 11-22mm but I already have 14-54mm. Thanks in advance.
like Blu said, I have them both.
If the focal range is between 14-22mm, I would prefer to use the Leica 14-50mm kit lens which I find to be super sharp.
Wow! two ultra wides, and the Leica 4/3 lens!
My bank account would have long cried "uncle" with the purchase of any of the three lenses.
Where's the cheapo consumer wide angle, Olympus? (I'll live with that.)
one of the reasons why I sold my E1 and got the s3pro was that there are cheap 12-24 lens like the tokina that I can get for 18mm FOV. After shooting with the 12-24 for a couple of trips, I realise it is VERY TOUGH to shoot nice pictures with a super wide. Most of my pictures at 18mm FOV is not really nice and looks better with a little crop.
From reading a lot of landscape photography books it seems that the 24mm FOV is the most often used and you begin to appreciate why.
The temptation of an ultra wide angle like 14mm FOV is great, but seriously how many solid pictures that you have seen from such a FOV? Once the novelity wears out.... I think it will become an expensive white elephant unless you are REALLY creative.
From reading a lot of landscape photography books it seems that the 24mm FOV is the most often used and you begin to appreciate why.
The temptation of an ultra wide angle like 14mm FOV is great, but seriously how many solid pictures that you have seen from such a FOV? Once the novelity wears out.... I think it will become an expensive white elephant unless you are REALLY creative.
Well, that is why the 11-22mm is a gem. And Oly made the right choice to build it well...
Looking from my photos, I often max out the wide end if I shoot landscapes.
Shooting streets however I go closer to the "normal lengths" ( 35 - 60mm equivalent). Guess I'll be using the E-330 and its kit lens for the streets, as per my intented purpose when I bought it.
Shooting streets however I go closer to the "normal lengths" ( 35 - 60mm equivalent). Guess I'll be using the E-330 and its kit lens for the streets, as per my intented purpose when I bought it.
These were shot off the balcony of my place today using the ZD 7-14mm for comparison purposes.
#1 @14mm
#2 @11mm
and this is how they roughly compare if their coverage was superimposed on a shot that was taken at 7mm at the same position...
#3 @7mm
So how about it?
ZD 11-22mm?
ZD 7-14mm?
Buy, Buy, Buy ??
Wow - the 7-14mm looks gorgeous indeed... but it's completely out of my budget ;p
But like some others have mentioned, I only see the need for an ultra wide occasionally* and so I'm also looking forward to the Standard Ultra Wide to be released sometime next year.
*Maybe that's cos I don't have an Ultra Wide in my stable as yet... :bsmilie:
But I wonder, is there any ultra wide OM lens that we can use with the addition of an OM-4/3rds adaptor???
But like some others have mentioned, I only see the need for an ultra wide occasionally* and so I'm also looking forward to the Standard Ultra Wide to be released sometime next year.
*Maybe that's cos I don't have an Ultra Wide in my stable as yet... :bsmilie:
But I wonder, is there any ultra wide OM lens that we can use with the addition of an OM-4/3rds adaptor???
These were shot off the balcony of my place today using the ZD 7-14mm for comparison purposes.
#3 @7mm
So how about it?
ZD 11-22mm?
ZD 7-14mm?
Buy, Buy, Buy ??
Yes, these comparisons are great. I think the 11mm still make some differences though not very much. The 7mm is fantastic! But painful on the wallet.
Thanks very much on the pics. Cheers.
I was about to forget myself in getting the 7-14mm and this thread pops up. Thank you to you all. My hands are itchy now, the 7-14 is indeed an excellent piece of glass. Its a gem! Arrrgghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
Thank you to you all. My hands are itchy now, the 7-14 is indeed an excellent piece of glass. Its a gem! Arrrgghhhhhhh!!!!!!!
I think you hit the nail on the head.... because of the inherent perspective distortion, all ultra-wides are 'creative' lenses and may not be appropriate for all shooting scenarios. Just as we are not borned pro-photographers, we are also not borned with a mind's eye to frame from an ultra-wide's view-point. We could pick up pointers from other photographers or from books but would definitely need to practise with an ultra-wide lens to learn first hand what are the photo opportunities that could be enhanced by the use of an ultra-wide or how to minimise perspective distortions when using one... and 'practice do makes perfect' as the saying goes. Maybe 'perfect' is too strong a word but we would definitely improve as we practise.
Sooo.. it's a 'chicken-and-egg' situation, I'm afraid. If you don't have an ultra-wide, you can't practise and learn and therefore can't improve or master the art of using an ultra-wide. :dunno:
Unfortunately, from my experience, in real life, those differences are just what would determine whether you can take the shot your really want or not when the opportunity presents itself. I find that many a times during my travels that 14mm always seems to be just slightly not wide enough to make the shot.
- Status
Similar threads
