Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wide angle reality check

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by john deaver View Post
    It seams like if it was posable then someone in the last 170 years of photography would have done it.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but when you look at those side view diagrams of lenses (like here http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microf...40-056_olympus ) it appears that the individual lenses/groups are extremely tightly packed. Is it this that complicates maters? simply that the elements can't get any closer before they start to intersect one another. Further complicated by the necessity of wide angle lenses to have a shorter focal length (less space to put the elements)

    It seams like the electronics of high ISO sensors will outpace the science of optics and make tomorrows f/4 yesterdays f/.95
    The lenses need to get larger too, in the other dimension. When you make larger glass, it gets expensive QUICK. So if all the elements need to get larger, you can see how that lens quickly gets out of hand. I imagine that the lens manufacturers pick a price point and then design to that. If the lens was $4k they'd probably not sell many. Not compared to a lens that costs say $1k. Would they sell 4 times as less? I bet they have a lot of statistics on past sales, but then, I really think the landscape is changing rapidly on SLR lens sales.
    formerly know as grimepoch.

    Comment


      Originally posted by john deaver View Post
      It seams like if it was posable then someone in the last 170 years of photography would have done it.
      Agreed.
      ..
      The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

      Comment


        Originally posted by aguia View Post
        This review is a little wonky but I still think it is worth looking over before buying a Panasonic 7-14mm:
        http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/He...e-Matchup.html
        Wow, they sure didn't seem to like either lens a whole lot!

        Well, a couple of things to consider, when comparing those two:
        1) the Olympus is nearly twice the price of the Panasonic
        2) they tested on an Olympus body, and that doesn't let the Panasonic lens do its wizardry. The Panasonic lens and body, together, have electronic communication and the ability to resolve issues such as chromatic aberration and barrel distortion. Those features don't come into play when you mate a Panasonic lens onto an Olympus body.
        3) They caution about f/22 on these lenses, but I'd say f/22 on any DSLR lens is problematic, due to diffraction. I recommend staying no deeper than f16 anyway.

        Because of those factors, I went ahead and got the 7-14, and I kind of love it. Some of my favorite shots I got were at the 7mm focal length. But it does become distracting to do a pan that wide, as the perspective changes from the corners to the center of the frame, so I don't think it's the first lens anyone's going to reach for when doing general-purpose cinematography. But for a fairly-rectilinear ultrawide, I think it's pretty good and I'm happy with it.
        ..
        The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

        Comment


          Originally posted by john deaver View Post

          It seams like the electronics of high ISO sensors will outpace the science of optics and make tomorrows f/4 yesterdays f/.95
          But remember, it's not just about light passing through, it's also about the DoF characteristics as well. High ISO isn't going to fix that. Personally, I'd like to see something like a 7mm rectilinear prime at a max of F2.8. That would be perfect for me. That said, I don't see it happening. For video, the 7mm is such a special purpose lens that I don't think they'd sell huge amounts as a prime. As the zoom, I can see they would. I love my Tokina 11-16mm so I'll just stick with that.

          (Not that I don't plan on renting a 7-14mm to play with)
          formerly know as grimepoch.

          Comment


            Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
            But remember, it's not just about light passing through, it's also about the DoF characteristics as well. High ISO isn't going to fix that. Personally, I'd like to see something like a 7mm rectilinear prime at a max of F2.8. That would be perfect for me. That said, I don't see it happening. For video, the 7mm is such a special purpose lens that I don't think they'd sell huge amounts as a prime. As the zoom, I can see they would. I love my Tokina 11-16mm so I'll just stick with that.
            Agreed but wide angle and shallow DoF are sort of mutually exclusive anyway.

            I use a Olympus 9-18 a lot and i really like it. its crazy sharp and it was half the price of the panasonic and 1/4 of the size and still f/4. Go figure.

            Comment


              Originally posted by john deaver View Post
              Agreed but wide angle and shallow DoF are sort of mutually exclusive anyway.

              I use a Olympus 9-18 a lot and i really like it. its crazy sharp and it was half the price of the panasonic and 1/4 of the size and still f/4. Go figure.

              True, good point.
              formerly know as grimepoch.

              Comment


                Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
                Personally, I'd like to see something like a 7mm rectilinear prime at a max of F2.8. That would be perfect for me.
                How about 8mm?
                http://www.arri.de/camera/lenses/35_..._prime_8r.html
                ..
                The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                  Oh wow! Of course, I'd also like to add the stipulation of under $2k. But, to know this exists is a good thing. I can always rent it if I need to.
                  formerly know as grimepoch.

                  Comment


                    The closest you're going to find is the Panasonic 7-14, at 7mm. It's rectilinear, way under $2k, but not f/2.8.
                    ..
                    The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                      The closest you're going to find is the Panasonic 7-14, at 7mm. It's rectilinear, way under $2k, but not f/2.8.
                      Well, yes, I know that I was just saying what I'd like to see in a prime, that I think could be realistic, but at the same time, might not have as high an appeal. I just don't have enough experience with other shooters to know how many people would be *really* interested in something like a 7mm F2.8. I think the ultimate question everyone would have is price. If it was say $500, would lots of people jump on it? I think so.

                      In any case, I have to send a lens back to Sigma that they had me evaluate for video usage (50mm F1.4) I am going to talk to them about this. I am a huge proponent of their prime lenses. I've yet to see the 85mm F1.4, but I am going to see if they'll send me that to eval for them as well. The 50mm DID NOT disappoint, at all. I'd like to see them offer some more primes sub 30mm that are faster. (The other thing I am going to talk to them about is their focus range, it is REALLY tight on the 50mm)
                      formerly know as grimepoch.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by grimepoch View Post
                        Well, yes, I know that I was just saying what I'd like to see in a prime, that I think could be realistic, but at the same time, might not have as high an appeal. I just don't have enough experience with other shooters to know how many people would be *really* interested in something like a 7mm F2.8. I think the ultimate question everyone would have is price. If it was say $500, would lots of people jump on it? I think so.
                        Well, such a lens equivalent exists from the big boys; Canon and Nikon both offer 14mm f/2.8 lenses, so equivalent in FOV to the 7mm you're asking. But they sure aren't $500! Nikon's is $1,900, and Canon's is $2,350.

                        Panasonic does offer an 8mm f/3.5 (which is only half a stop slower than f/2.8) but it's a fisheye instead of rectilinear, and it costs $730.
                        ..
                        The AU-EVA1 Book - The DVX200 Book - The UX180 & UX90 Book - Lighting For Film & TV - Sound For Film & TV

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Barry_Green View Post
                          Well, such a lens equivalent exists from the big boys; Canon and Nikon both offer 14mm f/2.8 lenses, so equivalent in FOV to the 7mm you're asking. But they sure aren't $500! Nikon's is $1,900, and Canon's is $2,350.

                          Panasonic does offer an 8mm f/3.5 (which is only half a stop slower than f/2.8) but it's a fisheye instead of rectilinear, and it costs $730.
                          I'm confused, how does a 14mm lens become equivalent to a 7mm lens on the same camera? Or are you just referring to a full-frame example and the price of the lens at that level?

                          I don't know how lens cost scales in reality since I am *sure* that quantity of sales plays a huge role. Mainly because while a lens might get smaller for a smaller sensor, it also is required to resolve more detail per area if resolution is held constant. The Tokina 11-16 at about 14~15 I believe didn't vignette anymore on the 5D I put it on. A lot cheaper then the Nikon and the Canon, but, I didn't really study the results, we were just curious where the vignetting was gone. It might have a lot of image issues that I just didn't look at. (Not my camera).

                          Also, I'm not saying $500 is realistic, just an example of a price point. There are LOTS of people who buy the $200 50mm lenses from Canon and Nikon, but having used both, I do not like them at all. To me, it is now clear the extra cost of say the Sigma 50mm is worth it, OR, getting the other Canon and Nikon 50mm lenses that are built to a higher quality. Same with my Bower lens. I don't care a huge amount for the contrast of the lens. It works well, and especially for the price, but I want to try out a few other 85mm F1.4 and see which of the group is the best.

                          Just like my Tokina 11-16. I had the Sigma 10-20 (forget the upper range) and did not like it at all. The Canon 10-22 works great, but compared to the Tokina at night, that little bit of extra at least on my 7D does make a difference. It's subjective though I am sure for a lot of people.

                          Given what I use 11mm for, I am really not worried. I think it will be fine. And for extreme outdoor wides, I'd just rent the 7mm-14mm for now. I mean, it is easy to get an idea, I just crop the image then blow it up. It gives me a decent idea of what to expect and I think if a lot of people did that, coming from the APS-C sensor sizes, they'll see it's not a big deal. The 7mm-14mm at F4 is just too slow for me to pick up as I know I wouldn't use it enough to validate it's cost FOR ME. I'd rather put that money towards other glass, like the 25mm F0.95 that sounds VERY interesting to me.
                          formerly know as grimepoch.

                          Comment


                            I think a wide rectilinear prime for m43 at f2.8 and around 7mm or 8mm is do-able for under $1000.
                            The reason I say this is because the image circle only has to cover m43 unlike the nikon and canon 14mm primes Barry
                            mentioned which cover 36x24.
                            If tokina can make the 11-16 rectilinear fixed aperture zoom with an image circle that covers greater than m43 and
                            sell it for $600 then why not?
                            Maybe as the number of m43 video shooters increase after more cams are released the demand will be there to warrant such a lens.
                            J.Davis
                            jdMAX.com

                            Comment


                              Because every millimeter down you go, things get more complicated.

                              lets go back to the car analogy. 0-100mph, you can get with a $15,000 car. 0-125mph you can get with a $20,000 car. 0-155mph, suddenly you need a $60,000 car. 0-175 youre talking 200,000$. over 200mph, and you need a 400,000$ car, 225mph+ youre talking F1/Bugatti $800,000 - 2million dollars.

                              Its the inverse square law of perfomance/cost. This is why im impressed with the 7-14mm. for the price its amazing.....

                              Originally posted by J Davis View Post
                              I think a wide rectilinear prime for m43 at f2.8 and around 7mm or 8mm is do-able for under $1000.
                              The reason I say this is because the image circle only has to cover m43 unlike the nikon and canon 14mm primes Barry
                              mentioned which cover 36x24.
                              If tokina can make the 11-16 rectilinear fixed aperture zoom with an image circle that covers greater than m43 and
                              sell it for $600 then why not?
                              Maybe as the number of m43 video shooters increase after more cams are released the demand will be there to warrant such a lens.
                              Cinematographer
                              Sigma Pro

                              www.timurcivan.com 917-589-4424

                              Comment


                                The truth of the matter is, we really have no clue. Unless we actually get someone here who is an optical engineer, it's just a bunch of guessing all the same. There are SO MANY variables in the design of a lens, related to cost and actual physical capability, trying to determine the cost of a said lens is really an exercise in futility. There is nothing to compete with the 7mm-14mm F4 anywhere near the price point. You don't know how much they make on these lenses, could be a small margin, could be a large margin. Also, the actual development cost too. We also have no clue what the thinking of making this lens was. Coming from a still picture stand point, a slow ultra wide to me is not a huge issue. Most ultra wides still images can take a longer shutter time.

                                But now, we are using still lenses for video, and I'm sorry, but that doesn't have a huge history of usage yet. This is still a relatively new area, and there is not a lot of purely video SLR style lenses being marketed yet, other than what Panasonic has really pioneered at being first with. My communications with lens manufacturers are they are listening as they aren't sure either what people want yet.

                                People seem to get all up in arms when someone desires another lens that doesn't exist, which I think is silly. Why should I not vocalize what type of lens I would like? I mean, look at the cost of the 20mm F1.7 lens. Before that came out, what other 20mm lens was close to that speed or anywhere near that price?? Yes, it is a pretty cheap lens all things considered.

                                Coming from my experience shooting, I know what I'd like and it comes from the times when I'd say "Man, I wish this lens was X or Y" which I think a lot of people have probably felt before. Sure, I work around it, and might not get the exact shot I want, but I have no choice. I work within the limitations.

                                Heck, I'd be happy with 8mm or 9mm at F2.8 as well, as the 7mm is probably even more than I need. I still don't think it's an unreasonable lens design, at any three of those focal lengths, but how popular a lens is a good question. I mean, for example, look at all the Sigma lenses. Look at the quantity of primes compared to zooms. It seems that for them, zooms must be a lot more popular since they make so many more of them. For that reason, I think that my ideal lens would just not produce enough buyers, so the cost basis is probably not worth it. Doesn't mean the lens itself would be that expensive in high quantity manufacturing, but that, at the quantities they probably would sell, the R&D costs alone would be too much for those they anticipate selling.
                                formerly know as grimepoch.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X