Wide angle reality check

[Barry_Green]

I'm confused, how does a 14mm lens become equivalent to a 7mm lens on the same camera?

It doesn't. I'm looking at any lens that delivers a 114-degree angle of view. There are no primes that offer that for APS-C so I had to go to the FF equivalents.

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.

Indeed, everyone's usages will dictate their lens choices. I love the hyper-wide-angle, and I don't care that it's not f/2.8, because I don't want to pay an additional $1,000 for that. I'd rather just bump up the gain 6dB and pocket the thousand bucks difference.

But yeah, that 25mm f/0.95 is crazy fast. I was thinking about that -- the 20mm f/1.7 is pretty fast, being about 2.5 stops faster than the 14-140. But that 25mm f/0.95 is 1.67 stops faster than that! It's four stops faster than the 14-140. That's extremely interesting!

[Rick Burnett]

It doesn't. I'm looking at any lens that delivers a 114-degree angle of view. There are no primes that offer that for APS-C so I had to go to the FF equivalents.


Indeed, everyone's usages will dictate their lens choices. I love the hyper-wide-angle, and I don't care that it's not f/2.8, because I don't want to pay an additional $1,000 for that. I'd rather just bump up the gain 6dB and pocket the thousand bucks difference.

But yeah, that 25mm f/0.95 is crazy fast. I was thinking about that -- the 20mm f/1.7 is pretty fast, being about 2.5 stops faster than the 14-140. But that 25mm f/0.95 is 1.67 stops faster than that! It's four stops faster than the 14-140. That's extremely interesting!

Ahh, okay, now I get where you were going with that! Having now worked with 30mm, 50mm and 85mm F1.4 I can say that the relationship between the F-stop and the focal length, at least to me, is VERY VERY different in these three sizes. Bringing about a 25mm F0.95, I don't even know what to expect. (Though I look forward to it). I might be able to get noise free footage in a black hole!

:P

[J Davis]

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.....

I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.

[Stephen Mick]

I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.

I think you're completely right here, J. But keep in mind that the amount of R&D that goes into a lens is a pretty good investment, and the installed user base of Canon and Nikon gear is exponentially larger than for Micro Four-Thirds. So, we'll likely see exactly the kind of lens you're asking for, but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.

[J Davis]

... but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.

Thank you Stephan. And user demand is exactly what I said when I first mentioned this. AF100 video shooters are going to need fast wide.
I think the demand will come and an m43 fast wide prime could be a profitable and do-able lens.
edit:
Found another one. A zoom (more complex than a prime) for $480 covering 9mm rectilnear at f4
http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-zuik...210399730.html
If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.

[Rick Burnett]

I think you're completely right here, J. But keep in mind that the amount of R&D that goes into a lens is a pretty good investment, and the installed user base of Canon and Nikon gear is exponentially larger than for Micro Four-Thirds. So, we'll likely see exactly the kind of lens you're asking for, but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.

I agree with this too.

[Lpowell]

Found another one. A zoom (more complex than a prime) for $480 covering 9mm rectilnear at f4
http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-zuik...210399730.html
If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.

I recently got the native micro four-thirds version of that Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 zoom. It's remarkably light and compact and auto-focuses just like Panasonic's Lumix lenses do, even in AFC mode. It's a superb lens for daylight panoramas and the ability to frame your shot anywhere between 9-18mm makes it far more flexible than a prime lens. I use it with a 72mm Tiffen Black Diffusion FX3 filter to soften its edges.

[Darren Levine]

I recently got the native micro four-thirds version of that Olympus 9-18mm f4-5.6 zoom. It's remarkably light and compact and auto-focuses just like Panasonic's Lumix lenses do, even in AFC mode. It's a superb lens for daylight panoramas and the ability to frame your shot anywhere between 9-18mm makes it far more flexible than a prime lens. I use it with a 72mm Tiffen Black Diffusion FX3 filter to soften its edges.

see, i'd actually rather it be beefy, plenty of metal, less plastic, so you know it can take a beating. but then again i take care of my lenses, the old plastic fantastic 50/1.8 has been trucking along for years

[Multi-Media]

I realize that but things get easier when your image circle is smaller. Plus we're talking primes not a zoom.
I still think $900 for a m43 image circle f2.8 prime at 7-8mm is realistic.
especially when tokina make a fixed aperture zoom at 11-16 f2.8 for $600 and
sigma make a reclitlnear 8-16mm zoom f4.5 for $700 and both these are
zooms, more complex with more elements and larger image circles.

That's all well and good, but the Tokina won't work with the camera to perform barrel distortion correction... or chromatic abberation correction. The Panny lenses work WITH the camera... That's what makes them worth the investment.

[aguia]

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.

It seemed to me that the Panasonic was still performing better than the Olympus in this test, but I have been curious whether an AF100 will do the same kind of in-body software correction for aberrations that the GH1/2 will. It is something else to consider, I think that Panasonic is fully into using in-camera processing to sweeten their lens designs. In fact I'm sort of surprised the Panasonic 7-14mm did as well as it did in this test (on an Olympus body).

[Barry_Green]

It seemed to me that the Panasonic was still performing better than the Olympus in this test, but I have been curious whether an AF100 will do the same kind of in-body software correction for aberrations that the GH1/2 will. It is something else to consider, I think that Panasonic is fully into using in-camera processing to sweeten their lens designs. In fact I'm sort of surprised the Panasonic 7-14mm did as well as it did in this test (on an Olympus body).

It does. I used my 14-140 and 7-14 on the AF100, and it worked all the same magic that my GH1 does.

Agreed, the 7-14 on the Olympus was at a bit of a handicap; it would have performed even better had they tested them on a Panasonic body.

[Rick Burnett]

That's all well and good, but the Tokina won't work with the camera to perform barrel distortion correction... or chromatic abberation correction. The Panny lenses work WITH the camera... That's what makes them worth the investment.

I just don't notice a problem with either of those issues with my Tokina 11-16mm. I've seen others post CA from the Tokina, but when I try the same test, I've not gotten the same results. Likewise, I've analyzed screen grabs in photoshop and I've not seen appreciable barrel distortion either.

Take into consideration that the m4/3 sensor is slightly smaller than the APS-C that I used and the lens just gets better since we lose more of the outside. Doesn't make them worth the investment to me. I'd rather get a lens that looks correct BEFORE the sensor, not after.

[tflak]

I'd rather get a lens that looks correct BEFORE the sensor, not after.

And I'd rather shoot an actress who looks great BEFORE makeup, not after.

Seriously, what I care about is how something looks on the final delivery vehicle it's intended for. If it looks good there, I don't really care how much processing it went through to get there. Especially if it's seamless and didn't cause me any extra work.

[Rick Burnett]

And I'd rather shoot an actress who looks great BEFORE makeup, not after.

Seriously, what I care about is how something looks on the final delivery vehicle it's intended for. If it looks good there, I don't really care how much processing it went through to get there. Especially if it's seamless and didn't cause me any extra work.

Ahh, but you illustrate my point for me. Do you want to fix the actress BEFORE the sensor, or after the sensor? Clearly you'd rather add the makeup before the sensor then having to photoshop the frames after the fact.

I'm just reluctant to use any digital fixes on a lens. You are applying distortions to an image which is changing the pixel relationships. For most people this might be fine, but for all the VFX work I do, I need to reduce the number of issues, not add more. Wide angle shots are REALLY hard to work already if the camera moves at all due to perspective distortion, which all ultra wide lenses will have and you cannot remove because that is the nature of the FoV. Same thing with CA fixes. I'd rather get a lens that will be right to begin with, then have the software which already has to interpolate between bayer sites then have to apply fixes to the color. No thanks. Not that I wouldn't use the lens, or try it, but I'd always opt to spend more on a lens that gets it right optically first. This will ALWAYS be better than a digital solution.

[cowpunk52]

This will ALWAYS be better than a digital solution.

True, but that's not always easy or cost-effective. I find the in-camera correction of the Lumix 7-14mm lens on Panny bodies to be incredibly good, virtually indistinguishable and for the most part outperforming the best optical-only ultra-wides on Panasonic bodies. There's no way on earth most AF100 users will ever be able to afford a lens that performs optically the way the 7-14 does does with digital correction. For the performance at it's price point, it's one of the best wide-angle options available - especially for video work, in any format. You'd have to spend literally tens of thousands more dollars to get a completely optical equivalent performance.