Wide angle reality check

Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

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)
 
grimepoch said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.....

J Davis said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
grimepoch said:
I'm confused, how does a 14mm lens become equivalent to a 7mm lens on the same camera?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Barry_Green said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
 
TimurCivan said:
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.....
Click to expand...


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.
 
J Davis said:
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Stephen Mick said:
... but only after the M4/3 user base is significantly larger than it is now.
Click to expand...

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-zui.../q/sellerid/20676510/loc/33409/210399730.html
If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.
 
Stephen Mick said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree with this too. :)
 
J Davis said:
Found another one. A zoom (more complex than a prime) for $480 covering 9mm rectilnear at f4
http://www.buy.com/prod/olympus-zui.../q/sellerid/20676510/loc/33409/210399730.html
If thats do able for less than $500 an m43 prime is do able at f2.8 for a grand.
Click to expand...
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.
 
lpowell said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
J Davis said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...

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).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top