Wide angle reality check

[TimurCivan]

I love the Tokina 11-16 cause it just has such low distortion. Behave like a much more expensive lens. love it.

[Rick Burnett]

I agree! Bought it instead of the 10-22 from Canon and glad I did! Used the Canon and was just no where near as nice.

[bgundu]

I can hear Admiral Ackbar screaming "it's a trap!" regarding crop factors

[Barry_Green]

Basically, all I want to know is: On a MFT chip like the GH2 and AF100, will the Tokina 11-16 at it's widest (11mm), have the field of view of a (1) 14.7mm full frame 35 lens or a (2) 22mm full frame 35 lens.

It will have the FOV of a 13mm lens on an APS-C camera, or the FOV of a 22mm lens on a "full frame" camera. And it will have the exact same FOV as the Lumix 7-14 or Olympus 9-18 if you zoomed them to 11mm.

A millimeter is a millimeter. An 11mm lens on an m43 camera will look like any other 11mm lens when used on that same m43 camera. It's not the mm that changes when you move cameras, it's the sensor size. The larger sensor "sees" a bigger window through the lens, the smaller sensor "crops" off some of that image. The lens always makes the same image regardless of what camera it's mounted to; it's up to the sensor to capture however much (or however little) of that image that it can see.

[Mercatus]

what do people do to add a UV or circular polarized filter to the Lumix 7-14?

[timbook2]

Would a 7-500 Zoom with constant f 1.4 make people stop complaining? Naaaah.... because it would not be a macro, probably..... ;-)

LOL...really loud! :-)

[TimurCivan]

Yea but what about the 5-550 T1.2 that was announced last year? covers FF all the way down to 5mm.......

[Katana2040]

Yea but what about the 5-550 T1.2 that was announced last year? covers FF all the way down to 5mm.......

That would be the Special Edition: Chuck Norris lens, right?

[Marshallarts]

I've very late to this thread having just discovered it. But after only reading the first page I can't help but get equally annoyed at the people who are hating on those who want a wide angle. Claiming we have the freedom in movies to "move the frame" is as stupid as asking a bar owner to knock down his wall to "get a shot", and comparing it to a still shooter who can use a wide angle to capture a crowd without moving makes no sense at all. That still shooter has just enough freedom to "move the frame" and probably has more experience and understanding of lenses and framing then you do.

[Mister Stocks]

I've very late to this thread having just discovered it. But after only reading the first page I can't help but get equally annoyed at the people who are hating on those who want a wide angle. Claiming we have the freedom in movies to "move the frame" is as stupid as asking a bar owner to knock down his wall to "get a shot", and comparing it to a still shooter who can use a wide angle to capture a crowd without moving makes no sense at all. That still shooter has just enough freedom to "move the frame" and probably has more experience and understanding of lenses and framing then you do.

You might want to rethink that last part. Its rather assumptive.

If you read the thread you might change your mind about it. The tone of this thread has been that the desire for wider lenses, while fine, has gotten a bit out of hand. How wide do you truly need to go to be happy? And how wide and fast can you reasonably expect an affordable lens to go without ridiculous distortion?

Well, that was the tone at the beginning, now the tone has shifted more to 'this is what I use, and it is plenty wide'.

[Marshallarts]

I definitely did not read the whole thread and admittedly was "reacting" to the tone I felt in the first page. Professionally my fast wide angle lenses are my most valuable. And I know they can be quite expensive. My Fujinon 13x4.5 was $30,000. Worth every penny.

I felt the thread started in a way that discredited legitimate concerns over not having wide angle options and those who thought so were novices who don't know any better. Wide angle is very important and owning around $90,000 in lenses I took it personally.

[trizcs]

agreed.

any feature on a camera system that limits you aesthetic options is a legitimate concern. yes, we can move the camera around, but often there are situations where a shot simply will not work without a wide enough lens. fact: unless you are using m4/3 lenses (as yet, not great quality to my finding) or have exceptionally wide lenses, you will have difficulty achieving wide angle shots.

[Shooter]

Heres an option that I am seriously considering to give my self a wider lens ( when and should I need it).

http://16x9inc.com/shop/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=36

Its a .45 wide angle adapter that will fit both of my "dream team" Nikkors. 17-35mm & 28-70mm. Both have a front filter thread of 77mm.

I have used products from 16x9 before (on my DVX and HXXs) and found them more than adequate to the task - quality wise.

[Joey9]

Does anyone have footage with a fisheye? I'm curious how wide and how goo it would look

[Jon Furtado]

Heres an option that I am seriously considering to give my self a wider lens ( when and should I need it).

http://16x9inc.com/shop/cart.php?m=product_detail&p=36

Its a .45 wide angle adapter that will fit both of my "dream team" Nikkors. 17-35mm & 28-70mm. Both have a front filter thread of 77mm.

I have used products from 16x9 before (on my DVX and HXXs) and found them more than adequate to the task - quality wise.

So, this wold make your 17-35mm effectively a 7ish-16ish mm? With the crop factor into it, it would make it approx 14mm on the wide end right?