Lens question

B

Blutarski

Active member
What is the lowest size Nikon lense before it goes fisheye? I have no interest in that look, I just want the widest possible image. Is it 20mm?
 
Manual focus? I believe they made a 13mm, but good luck finding one. And if you do, expect to pay a few thousand dollars for it. I tracked down a 15mm in Atlanta, which is supposed to be a very good lens, and it was going for just under a grand. With these lenses you're going to be dealing with barrel distortion.
 
Now, if you're talking 'affordable', the first manual focus Nikon that fits that bill would be the 18mm, which came in f/3.5 and f/4.0 flavors. I'd suggest the f/3.5 because f/4.0 doesn't give you much room to work with if you're don't have lights. Expect to pay between $400 to $600 for one.

Of course you can always get a Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 constant. Your wallet and your low light scenes will thank you.
 
The Panasonic micro4/3 7-14mm is awesome....minimal distortion. It ain't cheap (although probably not much more than an antique manual Canon/Nikon lens)...but did I mention it is 7mm? :D
 
swyzlstyx said:
The Panasonic micro4/3 7-14mm is awesome....minimal distortion. It ain't cheap (although probably not much more than an antique manual Canon/Nikon lens)...but did I mention it is 7mm? :D
Click to expand...
+1 on native 7-14. This is the widest normal lens for mFT I believe. Compact super wide zoom with well controlled distortion on Panasonic bodies (corrected in camera). My only issue with it is inability to use filters due to the bulging front element. I wish Panasonic made a provision for rear drop-in filters (like on the new fisheye).

Olympus makes an equivalent 7-14/f4 for FT, which is larger, more expensive and has the same issue with filters. It will probably not autofocus and will likely exhibit some distortion on Panasonic bodies.
 
svecher;2084878....My only issue with it is inability to use filters due to the bulging front element. I wish Panasonic made a provision for rear drop-in filters (like on the new fisheye).....[/quote said:
Too right. One day I'm going to rig up a filter holder for it...or break down and finally buy a matte box to use on my next huge blockbuster movie production: "Cats Playing With Crumpled Post-It Note" :D It's only money...I guess.
Click to expand...
 
By the way the word ya'll are looking for (for "non-fisheye" "normal" etc) is "rectilinear."
 
I'd like getting the Panasonic micro4/3 7-14mm but it's more than a grand.
Is there a super wide without being a fisheye?
Like less than 10mm but rectilinear.
 
cam123 said:
Yup any lens about $500 that is wide.
I really like the 7-14mm but I'm still thinking If there is a cheaper alternative.
I guess I need to start saving now.
Click to expand...
There is none, really. Wide-angle legacy lenses made for 35 mm film are not going to be wide/cheap/normal-enough due to 2x crop.

You can find wide enough 35 mm cinema lenses, but don't expect to pay less than an order of magnitude higher than your target price.

Then there are 16 mm lenses. Wide angle ones will vignette severely on an mFT body.

So the only realistic options at the moment are Panny 7-14 for $1K or Oly 9-18 for half that. Or moving to another platform. Or waiting for some rumored wide-angle primes. Take your pick :)
 
vcassel that Rokinon on Amazon looks like something that would work. I have come across some Russian lenses called Mir Nikon F. I have never heard of them. Anyone have experience with them?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top