Okay, here is another noob question. I'm shooting an outdoor documentary and I need a wide angle for alot of the shots. I have the Lumix and I know it is not as fast as the Tokina, but I don't really need a fast lens since I'm shooting under the sun. My question is, is it signifcantly wider? In other words $700 dollars wider?
lumix 14-140/Tokina 11-16
- Thread starter gbadgley
- Start date
Greg Smith
Veteran
Every millimeter of focal length makes a big difference at the short end of the scale. So yes, the Tokina's angle of view is significantly, visibly wider than the Lumix. It's a really fine lens, but that also means the various wide-angle effects (exaggerated noses when used up close, and the apparent inflation of nearby objects at the sides of the frame) are greater as well, so the look is more likely to be noticed by the audience as a warping of reality for special emphasis or effect. Whether this is a difference worth paying $700 for depends entirely on you and what you will shoot, and I can't pretend to advise about that!
Personally, the 14mm of the Lumix, or maybe just a millimeter shorter, is about as wide as I'd normally go in non-fiction shooting unless I was intentionally going for a special effect that would look unusual enough to call attention to itself. And I say that even though 90% of my handheld shooting is with lenses wider than 25mm (in AF100 terms), and I like to work up close to my subjects.
- Greg
Personally, the 14mm of the Lumix, or maybe just a millimeter shorter, is about as wide as I'd normally go in non-fiction shooting unless I was intentionally going for a special effect that would look unusual enough to call attention to itself. And I say that even though 90% of my handheld shooting is with lenses wider than 25mm (in AF100 terms), and I like to work up close to my subjects.
- Greg
Erik Naso
Veteran
The Tokina at 22mm (11mm) equivalent in 35mm is the perfect landscape lens. Even 24mm will work well. I say go out and shoot some landscape tests with what you have and see if you really need to spend the cash.
I love my 7-14 Lumix. Its also slow but a really fun lens. Cost around $900 but adds a unique lens to you kit that doesn't overlap your 14-140.
I love my 7-14 Lumix. Its also slow but a really fun lens. Cost around $900 but adds a unique lens to you kit that doesn't overlap your 14-140.
ScottNelson
Well-known member
The Tokina 11-16 is my go-to, must have lens and I do a lot of outdoor documentary work.
I Just finished a shoot at the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and loved the extreme of going from the Nikon 300mm EDIF f/4...
to the Tokina 11-16...
I've got a Lumix 14-45 and couldn't imagine relying on it for a shot like this.
Regards,
Scott
Edit: Had a PM about how I control the 11-16. I'm using a Canon version lens preset to f/8 on my 7D and coupled to the '100 with a $29 Fotodiox adaptor from Amazon. I set the ISO to 200-320-400 to control exposure with the ND set to 1, 2, or 3, where ever necessary to get the shot.
I Just finished a shoot at the Klamath Basin National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon and loved the extreme of going from the Nikon 300mm EDIF f/4...
to the Tokina 11-16...
I've got a Lumix 14-45 and couldn't imagine relying on it for a shot like this.
Regards,
Scott
Edit: Had a PM about how I control the 11-16. I'm using a Canon version lens preset to f/8 on my 7D and coupled to the '100 with a $29 Fotodiox adaptor from Amazon. I set the ISO to 200-320-400 to control exposure with the ND set to 1, 2, or 3, where ever necessary to get the shot.
Last edited:
Bern Caughey
Veteran
The 11-16mm is a fine lens, but you might consider the Lumix 7-14 instead. It's massively wider, rectilinear, sharper, & has better contrast.
On the flip side both are parfocal, & the Tokina is much faster, plus will work on larger S35 cameras.
On the flip side both are parfocal, & the Tokina is much faster, plus will work on larger S35 cameras.