Why is f4 a problem. F4 on the AF is plenty shallow and probably right where you want to be.
Wide angle reality check
- Thread starter dop16mm
- Start date
Why is f4 a problem. F4 on the AF is plenty shallow and probably right where you want to be.
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
When discussing super wide focal lengths, I'd simply focus on the maximum lens aperture for reasons of exposure. Worrying about attaining open apertures for the purpose of shallow DoF on wide angle lenses (esp. for wide shots) will be futile. DoF will only get shallow, IMO, when focusing under 5 feet or in that area. DoF and wide telephoto lenses are not usually found in the same sentence. You'd have to drastically shorten the camera to subject distance to get any out of focus elements in the image. Be prepared for some deep focus.
For example, if my math is right:
A 7mm lens at a very wide F/1.4 with the subject a very close 5 feet away, still has 11.5ft of DoF!!! If the subject was just 24 inches from the plane of focus, there would still be a 1.12 foot DoF... almost unheard of to those who use more normal or less wide focal lengths. A 14mm lens at a very wide aperture of F/1.4 with the subject a very close 5 feet away, has 3.66ft of DoF.
Last edited:
Julienmassie
Member
I just want more than f4 to shoot in low light ... I dont want depth of field in these situation, i just want to open my iris more than f4 to have more light during street night shoot. I will just use other lens to get DOF when i need it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
These are fisheye, but they're extremely wide and faster than f/4:
Peleng 8mm f/3.5
Panasonic fisheye 8mm f/3.5
These are awesome, rectilinear, and way faster than f/4, but probably only rental items. Still, rent 'em for the day when you need such a special-purpose lens:
Zeiss Ultra Prime 8mm f/2.7
Zeiss Ultra Prime 10mm f/2
Zeiss Standard 10mm f/2
Peleng 8mm f/3.5
Panasonic fisheye 8mm f/3.5
These are awesome, rectilinear, and way faster than f/4, but probably only rental items. Still, rent 'em for the day when you need such a special-purpose lens:
Zeiss Ultra Prime 8mm f/2.7
Zeiss Ultra Prime 10mm f/2
Zeiss Standard 10mm f/2
gustavo_viral
Active member
if you already have the lumix 14-140mm, would you prefer to get the 14mm 2.5 or go wider and get the 7-14mm 4.0?
Barry_Green
Moderator
Just got the 7-14 today. It's sweet. And W I D E.
The 14/2.5 is a stop and a half faster than the 14-140 or 7-14. So if you need a low-light lens, it's definitely got a place in the kit. It just depends on how much you need fast & wide. The 20/1.7 (which I also just got today, thank you B&H) is about a full stop faster than the 14mm. So to me the 20mm makes a lot of sense, it's a full 2.5 stops faster than the zooms. The 14mm makes less sense, in general, as it's only 1.5 stops faster. But it's also not released yet. If the reviews come in and proclaim it's awesome, then I might pick it up.
The 14/2.5 is a stop and a half faster than the 14-140 or 7-14. So if you need a low-light lens, it's definitely got a place in the kit. It just depends on how much you need fast & wide. The 20/1.7 (which I also just got today, thank you B&H) is about a full stop faster than the 14mm. So to me the 20mm makes a lot of sense, it's a full 2.5 stops faster than the zooms. The 14mm makes less sense, in general, as it's only 1.5 stops faster. But it's also not released yet. If the reviews come in and proclaim it's awesome, then I might pick it up.
gustavo_viral
Active member
Yeah... i got the 20mm and the nikons 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 in B&H also.
Now i feel that a need something wider, besides de 14-140mm that i already had from GH1. The obvious would be the 7-14mm, but i think its a little expensive. We'll see!
Now i feel that a need something wider, besides de 14-140mm that i already had from GH1. The obvious would be the 7-14mm, but i think its a little expensive. We'll see!
Barry_Green
Moderator
It is expensive for a 2:1 zoom, yes. But it's matched to the camera so that the processing removes chromatic aberrations from the footage, and makes the wide-angle image more rectilinear with less barrel or pincushion distortion. And, it's the widest lens out there that isn't a fisheye. Those factors all added up to me getting it. But yeah, a grand for a lens isn't the cheapest, that's for sure.
tflak
Veteran
My 7-14 just arrived today also. Had previously borrowed a friend's 11-16 Tokina to see how I liked it and compare to a 14. Barry, you commented before on how much difference there was between an 11 and a 7, but have to admit I wasn't prepared for how much wider that 7 actually is! Night and day.
Agreed, the 7-14 is a real gem. Must resist fun house shots...must resist...haha - for the right shots, this lens is hard to beat. Actually, as of now, I guess there's nothing like it.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Yes, it's crazy wide. Way wider than the Tokina. I want to go to a football game and take a shot at full wide so I can compare it to our friendly neighborhood Tokina 11-16 wide shot... 
Thomas Church
Active member
Why is the 7-14mm so expensive ?
Especially since it's pretty slow?
Especially since it's pretty slow?
Ryan Patrick O'Hara
Veteran
It's not easy designing and manufacturing a lens which takes incoming light rays from such extreme non-perpendicular angles and bending them straight... among other optical challenges.
Barry_Green
Moderator
It's "expensive" because it offers an extremely wide angle of view, rectilinear, with chromatic aberration compensation too.
Secondly -- is it expensive? Compare it to the competition. Nikon's closest would be their 10-24 DX lens, which is f/3.5 to f/5.6. Not nearly as wide as the 7-14, but still $900; Canon's version is the 10-22, which is still not as wide, 3.5-4.5, and $850. Or Nikon's "full frame" 14-24 f/2.8. That's about as wide as the 7-14, and a stop faster -- but it's also twice as expensive, at $2,000. Canon doesn't even offer a lens that wide for their full frame cameras, their closest is a 16-35, and that's $1700.
The 7-14 may cost more than we'd wish, but I think it's certainly priced quite competitively compared to what the other manufacturers offer.
Secondly -- is it expensive? Compare it to the competition. Nikon's closest would be their 10-24 DX lens, which is f/3.5 to f/5.6. Not nearly as wide as the 7-14, but still $900; Canon's version is the 10-22, which is still not as wide, 3.5-4.5, and $850. Or Nikon's "full frame" 14-24 f/2.8. That's about as wide as the 7-14, and a stop faster -- but it's also twice as expensive, at $2,000. Canon doesn't even offer a lens that wide for their full frame cameras, their closest is a 16-35, and that's $1700.
The 7-14 may cost more than we'd wish, but I think it's certainly priced quite competitively compared to what the other manufacturers offer.
Multi-Media
Well-known member
Finally nailed my 7-14 today on Ebay...
I now have pretty much what I need to get started once the camera arrives.
My lineup as it stands today:
Panny 7-14 (just acquired)
Panny 20mm 1.7 (got last month)
Panny 14-140 (got last month)
Nikon 55 macro 3.5 w/1:1 extender (had since 1969)
Nikon 50mm 1.2 (just acquired)
Tokina 12-24
Nikon 24-120
Nikon 80-200 w/2X tele extender
Rainbow Imaging Nikon to Micro 4/3 adapter
(would like to get the Panny 14mm 2.5 pancake for crane and steadycam work)
Originally thought I'd just use my existing Nikon glass, but I'm really glad I will have the proper camera to lens communication even though there is an overlap of focal lengths. I might get a GH2 since I now have the Panny lenses and dump the Nikon body along with the 12-24 and the 24-120. It would simplify what I carry around... I could just throw the GH2 in the kit for stills and it could possibly act as an emergency backup just in case the AFX craps out on a shoot... I'd at least be able to get something on video.
Now... on to the build of the new 64bit workstation and the upgrade to CS5 from CS3... still thrashing out preview issues (see post in Premier Forum and offer insights if you can)... thanks
I now have pretty much what I need to get started once the camera arrives.
My lineup as it stands today:
Panny 7-14 (just acquired)
Panny 20mm 1.7 (got last month)
Panny 14-140 (got last month)
Nikon 55 macro 3.5 w/1:1 extender (had since 1969)
Nikon 50mm 1.2 (just acquired)
Tokina 12-24
Nikon 24-120
Nikon 80-200 w/2X tele extender
Rainbow Imaging Nikon to Micro 4/3 adapter
(would like to get the Panny 14mm 2.5 pancake for crane and steadycam work)
Originally thought I'd just use my existing Nikon glass, but I'm really glad I will have the proper camera to lens communication even though there is an overlap of focal lengths. I might get a GH2 since I now have the Panny lenses and dump the Nikon body along with the 12-24 and the 24-120. It would simplify what I carry around... I could just throw the GH2 in the kit for stills and it could possibly act as an emergency backup just in case the AFX craps out on a shoot... I'd at least be able to get something on video.
Now... on to the build of the new 64bit workstation and the upgrade to CS5 from CS3... still thrashing out preview issues (see post in Premier Forum and offer insights if you can)... thanks
The Olympus 7-14 is actually better glass than the Panasonic - it's just 4/3 instead of µ4/3, so somewhat larger.
Another good example of my continuing belief that DSLR's and camcorders do not have to be mutually exclusive, that it is a false polemic, and that many, many folks will be working in this way. I wonder how long before he will be shooting multicam? He He...
If there is moire or aliasing there, he doesn't have to use the footage from the GH2, if there isn't he has a more dynamic edit and he is covered for the AGF100 on top of that.
Last edited:
Rick Burnett
Section Moderator
My only interest in the GH2 is the crop mode. I am very interested to see how that footage sits with the AF100.
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
If the sensor is cropped to a smaller size could we just use a smaller sensor to begin with? The whole idea is to have a sensor as close to 35mm as possible.