Wide angle reality check

editman said:
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.
Click to expand...

You could, but no camera exists that I see that shoots that size sensor with a m4/3 lens mount. That's why I am curious how mixing crop-mode looks, which is operating at the proper OLPF for the sensor, so that the aliasing and moire should be comparable to the AF100, with the AF100. I think a lot of people are curious about this.
 
It is informative to look at the production numbers of lenses made in the past for popular SLRs. The seventies were glory days for 35mm photography, with scores of 'camera shops' in any mid-sized city, photo kiosks in parking lots, shopping malls & grocery stores. A trip to the zoo revealed hundreds of weekend shooters with 'high-end' cameras and often a kit bag full of lenses. Fold out pages of ads for Canon, Nikon, Minolta, Pentax, Olympus, Konica, Contax -- likely others I've forgotten. Half a dozen monthly photo mags -- in the UK, that many weekly photo mags. I worked in a camera store to pay my way through college -- on a typical weekend I'd sell half a dozen SLRs, and so too would four or five others in our shop alone.

My point? Despite all that enthusiasm, and all those sales, and all that advertising ... some of the very lenses we covet today, those 'big glass' fast lenses -- the Nikon 105, the Canon 85, not to mention the sub-20mm category of super wides -- sold only hundreds of units, around the world, over a decade of production.

You may want a super-fast super-wide zoom (and so do I) but the development costs alone will push the price into the thousands I'd guess. It's one thing to repackage a design developed years ago and still sitting in a drawer some where -- another thing entirely to work up from scratch for a market that -- frankly -- is a niche market in a field that is itself a niche market.

Just my humble opinion.

Cheers,
GB
 
We send people to space, i think we can figure out a super-fast super-wide zoom ...
Its the only thing im complaning about, i have all the others lens that i need, but whit the *&?*@ crop factor i just need a super-fast super-wide lens to complete my kit.

Like i said they made a 7-14 at f4 ... just made a f1,4 or f2 version ...
Im ready to pay, i think a lot of people are ready to pay.
 
Last edited:
Julienmassie said:
Like i said they made a 7-14 at f4 ... just made a f1,4 or f2 version ...
Im ready to pay, i think a lot of people are ready to pay.
Click to expand...

I believe so few people are willing to pay the thousands of dollars such a lens would cost that it will never be built. Just my opinion ... but what you ask for would be a huge step up from lenses that already cost thousands. Nikon makes a zoom with similar range (though not as wide) in full-frame though two stops slower ... and it sells for $2,000. Add two stops and you will double the price. So I suspect you are asking for a $4,000 lens, and that is IF it can be done and still deliver enough sharpness and rectilinearity that you'd be happy at any price.

Don't hold your breath!
 
Julienmassie said:
We send people to space, i think we can figure out a super-fast super-wide zoom ...
Its the only thing im complaning about, i have all the others lens that i need, but whit the *&?*@ crop factor i just need a super-fast super-wide lens to complete my kit.

Like i said they made a 7-14 at f4 ... just made a f1,4 or f2 version ...
Im ready to pay, i think a lot of people are ready to pay.
Click to expand...
What does the crop factor have to do with it? I repeat -- can you find a super-fast, super-wide zoom on ANY format? ANY sensor? Find a 14-28 f/1.4 zoom out there for a full-frame camera. It doesn't exist. And if it did, it'd cost thousands of dollars, probably tens of thousands of dollars.

The 7-14 f/4 gives you the same field of view as a 14-28 f/4 on a full-frame camera.
 
Barry_Green said:
What does the crop factor have to do with it? I repeat -- can you find a super-fast, super-wide zoom on ANY format? ANY sensor? Find a 14-28 f/1.4 zoom out there for a full-frame camera. It doesn't exist. And if it did, it'd cost thousands of dollars, probably tens of thousands of dollars.

The 7-14 f/4 gives you the same field of view as a 14-28 f/4 on a full-frame camera.
Click to expand...

Yup.

F/4 is standard, F/2.8 is a luxury, and F/2 is top shelf but even more rare.

The fastest wide-zoom lens I know of is a 15-40 T/2 by Cooke. It's on Ebay for $38,000. Any wider or any faster is almost unthinkable.

Sensors are getting cleaner and faster. F/4 is nothing to shake a stick at.


What I find really amusing, are the few people who want a faster super-wide angle zoom not for exposure but because they want shallow DoF. Little do they realize how hard that is going to be at such wide angles. :) Almost impossible!
 
Last edited:
tipota said:
Really waited until somebody would finally mention what you wrote. A 14 mm is really good enough for most wide-angle shots. Thank you.

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

That lens would not only be amazing, but weigh about 350 lbs.... maybe more.
 
Julienmassie said:
Rap star like it wide YO!
Yes im looking for something like this but this is a f4 lens, im just waiting for a better option. I already have all the others lens that i need, i just dont have my wider than the widest of the widest wide lenses at the moment because there is this crop factor, but im full equip and good from 40 to 200mm.
Click to expand...

Just so you know, this is a lens, thats not only one of the widest FOV lenses ive ever seen thats rectilinear, but the fact that it isnt 35,000$ alone is astounding. You probbal arent gonna get too much better than this. Plus an F4 isnt that slow. I have a F4 24-105 on my 5D and i hardly feel it as slow. If youre shooting Rap videos youre gonna be using lights anyway. A ringlite would be bitchin on this lens... give it a try.
 
Barry_Green said:
Yeah, why settle for f1.4? Why not f0.0? They could do it if they really wanted to. (sigh)
Click to expand...

It seams like if it was posable then someone in the last 170 years of photography would have done it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you look at those side view diagrams of lenses (like here http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/wide.html#i_009-018mm_f040-056_olympus ) it appears that the individual lenses/groups are extremely tightly packed. Is it this that complicates maters? simply that the elements can't get any closer before they start to intersect one another. Further complicated by the necessity of wide angle lenses to have a shorter focal length (less space to put the elements)

It seams like the electronics of high ISO sensors will outpace the science of optics and make tomorrows f/4 yesterdays f/.95
 
john deaver said:
It seams like if it was posable then someone in the last 170 years of photography would have done it.

Correct me if I'm wrong but when you look at those side view diagrams of lenses (like here http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/wide.html#i_009-018mm_f040-056_olympus ) it appears that the individual lenses/groups are extremely tightly packed. Is it this that complicates maters? simply that the elements can't get any closer before they start to intersect one another. Further complicated by the necessity of wide angle lenses to have a shorter focal length (less space to put the elements)

It seams like the electronics of high ISO sensors will outpace the science of optics and make tomorrows f/4 yesterdays f/.95
Click to expand...

The lenses need to get larger too, in the other dimension. When you make larger glass, it gets expensive QUICK. So if all the elements need to get larger, you can see how that lens quickly gets out of hand. I imagine that the lens manufacturers pick a price point and then design to that. If the lens was $4k they'd probably not sell many. Not compared to a lens that costs say $1k. Would they sell 4 times as less? I bet they have a lot of statistics on past sales, but then, I really think the landscape is changing rapidly on SLR lens sales.
 
aguia said:
This review is a little wonky but I still think it is worth looking over before buying a Panasonic 7-14mm:
http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/H...Vario-7-14mm-f4/Introduction-The-Matchup.html
Click to expand...
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.
 
john deaver said:
It seams like the electronics of high ISO sensors will outpace the science of optics and make tomorrows f/4 yesterdays f/.95
Click to expand...

But remember, it's not just about light passing through, it's also about the DoF characteristics as well. High ISO isn't going to fix that. Personally, I'd like to see something like a 7mm rectilinear prime at a max of F2.8. That would be perfect for me. That said, I don't see it happening. For video, the 7mm is such a special purpose lens that I don't think they'd sell huge amounts as a prime. As the zoom, I can see they would. I love my Tokina 11-16mm so I'll just stick with that.

(Not that I don't plan on renting a 7-14mm to play with) :)
 
grimepoch said:
But remember, it's not just about light passing through, it's also about the DoF characteristics as well. High ISO isn't going to fix that. Personally, I'd like to see something like a 7mm rectilinear prime at a max of F2.8. That would be perfect for me. That said, I don't see it happening. For video, the 7mm is such a special purpose lens that I don't think they'd sell huge amounts as a prime. As the zoom, I can see they would. I love my Tokina 11-16mm so I'll just stick with that.
Click to expand...

Agreed but wide angle and shallow DoF are sort of mutually exclusive anyway.

I use a Olympus 9-18 a lot and i really like it. its crazy sharp and it was half the price of the panasonic and 1/4 of the size and still f/4. Go figure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top