Wide angle reality check

Jesse Brauning said:
Also, have you considered buying a set of older prime lenses, say... Minolta MDs? I've got a lovely bunch for sale.
Click to expand...

I have the 58mm f/1.2 MD Rokkor and it is a great lens on the 7D. I don't think I will ever have a need for 110mm lens at 1.2, hmmmmm, well actually shooting indoor events where you want a couple extreme shallow d.o.p.. A specialty lens. Just thinking out loud again trying to figure out which EOS lenses I am going to get rid of and which to keep. Maybe all of them. I mean, you can't beat the Pany 7-14mm. That is crazy wide and if you want edge to edge sharpness f/4.0 will probably do it. My Sigma 30mm APS-C sized lens is pretty sharp but at f/2.8 taking a group photo that is from edge to edge would be fine if you were absolutely perpendicular to the subjects. I thought I was until I checked later and the 10 people out of 200 that were on the right side were all out of focus. At f/4.0 that may not have happened.
 
JesterJJZ said:
Which one?

Olympus E 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 Zuiko

or

Olympus M ED 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6

The 4/3rds one seems a bit more robust.
Click to expand...


the native micro 4/3rds one

i shot this with it

heres a few stills

Im about 10 feet from the Theater here standing just in the street. and this is my son who is roughly half as tall as i am so his head is about 2 feet from the camera

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
boulder said:
I hope this new lens you guys are talking about is also very inexpensive.
Click to expand...

if your referring to the 7-500mm nifty fiffy sized .5 past light speed f1.4 rock out with your glass out, you're absolutely wrong, by the demands of the people for the people it would certainly only cost about $150 dollars with a $75 rebate ;)
 
Just make one decent 1 decent zoom for AF100 like RED 17-50 t2.9 and stop selling Photographic Zooms to PROS....its that simple!
 
avro said:
Just make one decent 1 decent zoom for AF100 like RED 17-50 t2.9 and stop selling Photographic Zooms to PROS....its that simple!
Click to expand...


actually the one possible photographic exception are the good ol one touch zooms. i have an fd 70-210 f/4 from ages ago that i'm very eager to try out. that is, when frickin adorama stops BSing around and gets me my af100....
 
Well, you can just by the RED 17-50, or the sigma 17-50 which has been rumoured to be the same lens as the RED anyway.

avro said:
Just make one decent 1 decent zoom for AF100 like RED 17-50 t2.9 and stop selling Photographic Zooms to PROS....its that simple!
Click to expand...
 
PLS do Your research.....18-50mm t3.0 was Sigma redone...17-50mm t2.9 is NEW Cine Zoom.
It has proper Cine Controls(iris,zoom,focul)...well made no plastic here.
Stop mixing PHOTO zooms with Cinema ones.
 
avro said:
Stop mixing PHOTO zooms with Cinema ones.
Click to expand...
As long as the cine zoom costs 5x as much as the photo zoom, people will continue to use the cheap photo zooms.

And they will continue to complain about them. Because any time you use a product for a purpose other than what it was designed for, there will be complaints that it doesn't do what you want.

If this was a perfect world and everyone was rich, all the cine-style shooters here would be using cine zooms. But in this world that we live in, a cine zoom costs $10,000 for a Red 18-85, or $40,000 for a Cooke, or $80,000 for a top-end Angeniux. So don't be surprised if people still use something like a Canon 24-105...

(but yes, for those who haven't used a cine zoom, it's miles different from an SLR lens. If you're making the low-cost choice, just recognize you're making the low-cost choice and that there are reasons those cine lenses are so expensive.)
 
In 2011 all major lens players can make 4/3 micro BASIC MANUAL WIDE ZOOM WITH CONSTANT t stop.
Dos not have to be PL Zoom.
PLS Voigtlander make one zoom 15-50mm t 2.8 from METAL and GLASS with iris,zoom and focus controls and make it 4/3 micro and under 1 KG.

I WILL BUY IT TOO.

p.s. and why i am at it how about 2' VF(like ex-3) so i do not have to use 3rd Party one - hate HDMI cable and other options on camera body.
 
avro said:
p.s. and why i am at it how about 2' VF(like ex-3) so i do not have to use 3rd Party one - hate HDMI cable and other options on camera body.
Click to expand...
Because the EX3 doesn't have a VF. It has an LCD panel with a magnifier stuck on it. You could do the same thing with the AF100 if you wanted to; it's the same res as the EX3.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because the EX3 doesn't have a VF. It has an LCD panel with a magnifier stuck on it. You could do the same thing with the AF100 if you wanted to; it's the same res as the EX3.
Click to expand...

Yes you can-would it be something if in 2011 somebody designing large sensor camera understood one needs for focusing VF/magnifier. Oh my God-we need VON BRAUN for that kind of logical thinking.
Don't take me wrong i understand it is great camera for $5000. . . but LARGE SENSOR camera especially MUST have VF! ZOOMS - GLASS ! I have been looking for past 10 years for LIGHT / Perfect PRO Video Camera. Instead i must carry my 7KG beast because of some basic shortcomings.

I was to pick up my Panasonic camera 3 days ago in Sydney...
For some reason they(Panasonic) sent cameras on Tuesday by TRUCK to Melbourne(10 hour drive)....then after urgently talking to my dealer(LEMAC) they on Wednesday "urgently" sent camera by TRUCK again(if i was in Somalia they would send it by CAMEL) back to Sydney-why not by overnight plane.?.

That is kind of Logic i am dealing with in PRO VIDEO.
I am very sorry for my sarcastic remarks.

Kind Regards
Jiri Vrozina
p.s. cancelled my af100 yesterday
Today is Saturday and Camera is not here......
 
heres something based on my shooting with the AF100
20mm 1.7 is plenty wide. i actually prefer a 35mm more
11-16 tokina is really wide

fast wide is still missing but if youve got all fo the above, you're covered.
 
dcloud said:
heres something based on my shooting with the AF100
20mm 1.7 is plenty wide. i actually prefer a 35mm more
11-16 tokina is really wide

fast wide is still missing but if youve got all fo the above, you're covered.
Click to expand...


good to hear, which version of the 11-16 2.8 do you have? canon/nikon?

both have the clutch for manual focus without power if i recall?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top