Wii there be a cheaper ultra wide coming in the mid term?

llpoolej said:

Aperature, for 3 months you have been complaining about Oly. If
you can't afford it, buy a Canon XT and get the consumer, low grade
and cheap lenses. They have plenty to choose from include 3rd
party lenses.

You get what you pay for. Just because Jaguar doesn't make a car
you can afford, doesn't mean they are unfair to those who don't
have the cash. Such is life

Get a better job if the money is the problem.

Click to expand...

I second this. Why did you buy into Olympus? You should have picked up a Canon or Nikon.

The 11-22 is wide enough for me. My advice is, learn to shoot with what you got, a 7-14 is not going to make you a better photographer.

there is plenty of money to be made with the 14-54. Go shoot a wedding and then buy the 7-14. Shoot some senior portraits and then go buy the 7-14. Hang a show at your local gallery and if your work is good, it will sell. Then you can pick up the 7-14.

What ever you do, be pro-active or just buy a Canon or Nikon.
--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

aperture7 said:

It takes a lot of energy to switch system, you know? Besides, I
just don't get what Olympus is thinking, which intrigues me.

Click to expand...

Sometimes I wonder why people buy into a system that does not offer (well in case it does at a price) features people deem to be critical.

Regards,
Scott

--
As we celebrate mediocrity all the boys upstairs want to see
How much you'll pay for what you used to get for free

• Tom Petty

Sorry if I came off a little harsh, it's just that most of the really good lenses cost money. The 7-14 is a pro lens, has a pro price tag and produces pro results. End of story.

I just was looking through your history and saw this in one of your old threads.

"Olympus for wedding? That's inappropriate. Oly's low light performance is the worst and you are not supposed to use flash. You don't have image stablisation, no fast prime, poor high ISO performance, how do you shoot wedding?"

Olympus for wedding's are inappropriate?? BS. Not supposed to use flash? BS. How do you shoot a wedding??

Well, it can be done and is done all the time. First of all, 99% of the wedding photographers I know use flash (I used to print pro work at a custom photo lab, so I worked with several dozen wedding photographers)

Secondly, most wedding photographers don't use primes.

The reason I bring this up is because it just appears to me that you are putting too much emphasis on your gear. You don't need the 7-14 to enjoy photography, you don't need the 7-14 to make money as a photographer. You CAN use your Olympus gear for a whole host of things including weddings. The low light performance is not worse than film ever was and people did fine for the last 150 years. IS is nice, but it's not a cure all. People still blur at low shutter speeds. What you do need is a good photographer behind the camera.

In this article, it says the it was the wedding photographers that really enjoyed using the E-1.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/e1-2nd.shtml

Here is a shot made with a camera the can't shoot weddings. Heck, I could shoot a wedding with an OM-1 and a 50mm lens and flash. (The only lens I used for this wedding was the 14-54) You don't need a magic camera to make a bride happy. She just wants to see her loved ones.



--
http://www.highsee3.smugmug.com

'A camera maker that simply copies others' idea has no right to call itself an original
maker in the first place.' -Mr. Maitani, creator of the OM photographic system.

First you say you want ultra wide, then complain that a 7mm is 180 degrees?

I suggest you sort out what you DO want, and then go away and buy it.

Olympus have an 8mm ultra wide (NOT a fish eye) coming, cheaper than juast about anybody else at that size, and the 11-22 is a bargain for the quality of images, and it being pretty unique in length.

Yes, the 7-14 IS expensive, but that is equivalent to a 14 to 28 in old money. I never heard of ANYTHING that wide in a zoom ever...
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

What Olympus is thinking?
Erm...

Here's a BRAND new, all singing all dancing digital system. Let's build up a lens line up.

3 years on, we have lenses from 7 to 300mm, without ANY outside assistance, apart from 3 from Sigma, which aren't at either extreme.

If you don't like it, then sell up and swap out. We don't mind, we are quite happy.

What I don't get is what are YOU thinking?

Spouting abuse and rubbish, when it just sounds like you bought the WRONG camera.

TTG
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

The Oly 8mm is a 16mm full frame fisheye in 35mm lingo. It does not produce a circular image.

In the right hands, it offer a dramatic perspective very different from even the widest rectilinear lens. I won a couple of photo contest with my AIS 16mm 2.8 nikkor in the past.
Regards,
Alfred

Sorry I am not able to post samples, I am in the mountains and use the Hotel iMac for 15min a day; but the results from 17.5-45/3.5-5.6 (52mm filter) + Unomat 0.45x (52mmm thread) = 8-20 (16-40 in 35mm terms) surprised.
No CA as in some Raynox converters have used.

Of course AF motor struggles...

Hi Tim,

That would be amazing. I'd love soemthing for my E1 that would alow me to do this (see link after text). This was the Sigma 12-24 (bowwowed fro either Jono or Quentin as I only have the 13-30). It wqs on my FF Kodak, so no good for the Olympus. I think I'll probably get the 11-22 in the end as it's reasonably wide and reasonably priced. I loved Matt's Glastonbury pics with it.
http://www.pbase.com/kodak_challenge/image/45713405

Tim the Grey said:

Yes, the 7-14 IS expensive, but that is equivalent to a 14 to 28 in
old money. I never heard of ANYTHING that wide in a zoom ever...
--
http://catmangler.smugmug.com/

Click to expand...

Sorry for terrible typos. That's what comes of having a toddler grabbing your hand when you're typing!

Blame my small, tyrannical editor, who was taking a break from CBeebies to help me type!

F as I only have the 13-30).m/

In the old film SLR days, 24mm was the widest we could dream using. The 21mm and 18mm were just for the pro's. And 11mm is equal to between 18.5 and 21.8mm depending on how you mesure it.

11mm is already showing a bit of distortion, especially indoors, I don't know if anything wider would be practical.
Maybe a 9mm f3.5 for $400 would bridge the gap for the amateurs?

--
http://www.4-3system.com/
http://jonr.light.is/

If Olympus really cared about the competition, wouldn't the re-evaluate their MSRP on the 300mm f2.8 and 90-250mm f2.8 lenses?

I know...production cost plus limited demand requires them to sell it for the price they sell it at...blah blah blah...

No manufacturer can simply ignore the competition. I am saying that Olympus did not decide to make the 11-22mm lens because as you put it...the competition did not have a lens wider than that...

They made that lens because it worked good with their system.

aperture7 said:

No regard with competition? You think Oly is run by madmen? Why do
they price the bodies cheaper than competition then? How old are
you? What's your education level?

Click to expand...

--
-Who are the Chromats, and why are they aberrating?-

aperture7 said:

I suppose Olympus designed the 11-22 thinking APS-C DSLRs didn't
even have viable 28mm equivalent wide angle lens. Olympus therefore
decided 11-22 was wide enough for amateur Olympus users

Click to expand...

I believe that the 11-22/2.8-3,5 is 11-22 because it is for many people the perfect range for street shooting going from very wide to standard in one zoom lens, which also is fast and good.

It's not an amateur ultrawide (get as much as possible in my picture) lens like a Sigma 10-20/4-5,6

best regards

Cephalotus said:

It's not an amateur ultrawide (get as much as possible in my
picture) lens like a Sigma 10-20/4-5,6

Click to expand...

This was not intended to be a negative point on the Sigma. I wanted to say that it is just a different type of lens.

Such a lens is definitly missing in the 4/3 lineup, for those who like such a lens.

I don't get what you mean. I want ultra wide, not fish eye. ultra wide is below 120 degree and fish eye is 180 degree. Now which part do you not understand?

The 8mm is a fish eye and why do you say it's not? You mean Oly site is wrong?

Do you know other users can have a Sigma 10-20 for $500?

Yes, but 180 degree is just too wide. I'm looking for an cheaper alternative to the 7-14

My problem is that Oly pro lens cost much more than other pro lens, at the same time being inferior. How do you justify that?

I just don't see that.

The Oly lenses are fine. They have cheap ones, which work, and very pricey ones, which work very well indeed. Thay have SOME gaps but not many - notably a cheap long tele (and I'm old fashioned and like fast cheap primes, but I'm in a tiny minority).

The real problem, in so far as there is one, is that 4/3rds is still a minority system and nobody is making cheap aftermarket lenses, except Sigma, who aren't selling any because apart from the 55-200 they've picked stupid ranges that Oly themselves have covered with cheap lenses (or so it seems to me).

However, the E500 is selling nicely so with luck 4/3rds will now boom a bit.

I'm baffled by the people telling you to buy a Canon / Nikon for cheap glass: equiping an E500 with sane glass costs not too much.

I'm baffled by your question as to why, if we all have so much money, we are using 4/3rds - because it is the best system by far: the cameras are small and neat, and sensor technolofy is moving so fast that we are already pushing the lens technology with this tiny form factor. The only remaining issue is noise, and if you REALLY want to shoot at ISO1600 then you either have a specialist requirement or you need to look at what you are doing.

Finally, have you ever used a 7mm (14mm equivalent) lens? That's an insane fisheye - something most people will only ever use for effects. 11 (22mm equivalent) is absolutely fine, and goes as far as you'll be able to go without the picture shreiking WIIIIIDE ANGLE! at the viewer, which is something one only wants to do occasionally.

Much better to add the relative cheap forthcoming 8mm sanely priced lens for the occasions when you need it.

Saying that, I'd LIKE the 7-14 zoom, but then I'd LIKE all sorts of things I can't afford. I can shoot fine without it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

Well, I did my degree at the London School Of Economics, specialising in economic planning and psychology, after which I ran construction companies before starting a computer consultancy, which I've run for fifteen years odd. I'm 44.

Olympus are not competeting head to head with Canon and Nikon, because they can't. As with the original OM series, they've come up witha smaller, lighter range of cameras, and they've based it on the idea that dedicated equipment that takes advantage of the smaller sensor size will do a better job and be profitable to make even in smaller numbers than the C&N stuff, thanks to lower production costs.

Whether this will pay off remains to be seen - before the E500 I had major doubts, now I think they may well do it, if the E-X is any good.

In the meantime it is NOT a C or an N with a different badge. It has distinct advantages (the E500 is a full feauture camera, and yet it costs no more than a crippled lash-up like a D50, the E1 was tiny for what it did) and distinct disadvantages (4/3 means either small or dim or expensive viewfinder - can I have dim please, and really only Oly themselves supply lenses).

Personally I think the OLy range is well served for cheap wide angles, or will be once the 8mm is out (8mm for special occasions and 11-22 as a walkabout lens for those of us who tend to use WA will be fine).

What is missing is a cheap long tele, and a cheap fast prime (no macro) I hope they are working on it.

--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

aperture7 said:

My problem is that Oly pro lens cost much more than other pro lens,
at the same time being inferior. How do you justify that?

Click to expand...

Stop the trolling, please.

It starts to get very boring.