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

highsee3 · Dec 9, 2005

aperture7 said:
Re: According to your theory, we can just use any P&S camera for weddings

Only if you are a good photographer

I never said anything about p&s, you are putting words in my mouth, but I have seen a wedding shoot with an M6 and a 50mm that turned out great.

The collective "we" is different than the good photographers that can use most any camera to make excellent results. I'll reiterate, it's the photographer that matters. That was my point.

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?

easy, there is no need to justify it. Just like I don't need to justify the cost of Leica and Zeiss gear that I've both used and loved. I don't need to justify the cost of a Rolex either.

FYI, the 7-14 is one of the best wide angle zooms ever made. Canon has a $1,600 wide angle zoom and it is not as wide. Leica's 21-35mm is $2,900.

How is the 7-14 inferior???

--
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.

E B · Dec 9, 2005

aperture7 said:
Everyone needs an ultra wide and people just can't afford the 7-14.
I believe the 11-22 is not wide enough. So is Olympus going to come
out with a cheaper ultra wide, given all APS-C users now have
multiple cheap ultra wide choices?

I really don't think so. Olympus dSLRs are not an inexpensive camera line and I think they play to cater to the advanced amateur with significant cash to invest.

aperture7 said:
Olympus, being touted as the
newly designed digital system, is certaining lagging behind in the
affordable ultra wide area. Isn't that ironic?

I just don't think they plan to cater to the "affordable" market.

--
Good Shooting,
English Bob

highsee3 · Dec 9, 2005

aperture7 said:
Everyone needs an ultra wide

not true. I'm willing to bet money that you don't even need a ultra wide. Because if you did, you would just pony up and spend the money.

aperture7 said:
and people just can't afford the 7-14.

not true. (people buy cars, boats, houses, and an such all the time), there are hundreds of optics that cost more than $1,200 and people buy them all the time. Any pro making money can afford this lens. Any one who will shoot for a little cash could by this lens. I made less than $20K last year and I could buy this lens. If you had a paper route for three months you could buy this lens.

aperture7 said:
I believe the 11-22 is not wide enough.

wide enough for what? I would say less than 5% of all photos taken are with an angle wider than 21mm FOV. it's a specialized extreme FOV. I think this is where you are mistaken. I guess you were not around when "28mm" was ultra wide.

aperture7 said:
So is Olympus going to come
out with a cheaper ultra wide, given all APS-C users now have
multiple cheap ultra wide choices?

Nope. I'm sorry you can't afford Olympus. Not every one can afford Leica or Zeiss either. Is Leica going to come out with a cheap ultra wide??

aperture7 said:
Olympus, being touted as the
newly designed digital system, is certaining lagging behind in the
affordable ultra wide area. Isn't that ironic?

I don't see the ironic part. They already made one of the best wide angle zooms in the history of optics. They also have a mid level $600 wide angle zoom. Both of these lenses are better than the cheap ones you are talking about. They also have the fisheye.

I don't see why Olympus should make some krap lens to make you happy. I also don't see why you should bug the forum about your personal issue. You made a mistake and now we have to hear about it.

The thing of it is, no one cares that 11-22 isn't wide enough for you, that the 8mm fish eye is too wide or that you think $1,200 is too much to spend on a lens. There are 3 wide angle options and none of them are right for you. All 3 are right for me and a lot of other people.

Olympus doesn't care and there is nothing you can say on these boards the will make them care.

Go pick up a used Canon and that sigma. There are one hundred solutions and you are ignoring all of them. Get creative. I can think of a sub $500 solution that will give you a FOV of 15mm. there are 99 more.
--
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.

adrianox · Dec 9, 2005

--
adrianox

my stuff: http://www.pbase.com/adrianox

Henry Stamm · Dec 9, 2005

aperture7 said:
Everyone needs an ultra wide

No, they don't.

aperture7 said:
and people just can't afford the 7-14.

As already stated, people afford what they want to afford.

aperture7 said:
I believe the 11-22 is not wide enough.

I find the 14-54mm plenty wide enough for ALL my shots. Most of the time, I'm going the other way. For me, the long-range zooms & primes are far more useful and more interesting.

aperture7 said:
So is Olympus going to come
out with a cheaper ultra wide, given all APS-C users now have
multiple cheap ultra wide choices? Olympus, being touted as the
newly designed digital system, is certaining lagging behind in the
affordable ultra wide area. Isn't that ironic?

Not ironic at all. Counting the fisheye, there are or soon will be 3 wide angle lenses. As I implied above, I have no use for any of them.

Cheers,
HS

highsee3 · Dec 9, 2005

Henry Stamm said:
I find the 14-54mm plenty wide enough for ALL my shots.

Here is a 14mm shot which I also find wide enough.

--
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.

E B · Dec 9, 2005

--
Good Shooting,
English Bob

ephemere · Dec 9, 2005

To aperture7: Why don't you pony up and show us what exactly you intend to do with a lens wider than 14mm, not to mention 11mm. Then folks can offer you some photographic advice that doesn't involve spending any money at all.

rander3127 · Dec 9, 2005

--Maybe you should be whining to the aftermarket? Who produce
lenses for companies like Pentax and Minolta and ignore Olympus who
sell more cameras than either Pentax or Minolta.
-Rich

nine44 · Dec 9, 2005

Dude--not sure about how much energy it takes to switch from a system you appear to loathe. But it does seem to me you are perfectly willing to p*ss away alot of TIME talking about it.

Rather than spending all of your time moaning about the system--get some sleep. Then you will have the energy you need to switch to another system and spare us all the drama associated with your Olympus 'mistake.'

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.

Louis_Dobson · Dec 10, 2005

Actually, I find the 14-45 not at its best at 14... The 11-22 seems like good sense to me, if you like WA (and I do).
--
http://www.pbase.com/acam/

jebir · Dec 10, 2005

Actually, if you de-fish to an image with rectilinear proportions, the edges will be very curved and it won't look good. Cropping off to make a rectangular format will make you loose a large part of the original angle-of-view. However, the result still corresponds to something that will fall into the category of ultra wide angles but it is very close to what an 11 mm lens will do (90° AOV).

Here is an example from an 8mm fisheye on an E-1:

More info about this 8mm Peleng lens on the E-1 here:
http://myfourthirds.com/document.php?id=11937

To Aperture7: The lens used in this example was the Peleng 8mm fisheye which cost me $225 (incl. S&H) and I would reccomend it to you as an affordable UW lens. I use it as such because I don't find my use of ultra wide angles being enough to justify any lens costing anything more. This lens has given me several price winning shots and I enjoy very much taking pictures with it. It really makes me learn how to use ultra short lenses - and who knows... maybe I will opt for the 7-14 one day when I find that I need it.

Cheers, Jens.
--
Everything is possible - miracles are just a bit harder

Larry Lynch · Dec 10, 2005

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

I had a "Toddler" once.. Worse than having mice.

I spread lots of food and money around for a period of 18 or 20 years, it ate the food, took the money, got big, and left.

Unlike the mice, though, I found I missed it once it was gone.

--
L.L.
Mystic, Ct.

Robh3 · Dec 10, 2005

I had the Nikkor 18-35 ED lens. Superb (really a* -kicking) quality, almost as good as the 17-35, only 1/3 of the price. There were several offerings at 19-35 for the same price as the 40-150. I think you must have been a canon shooter in the film-SLR days ???

Jón Ragnarsson said:
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/

Flick · Dec 10, 2005

Larry Lynch said:
Flick said:

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

Click to expand...

I had a "Toddler" once.. Worse than having mice.

This one isn't even mine, it's my daughter's.

Larry Lynch said:
I spread lots of food and money around for a period of 18 or 20
years, it ate the food, took the money, got big, and left.

But they keep coming back, bringing their own offspring, plus pets and spouses. i had a very full house for a couple of years!

Larry Lynch said:
Unlike the mice, though, I found I missed it once it was gone.

See above para ;-)

Robh3 · Dec 10, 2005

I agree with aperture7. Bet a new zoom starting at 9mm is on the drawing board. At least if Olympus is to take it's plunge at taking market share in the DSLR world is going to have serious impact.

The Canon 10-22 is an ingenious lens for it's price. Have a look; http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=16194048

adrianox · Dec 10, 2005

albeit i'm not a wide shooter by nature. So i rarely hang out at 14mm - but here's three of my few.

Louis_Dobson said:
Actually, I find the 14-45 not at its best at 14...

1/13s f/22.0 at 14.0mm iso400 (so stopped waaaay down)

1/80s f/4.0 at 14.0mm iso400

1/25s f/3.2 at 14.0mm iso200

suns shining, done the chores, so now it's time to head out with the beast.

--
adrianox

my stuff: http://www.pbase.com/adrianox

Holgs · Dec 19, 2005

Does Canon pay you guys to put posts in forums like this? I certainly hope so, because from the material that I've had the displeasure of having to trawl through, you collectively have no talent or knowledge about photography. As someone who is after information about lenses and not just any old rubbish, I find the comments a real nuisance.

Thanks to those who have something intelligent to say - after reading through the information, I have decided to take the plunge and put an order in for the 11-22 via B+H seeing as I can't find anywhere to purchase locally. I think it will fit my needs perfectly at a reasonable price, which isn't something I can say for any of Canon's products.

Robh3 said:
I agree with aperture7. Bet a new zoom starting at 9mm is on the
drawing board. At least if Olympus is to take it's plunge at taking
market share in the DSLR world is going to have serious impact.

The Canon 10-22 is an ingenious lens for it's price. Have a look;
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/readflat.asp?forum=1029&message=16194048

E B · Dec 19, 2005

The 11-22mm zoom is an excellent lens with good resolution, high contrast and little distortion. You'll enjoy it.

--
Good Shooting,
English Bob

Robh3 · Dec 19, 2005

Do you have any info saying that the 10-22 from Canon is so mutch worse than the 11-22 ???

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

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts