Reading mode: Light Dark

Is the 11-22 worth the money?

Go to last post
fivehole said:
I'm considering buying the 11-22 mm lens. In my neck of the woods
it goes for $889.00 cdn. I currently own the 2 kit lenses and
hardly ever use the 40-150. I mainly shoot scenery and landscapes.
Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreiciatted.

Thanks Darren

http://www.photo.net/photos/darrenyates
Click to expand...
Yes, it and your 40-150 would be a perfect couple. The optical quality will impress you and the wide angle coverage is great. Well worth the cost. There's tons of postings on this site with examples, and I'm sure PBase has many, many files taken with this lens that you can pull up and view.
 
It's worth every penny.........BUT.........I suspect you can get it less expensive than the price you quoted.
 
Darren,
The simple answer is yes.

I've had mine for several months and as far as I'm concerned it's the sharpest lens I've owned in the nearly 40 years I've been shooting.

I also have the 14~54 and it, too, is a great lens but not nearly as sharp as the 11~22.

--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
'Bootstrap?'
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch



40% of what I say is 60% accurate.
 
fivehole said:
I'm considering buying the 11-22 mm lens. In my neck of the woods
it goes for $889.00 cdn. I currently own the 2 kit lenses and
hardly ever use the 40-150. I mainly shoot scenery and landscapes.
Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreiciatted.
Click to expand...
It depends. I think it is worth it, but if you have to go eating Ramon noodles and ketchsup packets for a couple of months to be able to afford it, probably not.

You might want to look at the pictures you are taking, and see how many times you are at 14mm rather than 45mm on your 14-45mm lens. If you shoot a lot at 14mm, you probably could use the wider lens. I looked at my current stats, and I use the 11-22mm maybe about 8-10% of the time, the 50-200mm about 20% of the time, the 50mm macro about 6-8% of the time, the 14-54mm about 60% of the time, and the rest are the lenses I don't use that much anymore. Recently, I've used it to get more coverage of the stage when I sit up close, and shoot performers, though in the last renaissance faire I did, I was actually too close, and started the yearning to get the 7-14mm.

If you have an Olympus flash, the builtin diffuser of the FL-36 and FL-50 will allow you to use the flash with the 11-22mm lens at 11mm. Also, being a f/2.8-3.5 lens, the 11-22mm will give you a stop or so extra of light, which might be useful if you are shooting in less than perfect light.

Note, the 11-22mm can also focus somewhat closer than the 14-45mm, but not like the macro lenses or the 14-54mm.
 
Thanks for the helpfull info. I was at the camera shop on saturday "playing" with a bunch of the lenses. The 7-14 was awesome, not the price though.
Michael Meissner said:
fivehole said:
I'm considering buying the 11-22 mm lens. In my neck of the woods
it goes for $889.00 cdn. I currently own the 2 kit lenses and
hardly ever use the 40-150. I mainly shoot scenery and landscapes.
Any comments or suggestions would be greatly appreiciatted.
Click to expand...
It depends. I think it is worth it, but if you have to go eating
Ramon noodles and ketchsup packets for a couple of months to be
able to afford it, probably not.

You might want to look at the pictures you are taking, and see how
many times you are at 14mm rather than 45mm on your 14-45mm lens.
If you shoot a lot at 14mm, you probably could use the wider lens.
I looked at my current stats, and I use the 11-22mm maybe about
8-10% of the time, the 50-200mm about 20% of the time, the 50mm
macro about 6-8% of the time, the 14-54mm about 60% of the time,
and the rest are the lenses I don't use that much anymore.
Recently, I've used it to get more coverage of the stage when I sit
up close, and shoot performers, though in the last renaissance
faire I did, I was actually too close, and started the yearning to
get the 7-14mm.

If you have an Olympus flash, the builtin diffuser of the FL-36 and
FL-50 will allow you to use the flash with the 11-22mm lens at
11mm. Also, being a f/2.8-3.5 lens, the 11-22mm will give you a
stop or so extra of light, which might be useful if you are
shooting in less than perfect light.

Note, the 11-22mm can also focus somewhat closer than the 14-45mm,
but not like the macro lenses or the 14-54mm.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.photo.net/photos/darrenyates
 
Another thought.

Many decry the 3mm difference between the 11~22 and the 14~45/54. What we should look at is the divverence in FOV. @11mm the FOV is, according to the Olympus site, 89° and @ 14mm the FOV is 75°. That 14° difference, in real life, can be huge.
The 7~14 is an amazing 114° however the 8mm FE is a full 180°.
These statistics are provided by Olympus.
--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
'Bootstrap?'
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch



40% of what I say is 60% accurate.
 
Now I have an idea.

You go pick up the 7-14.
Send it to me.
I'll send you one of my 11-22s and pay the duty.
 
If you buy it, find a US retailer that will ship USPS and save yourself a couple of hundred. The original series of E Lenses are priced in 2004 US$ and have not kept pace with C$ appreciation. That's why you find their newer lenses competitively priced in Canada vs US.

You have to ask yourself if the difference between 11mm & 14mm has value. The 14-54 covers a greater range and is also a great lens. But for what it is, the 11-22 is pretty much in a class of it's own. And if you like wides, you cannot go wrong.

I have both, bought the 11-22 first. I feared if I bought the 14-54, the 11-22 would spend a lot of time in the bag. Sadly, that's exactly what happened. Maybe I should sell it ;) - Now, that would be a tough decision !
 
I agonized over the 14-54 11-22 thingy too. Since I felt the 14-54 was not that much over the 14-45 IQ wise & I was always looking for that extra bit of width I spent the extra money & went 11-22 all I can say is I LUV it & for the bit of longer work I do the 45-150 is good enough. One day i may find a good used 50-200. The 14-45 has not been on the camera since I got the 11-22.

ad
--
...have some fun...
 
I know how you feel.

Earlier today I, grudgingly, took the 8mm FE off of one of my cameras and forced the 14~54 on it! I really need to give it a fair chance. The 11~22 is "stuck" on the other camera!
--
Regards,
(afka Wile E. Coyote)
'Bootstrap?'
Bill
PSAA
Equipment in profile.
Eschew obfuscation.
The frumious Bandersnatch



40% of what I say is 60% accurate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top