Thinking of getting the 11-22mm... thoughts?

Xargo said:

One of the photos is shot with 14-42mm @ 22mm and the other with
11-22mm @ 22mm. Aperture is the same.

Click to expand...

That's not quite a fair comparison, since you are using one lens in its sweet spot (zoom-wise) and one at its limit.

aukhawk said:

aukhawk said:

One of the photos is shot with 14-42mm @ 22mm and the other with
11-22mm @ 22mm. Aperture is the same.

Click to expand...

That's not quite a fair comparison, since you are using one lens in
its sweet spot (zoom-wise) and one at its limit.

Click to expand...

Sorry, forgot to mention, the aperture is wide open for the 14-42mm and 11-22mm stopped down to shared aperture. Also, 11-22mm is a 2x zoom where 14-42mm is 3x. Higher ratio always means more compromises. That said, one could as well say that the 11-22mm is used in its sweet spot (stopped down) and the 14-42mm at its limit (wide open). Both lenses had their contacts blocked so no digital correction could have been applied by the camera. So is that so unfair after all?

Anyway, the comparison is a little out of its context here. Originally it was meant to illustrate the differences of 14-42mm and 11-22mm at shared settings and I think the difference is negligible. Though I totally agree that the 11-22mm is a stellar performer, but so is 14-42mm as far as the sharpness goes. I have tried comparing other shared focal lengths as well and I have found the 14-42mm to be practically as sharp as 11-22mm. Maybe I just have a good sample of the 14-42mm?

But as I said, 11-22mm is my wide angle lens of choice. For my use it even beats the 7-14mm and that's saying a lot.

--
Equipment in the profile.

Oh how I wish I had one for my trip to Nepal! Unfortunately, that was before the era of digital cameras. My Om-10 developed a light leak, and 90% of the negatives were ruined.

That lens is built for those landscapes.

Make sure to get a polarizer and a graduated filter for it.

Boris

Get it and (unless your tripod has one) also carry one of those spirit levels that snaps into the flash shoe. You will find that the extra width can make things look a bit distorted unless you take a little care to keep the camera level.

These are going to be perhaps once in a lifetime type shots, don't skimp. I love mine, and use it far more than I expected to. You'll be amazed at the amount of extra real estate you can stuff into those 3mm! Photos taken at 11mm just have a sensation of wideness that you can't feel at 14mm. I'd kill for the 7-14 myself, but I'm like you and have to stay (more) reasonable. Get the 11-22 before its' price gets worse! It's $649 at Buydig.

the quality of the images from the 11-22 is truly amazing. I've never looked back. I've also never had the urge to go wider, myself. When I was shooting film my favorite landscape lens was my 24-50mm, and I find that the 11-22 fits the bill nicely.

--
MichaelV

using Field of view = 2 x acrtan (h/ 2 f) h is sensor width (17.3 mm for 4:3)
and f is focal length in mm

the 11 take in about 1.2 times the angle of the 14

Horizontal FoV 4:3
7 102.0
11 76.4
14 63.4
16 56.8
22 42.9
24 39.6
30 32.2
35 27.8
40 24.4
42 23.3
50 19.6
60 16.4
70 14.1
100 9.9
105 9.4
150 6.6
200 5.0
250 4.0
300 3.3
350 2.8
400 2.5
420 2.4
500 2.0
600 1.7

In a trustworthy Dutch cameramagazine (in the stands this week), the 11-22 is tested and compared to the (also tested) 7-14 and the 12-24 Nikon lens.

They judged the 7-14mm and the 12-24 Nikor as being Very Good. And the 11-22?...Super! (so yes..a little better). Good luck with your choice!

--



Visit my gallery at: http://nick-pearson.smugmug.com

I haven't seen this factoid mentioned so I'll mention it. The 14-XX @ 14 mm gives you a FOV of 75° while the 11-22 @ 11mm gives you a FOV of 89°. That difference is HUGE.

I bought mine after borrowing one from a friend for a couple of days and never, ever, leave home without it. Add to the fact that it performs very well, the closest focusing distance is less than 1' [280mm].
--
Troll Whisperer
Bill Turner
Recent Images:
Please do not edit my images without asking permission.
Thanks.
http://www.pbase.com/wmdt131

It is a fantastic lens. It is what I shoot with 95% of the time.

Here's an example of what it can do. E500, 11-22



http://www.winephoto.smugmug.com

Beautiful wooden planes and guitars.

love the 11-22 and woodworking as well.



--
http://flickr.com/photos/cadron/

Thanks everyone for all your inputs! I am leaning towards buying it now, especially since the price has gone back down to $640 on Amazon!

I also read that Galen Rowell most-used lenses were a 20mm and 24mm, so I guess 11mm will easily be wide enough for me if it was for him

Thanks once again...
Arjun

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/saturnairjam

Xargo wrote:
I have tried comparing

Xargo said:

other shared focal lengths as well and I have found the 14-42mm to be
practically as sharp as 11-22mm. Maybe I just have a good sample of
the 14-42mm?

Click to expand...

I have not used a 14-x since buying an 11-22mm. They are world's apart. While you may have got a good 14-x, you might also have got a bad 11-22mm.

Arjun,

Might be too late for me to add anything, as it sounds like you've made up your mind! However I also bought the 11-22mm just two weeks ago. Haven't used it enough yet, but I'm happy with the choice. The lower distortion at 11mm over the 12-60 swayed me. I'll be taking it camping and climbing this weekend so will see how it goes.

I agree wholeheartedly that there is a big difference between 11mm and 14mm.

However if anything I now feel like I'd like something wider for creative effect.

The 7-14 appeals except for its price and inability to take a protective filter, making it impractical for everyday use. Something 9-18mm (or 9-27mm for a 3x) that took a 'standard' filter would be excellent, it will be interesting to see what OM comes up with this year!

• Steve

Melbourne Park said:

Melbourne Park said:

Xargo wrote:
I have tried comparing
other shared focal lengths as well and I have found the 14-42mm to be
practically as sharp as 11-22mm. Maybe I just have a good sample of
the 14-42mm?

Click to expand...

I have not used a 14-x since buying an 11-22mm. They are world's
apart. While you may have got a good 14-x, you might also have got a
bad 11-22mm.

Click to expand...

Well, to be honest, my 14-42mm doesn't get much use either. I still think it's a very good lens and pretty much sharp as it get with most settings as can be seen from the euro-comparison I posted. I forgot to mention that they are 100% crops without any sharpening. jpg-compression gave it a bit blurry look though. It's just that if I want something in the 14-42mm range, I grab my 14-50mm Leica.

But I don't think my 11-22mm is bad either. Actually at one point I thought it was. It has its share of CA which can sometimes make the image look blurry but when you align those color channels (remove CA with a correct tool), you'll see that all the individual color channels are sharp. My 11-22mm shows pretty much the same amount of CA than the one in Photozone.de review (not online right now) so I think it's consistent. Individual color channel sharpness is pretty much diffraction limited so if my lens has an issue, it's the CA.

On the other hand I have seen people praise the 11-22mm for its lack of CA. So if anyone thinks he has a copy which has "zero CA", I would be thrilled to play around with the .orf and see how it compares to my copy.

--
Equipment in the profile.

welk tijdschrift ?

which paper?
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jelmar/
http://www.faja.nu

Another late reply confirming that the 11-22 is a good choice.

Last year my wife and I spent 5 weeks in (mostly) Vietnam and Thailand and all I took was 11-22 and 40-150. The 11-22 did all the work with only an occasional shot with the 40-150 (on an E-300).

Asia is all about up close and personal in street scenes, markets , things always happening close and near, so wide angle works well. Then there's the scenery and of course the 11-22 is perfect for most scenery.

I judged Vietnam to be a 11-22 country, but Thailand seemed more to be a 14-45/54 country, with the 12-60 now being a better choice for Thailand. But I'd still stay with 11-22 if I ever get back to Vietnam.

Plus you can only take so many shots of mountains, they all look the same after a while, so it gets back to the people and street shots where most viewers find everyday details of life more interesting.

Back at home the 11-22 stays on the camera, the 14-45, 40-150 and 35 macro very rarely get used.

At home and on travel I always carry a belt pouch with a Ricoh R4 pocket camera with 28-200mm equivalent performance, so grab shots and focal lengths not covered by the 11-22, plus shots where a little discretion (like looking like a dumb tourist) are covered nicely.

Some Vietnam samples....

Choosing wool at the Bac Ha markets in northern Vietnam at 11mm...



In the Mekong Delta at the wholesale fruit and vegetable floating market at 22mm....



Child at 22mm in Bac Ha markets...



Regards........... Guy

A fantastic lens, very sharp, and a good introduction to wide angle.

i sold mine a few weeks ago as i didn't require it anymore after getting the 7-14, but the 11-22 might be easier to handle in some tricky lighting situations. And you don't get flare as easily as with the 7-14.

Get that one, and shoot happy !

Marc
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdezemery

Go for it! Great lens! Also, holds it value well if you ever want to sell it and go in a different direction or upgrade to the 7-14.
Jake

I like the 11-22mm but the CA is bad on mine. It's remarkably resistant to flare and distortion well controlled, but the CA and fringing make me reluctant to use it. The 12-60 has virtually no CA in comparison.

Both are about the same sharpness (my copies anyway). Oh well, no lens is perfect.

Lee