New to L mount... need assistance with wide angle plz

Started 3 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Jeepit Regular Member • Posts: 201
Re: New to L mount... need assistance with wide angle plz

georgehudetz wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

Jeepit wrote:

rashid7 wrote:

kood wrote:

Closest thing to the Olympus 17 Pro on L-Mount at the moment would be the Sigma 35mm f1.2 DG DN, it's gigantic though. There's also the new Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG DN which is smaller and cheaper. The Sigma 35mm f2 DG DN is also pretty nice and it's build and size reminds me of the Oly 17 Pro.

Sorry I can't really help you with the ultrawide.

i can endorse the 35f2. I use it on S5 in hi-rez mode, and its darn near perfect!

From another commenter,” Rashid, above, has the 14-24mm DN, I think.”

If so can you please offer your thoughts on the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8?

Thank You...

jeepit, the 14-24 dg dn is sublime.

My hunt for a wide angle lens on my S5 started with a decent samyang 12 fisheye, then I wasted $550 on a laowa 14f4. Next was an adapted sam14f2.8 (which i once had w/ my nikon d750) that now seemed soft. So i bit the bullet and spent almost $1500 on the 14-24. In spite of its heft,

i have never regretted the purchase for a second. It is brilliant; even wide open it is more than decent.

Great info I was hoping to read. Do you have any experience with the Panny S 16-35mm?
looking for a comparison between the two?

I currently have both, on an S1R. However, my 16-35 is decentered (or some other error) such that the upper right quadrant is soft, so I'm sending it back. In the center, I'd say the Sigma was a touch sharper when viewed at 200% on my retina display, but not enough that I would care either way. And I can't be sure the center of my copy is unaffected by whatever ails the upper-right.

My main reason for wanting both is that for hiking-based landscape photography, the substantially lighter weight of the 16-35 is nice to have, as is the longer reach. On the S1R I consider the 16-35 to be more like a 16-50, since cropping to 24 MP gives roughly a 1.5x scale factor. So, I was planning on hiking with the 16-35 & 70-300 and being happy, as I prefer to avoid lens swaps.

The 14-24 on the other hand is usefully wider, and the faster aperture makes it a great astro lens (low coma wide-open). Also, the Sigma does much better sunstars if that matters to you. So the Sigma is the lens of choice for

big-sky sunsets or twinkly-lights in night city-scapes.

This is why I want a wide angle.  This is what I needed to read...thank you for your response.

Going to order the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8

And astro, of course.

Both are great lenses.

A BIG thank you!

 Jeepit's gear list:Jeepit's gear list
Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-330 Olympus E-M1 Olympus OM-D E-M1X Olympus Zuiko Digital ED 12-60mm 1:2.8-4.0 SWD +21 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow