Steve's Digicams Forums

Steve's Digicams Forums (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/)
-   Olympus dSLR (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/)
-   -   Low cost wide angle. (https://forums.steves-digicams.com/olympus-dslr-40/low-cost-wide-angle-102321/)

adamwarp Sep 28, 2006 11:09 AM

I'm looking to get the one lens that I feel I'm missing the most.. a wide angle. I noticed that my alternatives from olympus are fairly limited - either by the minimum size or by price. Does anyone else make one to fit the four-thirds for a reasonable price.

I have the 14-54 and I want a lens in the range of 7-14 except that lens costs 2k... anything else that is available I would be happy with 9-14mm? The 11-22 is too much of an onverlap and not enough wide angle?



jorgen Sep 28, 2006 11:44 AM

I can't see anything at the moment.

Within the next year, all Sigma lenses will come for 4/3, and that will with the current catalogue give you a 10-20mm F4-5.6 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/lenses/len...sp?navigator=6), i.e. much like the Olympus equivalent, but a stop darker and 1mm more wideangle.


HarjTT Sep 28, 2006 11:58 AM

The other good thing with Sigma is that they do have some pretty good lenses as good as the Zukios or even better that are currently not with a 4/3 mount and at a really good price.

Cheers

HarjTT

:?



Rriley Sep 28, 2006 1:47 PM

the 11-22 is 22mm by 35mm equiv, that is pretty wide
and it has zip distortion at wide
thats why its costs an arm and a leg I guess

Riley

jorgen Sep 29, 2006 1:36 AM

Yes, the Olympus lens is expensive. That's why I look forward to the 10-20 at a more affordable price. It is an EX lens and those are said to be very good.


DougJGreen Oct 1, 2006 3:04 AM

You can pick up a used, near mint Olympus 11-22 f2.8~3.5 lens for $500-550, or a new one for around $700. IMHO, that is a FAR better deal than a Sigma 10-20 which would be used on a 4/3 camera, and would cost something around $500. First of all, the Sigma's wider field of view is wasted on the 4/3 sensor. Second of all, the Sigma is an entire stop slower. Third, the build quality of the Olympus is an order of magnitude better than the Sigma. And finally, the Olympus is superior optically. It's much more free of linear distortion, and it's sharper at the corners

jorgen Oct 1, 2006 11:54 AM

I thought the Olympus was far more expensive! I would anyway be willing to pay a bit more to get an Olympus rather than a Sigma.


adamwarp Oct 2, 2006 10:21 AM

Is the 10-20mm sufficiently wide enough for photos of climbing where I will be very close to the subject as we are both tied to the same ropes? I don't wan't a fisheye effect but enough angle to capture the scene..?

Greg Chappell Oct 2, 2006 10:27 AM

adamwarp wrote:
Quote:

Is the 10-20mm sufficiently wide enough for photos of climbing where I will be very close to the subject as we are both tied to the same ropes? I don't wan't a fisheye effect but enough angle to capture the scene..?
In doing that type work before, if you used a film camera was a 20mm lens wide enough? That would be the effective focal length at the wide end of the Sigma, or the Olympus 11-22for that matter. My guess would be it would be wide enough. Having looked at several Galen Rowell images and knowing he used a 20mm Nikkor for a lot of his work, I have a feeling it would work.

The only question would be, how fast do you want this lens? The Sigma isn't available yet and most likely won't be for some time. There's a ton of talk going on right now on DPReview about which one of these would be "better", and the simple answer right now is the Olympus is because it's the only one available NOW- don't hold your breathe for the Sigma, you won't make it- just look how long it's taking the3-4 lenses to make it to availability that we heard about months ago. Today the only one now listed at B&H is the 50-500 and even it is now on an "accepting orders only" basis there, so they obviously didn't have many to sell when the finally did arrive.You can buy a new Olympus for less than $200 more than what the Sigma will cost and get a faster, sealed lens- a fairly good arguement for the Zuiko in addition to the fact it's the only one currently available. I would think indoing that type activity, a weather sealed lens might be something you'd like to have.



adamwarp Oct 2, 2006 11:33 AM

Ok here is my take.... after all your comments: It looks like the 11-22 is exaclty what I'm looking for. It will be perfect for outdoor photography, expecially in the demanding climbing environment. Slightly expensive but worth saving up for.

I bought the 14-54, which is roughly same quality and its a wonderful lens with solid optics and really great performance, I'm expecting same from the 11-22mm.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 1:39 PM.