Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 68,701   Posts: 1,482,629   Online: 762
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 33
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    655
    Super-, Ultra-, who cares, as long as it goes to f/11.
    I photograph things to see what things look like photographed.
    - Garry Winogrand

  2. #22
    Richard Sintchak (rich815)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    San Francisco area
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,570
    Images
    1
    But....this one does....

    Quote Originally Posted by semi-ambivalent View Post
    Super-, Ultra-, who cares, as long as it goes to f/11.
    -----------------------

    "Well, my photos are actually much better than they look..."

    Richard S.
    Albany, CA (San Francisco bay area)

    My Flickr River of photographs
    http://flickriver.com/photos/rich815...r-interesting/

    My Photography Website
    http://www.lightshadowandtone.com

  3. #23
    Newt_on_Swings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    NYC
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,699

    I want to go wide: 21mm/28mm. RF or SLR

    You can pick up non zuiko wides for the OM pretty cheaply. I have a vivitar 19-35 that is quite nice, but is kinda huge using 77mm filters. 18mm is about as wide as I like to go, I actually have a 14mm sigma or tamron lens which is actually really hard to use without shooting the same cliche things everyone shoots with such a wide rectilinear lens.

    Another cheaper option would be to look for wides in LTM mount and use a M adapter. The canon 28mm 2.8 is a great lens and tiny! The 3.5 is even more affordable. And if you want really wide for cheap the cv 15mm is the way to go!

  4. #24
    eurekaiv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Santa Ana, CA
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by rich815 View Post
    I like the idea of super wides. Have the awesome 21/2.8 Biogon for my Contax G2 and the 15/4.5 Super-wide Heliar for my Leica bodies......but I suck at shooting ultra wide! :-(
    Top Tip: Get really close!!!

    (with the caveat that I don't necessarily know what I'm doing but that it's always made me happy with my wide angle shots)
    Sometimes I post my photos on flickr.
    Sometimes I update my tumblr.

  5. #25
    Diapositivo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Rome, Italy
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,844
    It's mostly the subject that dictates the focal length. The wider the lens, the rarer the occasion to use it with meaningful results. That's IMO.

    I have a Voigtländer 15mm f/4.5 and it takes a lot of time to end a roll.

    Wide angles do pose problems with architectural subjects, it's very easy that the subject becomes distorted in many ways which are not immediately visible when you take the picture. An horizon which is not straight will be immediately visible, and if the film plane is not really parallel in the left-right plane to your subject you'll see a strange "lateral convergence" in your picture (same effect as so called "prospective distortion", but in left-right direction which really looks visually wrong normally).

    Besides, with very wide angles you'll find plenty of incongruous and undesirable elements in your composition: what's in front of you is the picture, and also what's outside of your visual field if you use a 15mm (!).

    Personally I would have looked for a wide-zoom for the reflex (wider at 24mm or even at 21mm), and some wider lens for the RF (an 18mm or maybe a 15mm) BUT the external viewfinder must be in axis with the lens, for the reason above explained.

    Wide angles are a bit "difficult to use" for the care they need and I suggest making friend with them with some graduality, or you'll risk to curse them very fast
    Fabrizio Ruggeri fine art photography site: http://fabrizio-ruggeri.artistwebsites.com
    Stock images at Imagebroker: http://www.imagebroker.com/#/search/ib_fbr

  6. #26
    kivis's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    South Florida
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    206
    Blog Entries
    1
    Images
    8
    I have a Leica Super Angulon 21/3.4 on my Leica M3 and a CV 20/3.5 on my Nikon F. The Leica renders better has less distortion. Has more to do with the a RF works with wide angle because that CV is sharp as a tack.
    Akiva S.

    Nikkormat FTN, Nikon F, Nikon FE, Leica M3

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kshapero/

    My Blog



  7. #27

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Jonesboro, GA
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    294
    Vivitar made a 19 mm f3.8 which is/was inexpensive and pretty good. Reasonably low distortion, and at mid apertures pretty sharp. The lens is nicely made, all metal, and feels good. Plus, it uses 62mm filters, as opposed to the 77mm monsters that Newt_on_Swings mentions in his post about the Vivitar 19-35mm.

    While I've had this lens several years I haven't used it all that much. As others have noted it "sees" so much that framing must be careful to avoid junk in the pic, and the inevitable convergance of vertical and horizontal planes if the film plane isn't lined up with the subject can be alarming...unless that's the effect you're after!

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    177
    Optically, How do the Zuiko 21mm f3.5 and f2.0's compare with the RF ones (Leica 21mm f3.4, Zeiss 21mm f2.8, CV 21mm f4.0)? The Zuiko wides are good, but are they that good? SLR lenses are usually compared to SLR lenses for obvious reasons. I know this is apples and oranges but I see pros and cons for both setups as well.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    542
    It has been a long time ago, but I remember the 21 f3.5 Zuiko being a nice lens. The only other wide I had was the 24 f2.8; I don't recall being very enthused about it. I had just traded off my Leica outfit at the time, an unfortunate trade necessitated by my job, so was coming from a 28 f2.8 Elmarit which was a pretty good lens.
    Last edited by Mark Crabtree; 11-02-2012 at 12:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,264
    Quote Originally Posted by puketronic View Post
    Optically, How do the Zuiko 21mm f3.5 and f2.0's compare with the RF ones (Leica 21mm f3.4, Zeiss 21mm f2.8, CV 21mm f4.0)? The Zuiko wides are good, but are they that good? SLR lenses are usually compared to SLR lenses for obvious reasons. I know this is apples and oranges but I see pros and cons for both setups as well.
    Generally what you will find is less, often much less, barrel and/or complex distortion from RF wides vs SLR wides since RF wides are much more symmetrical in design. This may or may not be an important consideration depending on what you photograph. RF wides also tend to be sharper/better corrected at the edges and corners, particularly at wider apertures. They are just much simpler to design and build than equivalent SLR lenses. What SLRs always have going for them, especially with wides, is you see more accurately.

    To OP, like some others have mentioned, I'd suggest a 24mm might be a good option. This is one of my favourite focal lengths in 35mm. It straddles wide and super-wide quite effectively so it is fairly practical for many applications, whereas lenses 21mm and wider have that super-wide "look".

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin