After a LONG discussion of the merits/demerits oof the Panny 7-14 vs the Oly 9-18, life would be so much simpler (for me) if Sigma made an 8-16mm. They make a great 10-20 APSC (15-35 equiv) for Nikon, Canon etc. The f4-5.6 version costs $429 and the constant f3.5 $649. I had the f4 -5.6 version when I had my Canon 650D and it was a really great lens - AND it took filters which for me, as a seascape photographer was vital. It measures 86x89mm and weighs 520g - compared to the Panny at 70x83 and 300g. Sigma must have sold tons of these lenses - I've seen plenty of them around and am a bit surprised that they haven't developed a lens like this. Assuming they could produce a 8-16 constant f4 with dimensions and weight similar to the Panny for around $500, I would leap at the opportunity! Your thoughts?
The Canon EFS 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 is my ideal UWA zoom, which would equate to 8-18mm for the Micro 4/3 format.
I sold almost all my DSLR gear and all I have is some full frame lenses, but if anyone has the Nikon or Canon mount version they should slap that on a m4/3 camera and see what the results are! Though you'd have to buy those massive WonderPana filters or whatever they're called since the Siggy doesn't take filters. Honestly, I'd rather just go with a Tokina 11-16 and a SpeedBooster. THAT would probably rock.
So would this speedbooster work with that lens...I just don't understand Nikons lens mount names. http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB_SPNFG-m43-BM1
Yeah definitely should, and you'd end up with a 15.5-22.4 f/2 lens. You could do the 12-24 and end up with a 17-33.5 f2.8 lens. Heavy yes, but MUCH more versatile than the 11-22 or 9-18.
A nice idea, but tell me please I'm missing something : the Olympus 9-18 will do the job and is similar cash to your imaginary Sigma lens, right? Wrong?
Isn't it the other way around? 11-16 becomes approximately a 7.5-11.5 f/2 and the 12-24 becomes a 8.5-17mm f2.8?
Their 50mm f1.4 Art lens is getting a lot of attention. I would like a MFT version for portraits please. Thanks.
I guess we want something just a bit wider than 9. I'd refer 7mm, but I guess we'd lose the ability to use filters.
I would take the 7mm over 8mm any day but if someone would join both worlds, have a 7-12mm what has filter possibility but usable only when 8-12mm side. Just add a lens filter adapter around the lens so filter can be mounted to adapter when wanted to zoom in that little bit. If someone would whine about filter being visible at 7mm end.... Would be better to have possibilities without requiring to buy two lenses.
I would consider a lens like you suggested and would welcome Sigma to the fold. So far they only have 3 m4/3 lenses and those were actually designed for the Sony NEX and adapted for m4/3. However the lens I really want to see Sigma make is a m4/3 version of the 17-70mm f2.8-4. One for m4/3 would come out to a 12.5 - 52.5mm. I know the Olympus 12-40mm is an option but it isn't cheap. I would rather loose the stop on the long end, gain 10+mm and save some money.
Spot on. There's a big difference between 7 and 9mm and 8mm would be "perfect". Also, the narrower FOV of 8mm should easily allow a filter thread on the lens, seeing that the 10-20 (15mm equiv) has one.
If I suddenly find myself obtaining a Tokina 11-16 I'll update my F Mount lenses thread to include some examples. With the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8 at 18mm and stopped down a little you have something close to the far end of that with amazing low light capability. For anyone considering using a Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6: It has some (Strange looking) corner softness when it is at approx 10mm and not stopped down. Probably from how the SB has a 1.4x crop instead of a 1.5x (Nikon) or 1.6x (Canon) so it'll hit the corners. Also do not use the hood with it on the wide end, you will see the petals visibly. Supposedly the 10-20 f/3.5 is a little softer even when stopped down.
Sigma does make a 8-16mm DSLR lens, its huge and expensive though. Speed-boosted that would give you a ~ 5.75-11.5mm (11.5-23mm equiv).
