Samyang 12mm or 7.5mm

Discussion in 'This or That? (MFT only)' started by colbycheese, Jun 1, 2015.

  1. colbycheese

    colbycheese Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    May 1, 2012
    Way up there.
    I am not sure which one to get next. I can get the samyang 7.5mm cheaper than the 12mm but the fisheye effect seems like a specialty thing. I know you can defish but that just adds another step in post processing. For this reason i would prefer the 12mm because it is not a fisheye and it is faster. (nearly half the price of the O12 i might add) So i am wondering which lens is worth getting next.
     
  2. DeeJayK

    DeeJayK Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 8, 2011
    Pacific Northwest, USA
    Keith
    It seems like you've answered your own question here. No matter what opinion I share on the matter, the fisheye is still going to be a fisheye.
    What sort of input are you looking for?:confused-53:
     
  3. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    What do you want it for? The 7.5mm is EXTREME wide angle and distortion. The 12mm is a little wider than your kit lens and 1.6 stops faster. They are very different.

    Since you are asking about both of these, I take it you don't need the f2.0 of the 12mm? How about one of the 12mm zooms to replace your kit lens? 12-50 and 12-32 both do 12mm f3.5. That's as wide as the 12mm and as fast as the 7.5mm.

    You could grab the 9mm BCL or that c-mount one you asked about yesterday as a less serious fisheye lens.
     
  4. Turbofrog

    Turbofrog Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 21, 2014
    Honestly, they're radically different lenses. Not even directly comparable.

    The 7.5mm fisheye is wider than the widest rectilinear lenses in the whole system (the 7-14mm UWAs) and by a considerable margin.

    http://m43photo.blogspot.ca/2012/06/lumix-g-7-14mm-compared-with-samyang.html
    http://m43photo.blogspot.ca/2012/04/defished-fisheye-compared-with-ultra.html

    So the question is, do you need an ultra-ultra wide? Or do you need a fast wide angle?

    With the 12mm you can almost pretend that there's not perspective distortion. It exists, but only when you really shove the lens in someone's face, or really tilt your lens to get serious converging verticals. With anything 11mm and under, there's no pretending - perspective distortion is always there, and it's always weird. In fact, rectilinear ultrawides (or defished fisheyes) can sometimes look even more uncomfortably unnatural than fisheye lenses because there's so much edge stretching required to create the projection...
     
  5. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    For me, it kind of depends on the subject. I don't like the fisheye for architecture shots in most cases. I generally defish those. And shots with the horizon in it, well that's pretty obviously weird in fisheye shots. If you keep them in the center of the frame they are OK, but otherwise it is getting curved like mad. Shots with people in them, actually look more natural with the fisheye, because it doesn't stretch them. Then you have shots with both people AND buildings and maybe even the horizon, and then you have to make weird decisions about what looks most natural.

    The 7.5mm is technically wider than the 7-14mm lenses, but only diagonally and horizontally. Vertically it is not. You'll notice in that link comparing them that when defished it goes into a crazy wide 2.5:1 aspect ratio and the edges are stretched beyond normal usability. By the time you crop out the crazy stretched portions, you are probably left with a 2:3 or 16:9 aspect ratio shot that is maybe about 6mm equiv. So that may or may not suit what you shoot.

    I would still say for the money, size and flexibility of choosing fish or de-fish, that the Samyang is the best option for extreme wide angle. I'd pick it over the 7-14mm in most cases for those reasons even if I know I'll be spending time editing the photos more often than not. It's just as sharp and the aperture is pretty fast.
     
  6. colbycheese

    colbycheese Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    May 1, 2012
    Way up there.
    I just want something wider than the 20mm for things like landscapes and maybe some wide angle astrophotography. It would be much cheaper for me to use what i have but i wanted something a bit wider than the 20mm. Maybe i should get the 14mm instead, from panasonic? I can pick one up pretty cheap but i am worried it is way to close to the 20mm. My other option is wait and sell my 25mm Panasonic which i haven't used in ages and then buy the 12mm olympus or samyang as they are kinda out of my price range. No local stores stock it and on eBay it would run me around 500 bucks, which defeats the purpose of being more affordable.
     
  7. sammykhalifa

    sammykhalifa Mu-43 Top Veteran

    762
    Jun 22, 2012
    Pittsburgh PA
    Neil
    I'm actually kind of looking at moving from my Panasonic 14mm to something wider. I too have the 20, and find that I just don't put on the 14 that much, maybe being pretty close to the 20?

    Having never done 12, I am not sure whether the 12 vs 14 is going to be worth the while for me to make the change.
     
  8. tkbslc

    tkbslc Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    12 vs 14mm is the same as 24 vs 28mm on FF. Here's a comparison of that difference: http://canonlensblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Viewin-angle-of-24mm-lens-vs-28mm1.jpg

    It's more than you'd think, but at the same time is isn't dramatically wider.

    You might also just get the GWC1 for your 14mm and turn it into an 10.5mm f2.5 for like $100. That's 21mm FF equivalent and here's a comparison of that difference:

    http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_28mm_f1-8G/images/results/21mm-50mm frames.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Dave in Wales

    Dave in Wales Mu-43 All-Pro

    Nov 5, 2011
    West Wales
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. colbycheese

    colbycheese Mu-43 Veteran

    378
    May 1, 2012
    Way up there.
    thanks, this is helpful. If only the lens was a bit faster... seems unsuitable for low light. Still might pick one up though
     
  11. sammykhalifa

    sammykhalifa Mu-43 Top Veteran

    762
    Jun 22, 2012
    Pittsburgh PA
    Neil
    Thank you, yeah very interesting. I hadn't considered an adapter that seriously because of the whole idea of putting more glass between the scene and sensor, but I am not sure how often I'd use the wide anyhow. I was looking for a "wider wide" to put more separation between it and the 20 to force myself to use it more. :)