Ultra wide prime or zoom?

[Brownie]

But you can use even slower shutter speeds with ultra-wide lens according to the "rule"? Also my PL 15mm is my go-to indoors lens,

Yes. With the 15 (also my go-to for indoor handheld), 1/30. Remember this is just a starting point, a refence. It depends on how well you hold the camera. If you're steady you can get away with more. If I need really slow I use a monopod.

 

[Andy H.]

"Don't need no stinking AF"!
On a recent hike I took my M5-III with a Laowa 9mm f2.8 attached. Set at true infinity, f8 or f11, literally everything beyond 3m was in focus. Never had to even touch the focus ring as it has perfect damping and holds firm. Super imaging little gem of a lens!

 

[RAH]

Yes. With the 15 (also my go-to for indoor handheld), 1/30. Remember this is just a starting point, a refence. It depends on how well you hold the camera. If you're steady you can get away with more. If I need really slow I use a monopod.

I agree. I had kind of forgotten how you can use slower shutter speeds as your focal length goes down (as @RS86 says). Funny thing is, I DO always think about how I need a faster shutter speed with high-tele lenses, but tend to forget about the reverse.

 

[RAH]

"Don't need no stinking AF"!
On a recent hike I took my M5-III with a Laowa 9mm f2.8 attached. Set at true infinity, f8 or f11, literally everything beyond 3m was in focus. Never had to even touch the focus ring as it has perfect damping and holds firm. Super imaging little gem of a lens!

I'm wondering - how did you determine "true infinity"? By experimenting? Does the lens have a physical stop? - if so, I think you still have to experiment. I had a Rokinon fisheye that everyone said you had to back off slightly from the infinity stop to get infinity. When I did that, all my images came out blurry. Turned out that the stopping point was exactly at infinity. At least I think it is - since I can go no further, I always wonder if it is slightly back from it (although it looks sharp). What I'm saying is - I worry about finding the infinity point on these MF lenses, and that is critical, IMHO.

 

[Andy H.]

Yes, and yes.
"True" infinity is just slightly off the hard stop on my Laowa when mounted on my M5-III. Trial and error finds it easily; it's not "rocket science"!

 

[Brownie]

Yes, and yes.
"True" infinity is just slightly off the hard stop on my Laowa when mounted on my M5-III. Trial and error finds it easily; it's not "rocket science"!

Damn good thing too, none of us here are rocket surgeons!

 

[Petrochemist]

As such, wide-angle lenses will benefit more from sensor stabilization within the camera body they are paired with."

Having used IBIS on DSLRs since 2010 I can assure you the long lenses benefit FAR more. Yes it's sometimes useful on wide lenses to get exceptionally long exposures hand held, but most of the time it's improved the sharpness of shots with long telephotos without having to push the ISO up. Light in the UK frequently being poor enough that the reciprical rule can't be maintined at base ISO.
Lens based stabilization might allow more correction for long lenses, but IBIS still works out more useful on long lenses than wide ones.

 

[Mike Wingate]

IBIS good, no IBIS not as good (with the exception of tripod mounting). Same goes for OIS. Downsides are battery consumption, same goes for autofocus.

 

[RS86]

IBIS good, no IBIS not as good (with the exception of tripod mounting). Same goes for OIS. Downsides are battery consumption, same goes for autofocus.

Yeah, the point here has been that in a lens like Venus 7.5mm, not having OIS or AF doesn't matter nearly as much as with longer focal lengths. Does focus peaking work with this lens?

Personally I'd like a good non-fisheye AF super-wide prime, but on the other hand the 9-18mm is surely good enough for my usage, as that prime will be expensive. Can't even bother getting the Venus lens as I don't use wide angles so often.

 

[Mike Wingate]

I think it comes with Zebras.

 

[RAH]

Yeah, the point here has been that in a lens like Venus 7.5mm, not having OIS or AF doesn't matter nearly as much as with longer focal lengths. Does focus peaking work with this lens?

David Thorpe has a YouTube review of this. He says that it does work with focus peaking, here:

 

[PakkyT]

Does focus peaking work with this lens?

With my E-M1.1, focus peaking works with any lens including old legacy manual lenses. For focus peaking and zooming focus assist, the auto settings won't work with these lenses, you just have to assign those functions to a button that you can turn on either one when needed. I was just using it the other day with my Peleng 8mm fisheye lens, a pure manual big heavy metal and glass beast.

 

[LowriderS10]

When my 9-18 kicked the bucket, I picked up a Panasonic Leica 8-18mm, even though I have an Oly 12-40. The overlap doesn't really matter, since I rarely have both lenses with me. I use the PL8-18 for travel (when I know I'll be shooting lots of wide stuff) and the 12-40 is more of a walkaround lens. Oh and the PL 8-18 is a fantastic lens...I was happy with my 9-18, but it's sharper with better colours, faster, and has a better range (but it is bigger and heavier). Most reviews put it neck-and-neck with the O7-14 which, while faster on the long end, is bigger, more expensive, and doesn't take filters. To me, the PL8-18 was the best of all worlds.

 

[doady]

I had been thinking of waiting for 8-25mm F4 if it ever comes, but 7-14mm F2.8 is capable of 114 degree angle of view diagonally. That is 91.2 degree angle of view on the longest side? Did I calculate that correct? That would mean 8mm is less than 90 degrees.

8-25mm would be incredibly versatile for urban photography, less need to bring along the 12-100mm, and likely save some money and weight too compared to 7-14mm. But 90+ degrees with 7mm would open up a world of possibilities, and of course the F2.8 max aperture would be helpful for interiors as well.

Carrying 7-14mm F2.8 together with 12-100mm F4 might be a bit too much though. My main lens is already big, maybe I want something a bit smaller. I'm also uneasy about the bulging front element and lack of filter threads. But maybe it would be worth it for the 90+ degrees horizontal angle of view.

 

[RAH]

I had been thinking of waiting for 8-25mm F4 if it ever comes, but 7-14mm F2.8 is capable of 114 degree angle of view diagonally. That is 91.2 degree angle of view on the longest side? Did I calculate that correct? That would mean 8mm is less than 90 degrees.

Your math must be incorrect, I think. In the Lenstips review of the PL 8-18, it says:
"In April 2017 the Micro 4/3 system was enlarged by another wide angle zoom lens, the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8–18 mm f/2.8–4 ASPH. It was a very interesting launch. The customers got a device with angles of view ranging from 62 to as much as 107 degrees and a very good aperture fastness as well. At the same time the lens is quite small and lightweight, with a filter thread just 67 mm in diameter."

The rest of the review is here: https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=508

I don't mean to say that 7mm isn't a fair amount wider than 8mm (since 1mm can be significant at this FL), but 8mm is pretty wide, and the advantages of the 8-18 over the O 7-14 outweigh the 1mm difference, IMHO.

Edit: I reread what you said. The Lenstips review may be talking about diagonal, so perhaps it is less than 90. But it wouldn't be much less, surely (and um, what's the big deal about 90?).

 

[Petrochemist]

Your math must be incorrect, I think. In the Lenstips review of the PL 8-18, it says:
"In April 2017 the Micro 4/3 system was enlarged by another wide angle zoom lens, the Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 8–18 mm f/2.8–4 ASPH. It was a very interesting launch. The customers got a device with angles of view ranging from 62 to as much as 107 degrees and a very good aperture fastness as well. At the same time the lens is quite small and lightweight, with a filter thread just 67 mm in diameter."

The rest of the review is here: https://www.lenstip.com/index.html?test=obiektywu&test_ob=508

I don't mean to say that 7mm isn't a fair amount wider than 8mm (since 1mm can be significant at this FL), but 8mm is pretty wide, and the advantages of the 8-18 over the O 7-14 outweigh the 1mm difference, IMHO.

Edit: I reread what you said. The Lenstips review may be talking about diagonal, so perhaps it is less than 90. But it wouldn't be much less, surely (and um, what's the big deal about 90?).

A theoretical 7mm has nearly 10% more FOV than an 8mm (horizontally on MFT, its 104° vs 97°) If you're after an ultra wide that difference could be vital.
I'd probably find the 14-18 region more useful myself - I've certainly got several lenses in that zone, but none other than fisheyes (or weird low image circle things like CS-mount & telescope eyepieces...) under 10mm.

 

[Brownie]

Tomorrow we're heading to the Henry Ford Museum to check out the Marvel Universe of Superheroes exhibit and just do a general museum day. With my PL 15 now winging its way to a new owner, the new to me PL 8-18 will be firmly mounted on the camera. I'll probably stick the 12-60 in the bag just in case there's a need for something longer and because I don't want it to pout, this being the first time it was left home alone since it was purchased. I expect the 8-18 to be on the camera 99% of the time. A monopod will complete my typical museum/indoor exhibit kit.

This is the widest lens I've had (other than the Samyang/Rokinon 7.5) to play with. So far it's only been used for a few shots at the Yankee Air Museum.

 

[doady]

Edit: I reread what you said. The Lenstips review may be talking about diagonal, so perhaps it is less than 90. But it wouldn't be much less, surely (and um, what's the big deal about 90?).

Imagine standing at an intersection of two roadways or two hallways and being able to photograph both corridors at once because of 90 degrees angle of view horizontally. Or imagine standing in the corner of the room and being able to include all 4 walls and 3 other corners in the frame. 90 degrees might open up some interesting possibilities.

Maybe it is a moot point though if the horizontal angle of view at 8mm is actually 97 degrees and 7mm is 104 degrees. For all its disadvantages, 7-14mm might actually be a bit overkill if what Petrochemist says is correct.

 

[Brownie]

According to this calculator, 8mm is 94.47 degrees horizontally, and 7mm is 102 degrees.

Diagonally, they are 107 and 114.2 degrees, respectively.

Camera Field of View Calculator (FoV) (scantips.com)

 

[Paulb123]

Not sure if this is useful but : I have an Oly 10 mk 2 with a 12-50 that sits on the front. If I have to get ultra wide, I will use the PANORAMA on the scene mode on the camera, take the photo with the camera on its side (usually up to 3 pictures but can do more) and stitch together with HUGIN (free software to download) which will convetr it to a TIFF and does a really good job. The focal point is at the end of the lens so I put the thumb at this point and pivot round (Thanks Rob Trek and your videos).
I do get over 9/10 panoramas that work - so this is very reliable and now just part of the armoury. May be worth a try and wont cost anything?

The picture below is using panorama mode - stitching 3 photos together and HUGIN shows how good the stiching is -it was the only way to get in the whole rainbow

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)