Ultra wide prime or zoom?

[threeOh]

If you’re a “zoomie” I suspect a wide prime will initially result in a lot of lens swapping. At some point beyond that, the prime wii sit in a drawer.

I’m a “normal” prime shooter. But if I again go ultra wide it will no doubt be a zoom. Aiding composition being the primary reason. Maybe it’s just me but I need to look at what I’m about to shoot far more with ultrawides. Often compensating with FL.

 

[Brownie]

If you’re a “zoomie” I suspect a wide prime will initially result in a lot of lens swapping. At some point beyond that, the prime wii sit in a drawer.

I’m a “normal” prime shooter. But if I again go ultra wide it will no doubt be a zoom. Aiding composition being the primary reason. Maybe it’s just me but I need to look at what I’m about to shoot far more with ultrawides. Often compensating with FL.

This ^

I am not a prime shooter. I have them in case I need something fast, but swapping lenses when I'm in somewhat of a fixed shooting situation is a pain. I will always opt for a zoom if possible. When I shoot in a museums or indoor building setting I sometimes want something wide enough to get most of the room. I am not a fisheye guy either, and also prefer a rectilinear lens. Someday hope to get one of the faster/wider zooms, my current 12-60 is just shy in both speed and FOV.

 

[RS86]

Two of the above comments were why I suggested getting the 8-25mm and get rid of one of the zooms. But the 12-40mm was needed for indoors sports so more difficult choice.

The new lens will surely be better than 9-18mm (which is great for its size), and is 1mm wider (which is 20 % more fov like someone said above).

I don't use the 9-18mm much at over 12mm, but it's great to have without needing to change lenses every time outdoors.

 

[Petrochemist]

No autofocus is the big one.

I wish somebody would offer a UWA prime with AF, until then I'll use the 9-18.

DOF is such that AF is really irrelevant for lenses with such short focal lengths.
Pentax even sold a 18mm pan focus lens for their auto110 system (much the same 'sensor' size as MFT). Every thing beyond 1.75m was reckoned to be in focus wide open, with 1m+ being sharp 'outdoors in clear weather' (stopped down)

 

[Mike Wingate]

My zoom is slow. P7-14. But it does have depth of field, it will go from 7 which is wide to 14 which is totally different in view. I have used a Laowa 7.5mm. Small, fast, light. A nice little lens. Keep your fingers and toes out of the shot.

 

[Brownie]

No autofocus is the big one.

I wish somebody would offer a UWA prime with AF, until then I'll use the 9-18.

DOF is such that AF is really irrelevant for lenses with such short focal lengths.
Pentax even sold a 18mm pan focus lens for their auto110 system (much the same 'sensor' size as MFT). Every thing beyond 1.75m was reckoned to be in focus wide open, with 1m+ being sharp 'outdoors in clear weather' (stopped down)

Exactly that. besides the Laowa, a favorite around here is the cheapie Samyang 7.5. everything from about 3/4 meter out is in focus, just point and shoot.

 

[Mike Wingate]

The Laowa 7.5mm is rectilinear, not fisheye so needs little correction. Still expensive for a manual non ois lens, however...

 

[RS86]

The Laowa 7.5mm is rectilinear, not fisheye so needs little correction. Still expensive for a manual non ois lens, however...

I'm under the impression that at these wide focal lenghts the image stabilization is not needed as much?

 

[Mike Wingate]

All depends on how shaky you are, IBIS and all. Every feature can add to an improved photograph. Then on to PP.

 

[RAH]

I'm under the impression that at these wide focal lenghts the image stabilization is not needed as much?

Yes, I agree with @Mike Wingate . While it's true that the more magnification you have, the more you need IS, it's also true that ultra-wides are usually used more indoors than high telephotos. IS is especially desirable indoors with an ultrawide, IMHO.

 

[PakkyT]

I DO wish the 12-100 was smaller and lighter, which would make it much better for what I want

The beauty of this lens is that you get PRO quality optics, weather sealing, and other features but in a super zoom which are rare to have stellar IQ. Smaller and lighter gets you the 12-200 which is even more of a super zoom, but they wanted to keep it cheaper and smaller and lighter and from the sample shots I looked at when it first came out, the photos were just OK in IQ, nowhere in the same league as the 12-100 PRO photos. I think Olympus did a tremendous job with this lens giving us that high level focal range and IQ combination while still keeping it relatively smaller.


Back to the original poster, I have only heard great things about the Panasonic 8-18mm lens which does take filters. I even thought about renting one for a trip as a local camera equipment rental place had it, but ended up not doing it. It is kind of a pricey lens at $1000 usd retail new. But I see KEH.com has a few used ones ranging from $770-$822 depending on condition.

As others have mentioned, when you get in the ultra wide angle side of things, every millimeter is noticeable. I did this one on my old 4/3rds gear comparing the 14-54mm to the 12-60 SWD lenses to show the difference only 2mm made on the wide end...

[Image removed due to pending VerticalScope switchover. I do not agree with expanded licensing grab in their Terms of Service.]

and this just across my living room. Obvious when out side doing building, mountains, city scenes, etc. where everything is farther away, that extra space to either side (and top and bottom) could capture a lot of stuff. Or when shooting closer like my example, may be the difference of getting the statue, fountain, building, etc. in the frame when you simply can not back up any further. Clearly 8mm or 9mm is going to be even more dramatic.

 

[Brownie]

I'm under the impression that at these wide focal lenghts the image stabilization is not needed as much?

"Back in the day" before anyone ever thought IS was possible, we made sure our shutter speed was at least a fast as the FL of the lens. Shooting a 200mm lens, 250 SS. Shooting a 50mm, 60 SS. A 7.5mm on a M4/3 would need (in my own experience) a minimum of 1/15th (7.5 X 2 equivalent FL). Of course, faster is better for sharpness.

 

[Mike Wingate]

Moving straight from my Pentax ME and MX cameras to my Lumix GX80. I was amazed at how the lenses snapped into focus, the electronic horizon and how bright everything was in the EVF.

 

[RAH]

The beauty of this lens is that you get PRO quality optics, weather sealing, and other features but in a super zoom which are rare to have stellar IQ. Smaller and lighter gets you the 12-200

Yes, I know that it is supposed to be a stellar lens in all respects. I just wish it wasn't quite so super. Instead of smaller and lighter getting me a 12-200 (and mediocre IQ), I'd want smaller and lighter to be maybe a 12-75 or 12-80 and still PRO quality. But it's hard to please everyone.

Concerning the 8-18, the OP may be interested to know that it is essentially identical to the PL12-60 (which he has) in size, and weight. So he can judge it some from that. Yes, I find the IQ to be very good. I got mine from KEH for $673 on a Black Friday sale, so keep your wallet ready!

 

[RS86]

Yes, I agree with @Mike Wingate . While it's true that the more magnification you have, the more you need IS, it's also true that ultra-wides are usually used more indoors than high telephotos. IS is especially desirable indoors with an ultrawide, IMHO.

Well, we can then wonder what a mistake Panasonic made with not putting OIS in Panasonic 12mm f/1.4, which is a 1400-1500 € lens even now after 4 years. I think Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is the only other Panasonic lens without OIS, and that is very likely due to the very small size & special build of the lens.

What do you think about this mistake? Are the engineers stupid? How come one of their most expensive lenses doesn't have it?

And even if below one reviewer says this is likely due to size, I think my Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 is not a big lens by any means, so looks like it doesn't add that much size? And about the price argument, even their 25mm f/1.7 has it which can be bought for 100 € new when on good sale. So it seems they have OIS for over 20mm lenses.

Another point is that reviews like Lenstip or Ming Thein don't mention it as a con. In fact Thein mentions only once that it doesn't have it and doesn't seem to care at all otherwise.

I do agree that it has some effect, but to me (and apparently the engineers) it is too small. And we have to consider that Panasonic's IBIS in 2016 was not as good as Olympus'.

https://theartofphotography.tv/panasonic-leica-dg-summilux-12mm-f-1-4-asph/

Image Stabilization

Though rarely a problem since this is so wide, there is no internal stabilization. Panasonic and Olympus have both designed a variety of cameras that have in-body image stabilization at least so its only an issue if your camera doesn’t have it. If you’re shooting video, you’ll want a gimbal anyway. For stills, shutter speeds above 1/25 should be just fine. I’m pretty sure it was left off of this lens to save on cost and size. Being a wide-angle it doesn’t need image stabilization like longer focal lengths typically do.

IMAGE STABLIZATION

With an extremely bright wide-angle lens, you will not soon need image stabilization. Even so, it can be an important function when you are photographing in low light (at night, at events or indoors). The absence of built-in stabilization is becoming less important for micro-43. For lenses with a short focal length, the most benefit comes from image stabilization in the camera body. Olympus cameras are all equipped with in-body image stabilization, and the most recent Panasonic cameras (GX8, GX80) also have built-in image stabilization, so it falls in line with the expectation that in time, all Panasonic cameras will also have built-in image stabilization.

https://www.camerastuffreview.com/en/review-panasonic-leica-12mm-f1-4/

 

[PakkyT]

Well, we can then wonder what a mistake Panasonic made with not putting OIS in Panasonic 12mm f/1.4, which is a 1400-1500 € lens even now after 4 years. I think Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is the only other Panasonic lens without OIS, and that is very likely due to the very small size & special build of the lens.

Actually a fair number of their lenses do not have O.I.S. 7-14mm F4.0, 8-18mm F2.8-4.0, 10-25mm F1.7 in the zooms. And in the primes 8mm F3.5, 12mm F1.4 (that you mentioned), 14mm F2.5, 15mm F1.7, 20mm F1.7 (which you mentioned), 25mm F1.4, and 25mm F1.7. So 10 by my count (not including mark I and II versions of the same lens like the 14/2.5). But as you noted, these all are either UWA zooms or wide angle primes. I believe anything above 25mm got O.I.S.

 

[RS86]

Actually a fair number of their lenses do not have O.I.S. 7-14mm F4.0, 8-18mm F2.8-4.0, 10-25mm F1.7 in the zooms. And in the primes 8mm F3.5, 12mm F1.4 (that you mentioned), 14mm F2.5, 15mm F1.7, 20mm F1.7 (which you mentioned), 25mm F1.4, and 25mm F1.7. So 10 by my count (not including mark I and II versions of the same lens like the 14/2.5). But as you noted, these all are either UWA zooms or wide angle primes. I believe anything above 25mm got O.I.S.

Good point, thanks, there were surprisingly many. And actually the 25mm f/1.7 doesn't have it either like you say, remembered wrong. But the pattern is clear, and actually it is over 25mm & not over 20mm where they have drawn the line currenly.

I think the very expensive lens from 2016 is very telling how they evaluate the need for OIS for wide-angle lenses. The other very expensive lens PL 10-25mm f/1.7 without OIS is interesting too. Would have thought otherwise.

Is it because of what the reviewer said, that IBIS is much more effective at these focal lenghts? I think that 10-25mm is pretty long lens, so the physical length of the lens doesn't matter at all?

 

[RAH]

Well, we can then wonder what a mistake Panasonic made with not putting OIS in Panasonic 12mm f/1.4, which is a 1400-1500 € lens even now after 4 years. I think Panasonic 20mm f/1.7 is the only other Panasonic lens without OIS, and that is very likely due to the very small size & special build of the lens.

What do you think about this mistake? Are the engineers stupid? How come one of their most expensive lenses doesn't have it?

No, of course I don't think that the engineers are stupid. I think I was referring to ULTRA-wides when I made my reply. I don't consider 12mm an UW, although I suppose one could marginally. You yourself were referring to a VERY UW in your initial response I replied to, a Laowa 7.5mm :

I'm under the impression that at these wide focal lenghts the image stabilization is not needed as much?

So that is what I in turn was referring to. I think that UW lenses, from say 9mm down, are used more often indoors (architecture, etc) than even standard lenses, from say 12mm up. That is what I meant - UWs.

I think that some of those P lenses mentioned above (like the 8-18) should have OIS, sure. I guess they were stupid in those cases; but also trying to hold the price down and perhaps figuring most future cameras would have IBIS anyway.

 

[Brownie]

I think that 10-25mm is pretty long lens, so the physical length of the lens doesn't matter at all?

No, just the focal length. The reason those lenses don't have IS is that you don't need it. Not a mistake, not stupid, you just don't need it. It has nothing to do with 'choosing' to add it to more expensive lenses. Short FL allows a lower shutter speed. A 25mm lens needs only 1/60 in normal light. Using a body with IS can lower that by several stops. Far too much emphasis on IS here.

A 25mm lens is not long, it's considered 'normal'. It is equivalent to a 50mm in FF, and is assumed to be the same as viewing something with the naked eye. Longer is telephoto, shorter is wide angle.

 

[RS86]

No, of course I don't think that the engineers are stupid. I think I was referring to ULTRA-wides when I made my reply. I don't consider 12mm an UW, although I suppose one could marginally. You yourself were referring to a VERY UW in your initial response I replied to, a Laowa 7.5mm :

So that is what I in turn was referring to. I think that UW lenses, from say 9mm down, are used more often indoors (architecture, etc) than even standard lenses, from say 12mm up. That is what I meant - UWs.

I think that some of those P lenses mentioned above (like the 8-18) should have OIS, sure. I guess they were stupid in those cases; but also trying to hold the price down and perhaps figuring most future cameras would have IBIS anyway.

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, I can't afford the 12mm f/1.4, and I bet many others can't either. The Venus 7.5mm is a fast lens so it's good indoors from that point of view, while the focal length will give pretty good DoF anyway even wide-open.

To me it seems the engineers know more about how useful OIS is with these under 25mm lenses, because it is very consistent for Panasonic when they include OIS, even for the most expensive lenses.

So no, to me the fact that Venus 7.5mm doesn't have OIS, is not a big minus, but a very minor one, when you compare it to very expensive Panasonic lenses.

Not easiest to find articles about it though.

"When it comes to lenses, you’ll tend to see image-stabilization included with telephotos more than wide-angles: longer focal lengths are generally more susceptible to camera shake than shorter ones. You’ll also have the best success when your subject is positioned near the center of the frame. Image-stabilized telephoto lenses are particularly useful for photographers shooting sports or wildlife, where subjects tend to be fast-moving. Camera shake is less of a problem with wide-angle lenses. You can usually get away with shooting at slower shutter speeds with wide-angle lenses thanks to the way the reciprocal rule works. As such, wide-angle lenses will benefit more from sensor stabilization within the camera body they are paired with."

https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...lization-what-every-photographer-should-know/

"I always choose image-stabilized camera bodies and lenses when I have the choice—though it’s not particularly important (nor generally offered) on wide-angle lenses."

https://northrup.photo/gear-basics/lens-features/image-stabilization/