Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Re: Olympus 11-22mm / f2.8-3.5 digital zoom

Subject: [OM] Re: Olympus 11-22mm / f2.8-3.5 digital zoom
From: "Joel Wilcox" <jfwilcox@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2006 09:50:29 -0500
On 9/22/06, Jón Ragnarsson <jonr@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> This might sound like a "sour-grape" rant, but I belive that 11mm is as
> wide as I need/want to go. I've rarely wished for something wider when
> composing a shot, and I have found that too wide sometimes makes
> landscape look less spectacular. And of course it is brighter, lighter
> and takes filters. The 7-14 is a lottery item, I'll only buy it if I
> have money that I have no idea of how to spend. :)
> 11mm:
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_5212515.jpg.html
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_C189344.jpg.html
> http://jonr.light.is/gallery/v/landscape/_C189365.jpg.html

Nice shots, Jon!

I have a different view about the cost of the 7-14.  Let me put it
this way:  Would you consider a full frame Third-Party Digital Back at
a bargain price of $2500+ so that you can shoot your 50/1.8 or even
your Vivitar 17/3.5 at full strength (without the AF and other smarts,
of course)?  If you wouldn't, many have, and lots are thinking about
it all the time right at this very moment.  For that kind of money in
the USA, you can have the 7-14 and an E-330 to mount it on.  I realize
you're not in the USA, but I suspect the value holds in relative terms
where you are.  The lens is the permanent part of the equation too.

That being said, having used Bill Barber's 7-14 ever so briefly
(actually time stood still for those precious moments :) ), I think
the 11-22 is probably more realistic for my needs.  I'm a bit of a POL
addict, which is possible on the 11-22 and not on the 7-14.  The 7-14
seems like a lens you need for very special circumstances, rather like
a 24 shift, which one would not tend to use for normal 24mm duties.

For landscape guys, the superwide range is mainly useful for trickery
in enlarging foreground objects relative to background.  This is
especially effective if the background area is still close enough that
in the resulting photograph it looks fairly normal and unstretched.
This is exactly what you've done in your second and third shots so
nicely.  One is hard pressed to say for sure that it was made with a
superwide.  In the first shot it is a little more clear that a super
wide was used (which is not to detract from it -- I like that one a
lot too).

Thanks for sharing your work.

Joel W.
==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz