Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Fujifilm 8-16/2.8
#21
I do agree: fast (ultra)wides do make sense (now, I put "ultra" in parentheses because how much ultra, it depends on the subjects; but fastness for blurring the background makes definitely sense).

stoppingdown.net

 

Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2 
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
#22
Quote:I'm talking about size of an UWA here. Sure, it's not 12 equiv, but others have compared it to 16-35, so why not a 18-36?

Now, I now perfectly well it's equivalent to a 18-36 f8-11 and that's the beauty of it: such a lens DOS NOT EXIST in any other system.

That's what matters.

When travelling and shooting landscapes, I'm perfectly happy with a slow lens as I'm shooting landscapes (which don't move all that much ;-). With Olympus' IBIS you can shoot this thing at around 1 sec. So again, a combo such as an E-M5 II + Oly 9-18 doesn't exist ANYWHERE else. For the size factor it's simply amazing, regardless of what you think.
It is totally ok for you to appreciate that Olympus lens, I just found it strange to bring it up in a thread about a wider, "fast" UWA. The 16-35mm only came up because someone thought they had confused its size with that of the "fast" and also wider Sony FE 12-24mm f4.

 

I know that such a slow lens does not exist anywhere else, but I am unsure what the beauty of that quite extreme small maximum aperture is. 

Whether something like it does not exist anywhere else?

The Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM is pretty close in size (just 4.5 mm wider and 8.5mm longer) and focal range:

 

Olympus ED 8-16mm f4-5.6 is a 18-36mm FF equivalent

Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 is a 17.6-35.2mm FF equivalent

 

It is a tad faster too: Olympus f8-11 FF equivalent and the Canon f6.4-9 FF equivalent.

 

The Canon has IS vs the IBIS of Olympus.
http://j.mp/2xmm5S9

It seems a lens like that pretty much does exist somewhere else?

#23
Quote:It is totally ok for you to appreciate that Olympus lens, I just found it strange to bring it up in a thread about a wider, "fast" UWA. The 16-35mm only came up because someone thought they had confused its size with that of the "fast" and also wider Sony FE 12-24mm f4.

 

I know that such a slow lens does not exist anywhere else, but I am unsure what the beauty of that quite extreme small maximum aperture is. 

Whether something like it does not exist anywhere else?

The Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 IS STM is pretty close in size (just 4.5 mm wider and 8.5mm longer) and focal range:

 

Olympus ED 8-16mm f4-5.6 is a 18-36mm FF equivalent

Canon EF-M 11-22mm f4-5.6 is a 17.6-35.2mm FF equivalent

 

It is a tad faster too: Olympus f8-11 FF equivalent and the Canon f6.4-9 FF equivalent.

 

The Canon has IS vs the IBIS of Olympus.
http://j.mp/2xmm5S9

It seems a lens like that pretty much does exist somewhere else?
 

I agree, the EF-M 11-22 while not as small, is somewhat close.

The Canon M system could be actually interesting if it was a real system. At the moment however, the system is extremely poor in terms of lens selection. A shame. Hopefully Canon will think of filling up the huge gap in the lens line-up.

--Florent

Flickr gallery
#24
Yeah, I totally agree that MFT has a much wider lens selection than native EOS M, and it also has more to offer concerning small lenses.

#25
What doesn't make any sense is the price of the EF lenses adapter, give us a cheap EF/EFs adapter and many will consider it
#26
Quote:What doesn't make any sense is the price of the EF lenses adapter, give us a cheap EF/EFs adapter and many will consider it
 

What are you talking about? Which brand of EF to Fuji X-mount adapter?

In case you are actually going even more off topic than I and thxbb12 have gone and are talking about a Canon EF to EF-M adapter for EOS M, you must have missed something. Almost 4 years ago I payed around $30 for my Meike EF to EF-M adapter, and you can get such adapters now for around $10, even.

 

But if size is of little concern and one does not need to mount a specific EF-M mount lens, I much prefer a camera like your "new" 7D mk II, your 750D or even a 100/200D any EOS M. Why? They offer an OVF. And you can make them do trap focus (probably, depending on model and lenses available to you).

 

There is no 8-16mm f2.8 for EOS M, though. So for such a solution and an APS-C sensor, one should look for Fuji (in the near future) anyway.

#27
Didn't know about the meike EF to EOS-M adapter


Is it as functional as the Canon adapter ? Maintaining autofocus and stabilisation ?
#28
The EF to EF-M adapters are just simple extension tubes. It does therefore not matter which brand is printed on them.

#29
Quote:The EF to EF-M adapters are just simple extension tubes. It does therefore not matter which brand is printed on them.
Many thanks BC Canon M6 is now more interesting... But i won't be getting a sixth camera body... Gear buying addiction isn't a benign disease after all
  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)