Wide-angle lenses

One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the
argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am
not convinced that this is true, but what lens do you think is missing? What
wide angle lens is needed to round out the lineup?

For me, it seems that Nikon still needs to produce a 10mm f/2.8 (or better)
Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. The Sigma
10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow.

I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens.

In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:

One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the
argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am
not convinced that this is true, but what lens do you think is missing? What
wide angle lens is needed to round out the lineup?

For me, it seems that Nikon still needs to produce a 10mm f/2.8 (or better)
Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. The Sigma
10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow.

I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens.

I have and recently acquired the 11-18 Tamron SP- it suits my needs
rather nicely. It's not a fish eye.
--
"As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely,
the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great
and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
- H. L. Mencken, in the Baltimore Sun, July 26, 1920.


Reality-Is finding that perfect picture
and never looking back.

www.gregblankphoto.com

On Sun, 14 Jan 2007 17:42:00 -0800, Greg \_\ wrote
(in article ):

In article m,
C J Campbell wrote:

One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the
argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I am
not convinced that this is true, but what lens do you think is missing?
What
wide angle lens is needed to round out the lineup?

For me, it seems that Nikon still needs to produce a 10mm f/2.8 (or better)
Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye. The Sigma
10-20mm f/4-5.6 zoom is too slow.

I really don't see a use for an 8mm lens.

I have and recently acquired the 11-18 Tamron SP- it suits my needs
rather nicely. It's not a fish eye.


Hmm. I was not aware of that lens. Still, I already have the 12-24 Nikkor. It
seems wide enough for almost anything. The question is speed.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...

Hmm. I was not aware of that lens. Still, I already have the 12-24 Nikkor.
It
seems wide enough for almost anything. The question is speed.


Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation..
slower lenses?

Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image?

I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work
(probably).

Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation..
slower lenses?

Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image?

I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work
(probably).

The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake
translates into less image movement.

Remember the general rule-of-thumb: you can hand-hold a (non-IS) lens
down to about 1/focal-length. So a 300mm lens can be hand-held down
to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised
if most people need significantly more light than that.

-Joel

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation..
slower lenses?

Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image?

I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work
(probably).


The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake
translates into less image movement.

Remember the general rule-of-thumb: you can hand-hold a (non-IS) lens
down to about 1/focal-length. So a 300mm lens can be hand-held down
to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised
if most people need significantly more light than that.



The rule of thumb is changed by 50 per cent for APS size sensors, so a
10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really needs
1/500th not 1/300th.

The thing with wides is that many people (like me) sometimes use extreme
wides really stopped down, with foreground very close to the lens - for
max depth of field. That can mean working at f16 or f22. Exposures may
be 1/15th or 1/20th. In-body IS gives this type of exposure extra
chances of being tripod-sharp. It's useful.

David

On Jan 15, 8:57 am, (Dr. Joel M. Hoffman) wrote:
Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation..
slower lenses?

Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image?

I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work
(probably).The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake
translates into less image movement.

Remember the general rule-of-thumb: you can hand-hold a (non-IS) lens
down to about 1/focal-length. So a 300mm lens can be hand-held down
to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised
if most people need significantly more light than that.

-Joel

This is all true, and below 1/60, subject movement plays a big role
even in static pictures. Nikon says there 14mm f2.8 works with digital,
Bjorn Rosslet, say it's OK. But a huge heavy and expensive lens, would
be nice to have DX with less coverage so the lens looks more like 35mm
frame 21mm lenses and doesn't have that huge front element. There are
Sigma and Tamron version of the 14mm f2.8, I have heard varying reports
on both.

Tom

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
e.com...
One thing that crops up (so to speak) in the sensor size debate is the
argument that there are no good wide angle lenses for smaller sensors. I
am
not convinced that this is true, but what lens do you think is missing?
What
wide angle lens is needed to round out the lineup?

For me, it seems that Nikon still needs to produce a 10mm f/2.8 (or
better)
Nikkor. The 10.5mm fish eye is a good lens, but it is a fish eye.

It's a fisheye that converts to rectilinear with Nikon Capture 4, though.
And the conversion is surprisingly good, in my opinion. Of course there's
some loss of definition in the corners as you'd expect, but a lens that wide
is going to look a little funny in the corners anyway. I have the 10.5 and I
love it. But then I like fisheyes anyway, which I suppose puts me positively
in the minority.

Neil

"Rita Ä Berkowitz" ritaberk2O04 @aol.com wrote in message
...


The biggest myth is IS/VR actually helps improve image quality at focal
lengths of 50mm and wider. There isn't a person alive that can
distinguish
between an image in a double-blind test that has IS/VR on when used at
50mm
and wider.

Rita, I tell you again this is simply not true. I have used a 28mm (equiv.)
lens in low light with Minolta's AS, where I didn't want to use flash
(actually in a few shots I did use flash but threw away the results since
they were much less satisfactory) and the AS gave me adequately sharp
results at 1/4 second or so. I *could not* have gotten those results at 1/4
hand held without it.

That IS/VR/AS is much more important with long lenses in most circumstances,
I do not dispute. But it's simply wrong to say it has no usefulness with
short lenses.

Neil

On Mon, 15 Jan 2007 15:28:05 +0000, David Kilpatrick
wrote:

Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
Isn't this behind the rush into image stabilisation..
slower lenses?

Do you need quick lenses if you stabilise the image?

I can't imagine doing much action stuff with a 10mm lens so IS would work
(probably).


The wider the lens, the less important IS becomes, because lens shake
translates into less image movement.

Remember the general rule-of-thumb: you can hand-hold a (non-IS) lens
down to about 1/focal-length. So a 300mm lens can be hand-held down
to about 1/300, and a 10mm lens down to about 1/10. I'd be surprised
if most people need significantly more light than that.


The rule of thumb is changed by 50 per cent for APS size sensors, so a
10mm lens might normally be OK at 1/15th not 1/10th, 300mm really needs
1/500th not 1/300th.

Thus a WA of 15mm gives you a 1 stop advantage compared to the normal
focal length of 30mm (all on an APS-C-type sensor)... and one and a
half for an ultrawide of 10mm. But IS gives you up to 3 stops of
stabilization. So IS would definitely be useful in WA lenses,
especially in situations where you stop down to gain max. DOF.

The reason they don't put IS into these lenses is IMHO that it would
be too difficult to put the IS elements into the congested design of
ultrawides and/or would cause the design to become too bulky and
expensive. .

Another good reason for in-camera stabilization.

KS

PS Apologies in advance to the purists. I know that "stop" means the
size of the aperture, and thus stops can't possibly measure
stabilization.