Don't know why the 16 is cheaper than the 18, but they are totally different
lenses.
The 18 is rectilinear, meaning that straight lines stay straight.
The 16 is a full frame fisheye, which means that straight lines that don't go
through the middle of the picture curve around.
Mike wrote:
>
> I followed the recent thread on wide angles and liked what i saw that
> was taken with the 16/3.5. Seems like a nature progression from the
> 21mm. $500-700 is a problem though. What if any was the consensus on an
> alternate choice? That focal length appears to be about the limit in
> which distortion can be minimized. And why does Skip's data show the
> 16mm to be cheaper with more sales recorded than the 18mm? Is this a
> fluke of the data? Maybe a couple of mushroom farms? Or is it a less
> desirable lens for some reason of which I'm not aware?
>
> Mike
>
> < This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
> < For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
> < Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|