With OM bodies, I like the 16mm. If you get the horizon through the center
of the frame horizontally or vertically, the distortion is pretty managable.
I had an 18mm years ago, but sold it (darn!).
I use a 21/3.5 paired with the 16/3.5 often. Nice complements, those two
lenses.
The biggest issue with the Ultra Wide Angle lenses, especially the
rectilinear ones, is that you've GOT to keep them level. There's so much
horizon it's very easy to get it off a little. And it shows up quickly with
that large FOV.
FOV is almost identical for the same focal length across manufacturers.
P.S. If I really need wide, I have a 14mm/4.5 Voigtlander. And I could get
a 12/5.6! But it's not as easy to do UWA's with a rangefinder.
Skip
From: Mike <watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: Olympus-Digest <olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [OM] cheaper alternative to a 16/3.5
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 22:25:57 -0800
The distortion
of the 16mm seemed to be very manageable. Anyone who has used both care
to comment on the ease of composing with the former as opposed to the
latter? And does the focal length of the lens determine the angle of
view or is it inherent in the design. In other words if i look at
another brand do I see the same view given the same FL?
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 >
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
< 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 >
|