William Sommerwerck wrote:
>>Of course, Olympus makes nothing wider than 18mm, and there's a big
>>difference between 14mm and 18mm, so if you want something that wide,
>>there aren't many choices.
Foxy (and others) inquire:
>Don't they make the 16mm?
The original author (RLH?) neglected to mention that the 14mm Sigma is
a rectilinear lens, not a fisheye. AFAIK, only Nikon made a 13mm or 12mm
rectilinear, which was/is special order only, and horrendously expensive.
Pentax made a very nice 15mm F3.5 for its A-series bodies.
George Anderson wrote:
>AFAIK, the 16/3.5 [Zuiko] is still available new.
Yup, B&H will gladly sell you one. The price? A measly $1049.95 !!!
>Shawn Wright wrote:
>>
>> The Zuiko 16mm/3.5 is a little gem - showed excellent contrast and
>> sharpness. [It] seems to be fairly common used, at around $600 CDN here.
That's a GREAT price! Almost justifies the air fare to Vancouver, BC. :-)
The last one I saw in KEH catalog was listed at US$645, and disappeared
the next month.
Ok, back to the original subject:
The old-style 14mm Sigma is well made and sturdy (I never tried one in
OM mount though). It produces respectable results, and was in continuous
production for a very long time, incl. an AF version. Recently, Sigma
released an update -- 14mm f2.8 lens, alas in AF only. :-(
Why one would need AF at 14mm focal length is simply beyond me...
Cheers,
/Gary Schloss.
Studio City, CA
schloss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
< 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 >
|