> The 16 and 18mm are roughly equal in price new. The
> 18mm is probably more desireable because it is
> rectilinear rather than a fisheye thus giving correct
> shots on film immeciatley rather than having to be
> corrected with Photo Shop. If you are looking for a
> cheaper superwide look for a Tokina 17mm (there is one
> on ebay right now at a too high price) or a Tamron
> 14mm which is around 250-300....
Yes, I saw that 17mm Tokina and you are right, the seller's price seems
high. But he did manage to sell a 135 macro + telescoping tube for
around $650 so I guess it pays to shoot for the moon, especially at
christmas. As to the 18 vs. 16, weren't those two pictures of the bridge
in the previous thread unretouched photos for comparison? 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 >
|