The wide angle ZD lens line is one of the reasons I chose not to go with
Olympus for digital. I was initially attracted by the ZD 14-54
f/2.8-3.5 as it seemed like it would make a great walk-around lens.
Plenty fast and a wider range than the competition at that quality and
speed. But when checking lens availability at the wide end the 11-22
seemed like a total waste. Not really quite wide enough and most of its
range overlapping the 14-54. The 7-14 was clearly designed to pair with
the 14-54 and is reputedly a superb piece of glass but I don't need its
extreme wide angle and the price was simply not justifiable for me.
$1640 is well more than half way to the price of a 5D where I could use
my 17mm OM mount Tokina which is as wide as I've ever needed and that
only rarely. I think Oly missed the boat on the 11-22 decision. It
should have been 9-18 which would probably have allowed a much less
expensive lens than the 7-14. The 7-14 is so expensive that its low
manufacturing volume probably contributes signficantly to its price. A
7mm f/4 non-fisheye prime could have rounded out the line much less
expensively for those who really needed it.
On a related point, the very long delay in producing the 7-14 made me
very suspicious of Oly's claims of superior wide angle performance for
4/3 digital. Remember all that market speak about digital wide angle
lens mounts needing to be large relative to the sensor size? Light rays
need to strike the sensor more nearly perpendicular than for film. The
very lens that was required to prove the claim was non-existent for a
very long time after the E-1 hit the market.
Chuck Norcutt
William Sommerwerck wrote:
> Now that I have a competent dSLR (E-500), two lenses, and a flash, I've
> started looking for other lenses. I love wide angles, so I looked at the
> Olympus 7-14mm lens for this camera.
>
> Do you want to know what it costs? Do you really want to know? It's $1640.
>
> No, that leading 1 isn't a typo. It really costs that much.
>
> Olympus claims this lens has the world's first molded-aspheric element using
> ED glass. That's great. But it's a lens for a
> not-really-professional-but-wanting-to-look-like-one camera, whose sensor is
> 1/4 the area of a frame of 35mm film. Shouldn't it cost a lot _less_ than a
> comparable 35mm lens?
>
> I checked Adorama's listing for Canon digital-specific lenses for their
> APS-C sensor cameras. The comparable lens, a 10-22mm zoom, is $690. Not
> $1690 -- $690. The closest 35mm lens is the Canon 16-35mm, for $1400.
>
> I'm starting to think I made a really, really big mistake. Oh, well...
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|