The 8-24f4 seems in the right way, at such wide, shooting landscape enough DOF is always a good thing, if I were an owner of this lens I would rarely use it at f4, making a more compact f5.6 sister would even make more sense
To me the 8-25 is the PERFECT range for traveling.
If I were still shooting MFT, I'd definitely buy it.
I think f4 is right as f5.6 would be too limiting IMO (and already hit by diffraction).
Toni, this is a 16-50mm f8 full frame equivalent. If f8 seems right for "such a wide", or even f11, why would you choose that f2.8 lens for your FF wide?
(06-10-2021, 04:24 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]Toni, this is a 16-50mm f8 full frame equivalent. If f8 seems right for "such a wide", or even f11, why would you choose that f2.8 lens for your FF wide?
My Tokina 16-28 is one of the purchases I regretted most, I barely used it, in fact I prefer by far using my 10-18f4.5-5.6, and I use it between f8 and f16
(06-11-2021, 12:40 AM)toni-a Wrote: [ -> ] (06-10-2021, 04:24 AM)Brightcolours Wrote: [ -> ]Toni, this is a 16-50mm f8 full frame equivalent. If f8 seems right for "such a wide", or even f11, why would you choose that f2.8 lens for your FF wide?
My Tokina 16-28 is one of the purchases I regretted most, I barely used it, in fact I prefer by far using my 10-18f4.5-5.6, and I use it between f8 and f16
f16 on APS-C is too extreme for me. I can understand you only use small apertures at UWA, though. But at 50mm FF equivalent, I kinda don't. And the small apertures are fine for the €250 or something the 10-18mm cost me, but over $1000?
BTW I wonder how much distortion this one is going to have in uncorrected RAWs... (Speaking after being "impressed" by the figures mentioned in the Sony 16-55 discussion...)
Is olympus designing these lens or the new company? Unclear of the partnership arrangement. I guess either way we will know more about these lenses when they are released.