[Klaus]

FWIW, I've seen some RAW images taken with an EOS R. Not too shabby actually. Some corner softness at f/2.8 but Ok at f/8.

[Rover]

So I wonder what the catch is. Field curvature?

[Brightcolours]

So I wonder what the catch is. Field curvature?

That it does not fit on your camera :O

[Rover]

So I wonder what the catch is. Field curvature?

That it does not fit on your camera :O

I don't think it would have been on my radar even if it had fit. I don't need just every lens on the planet, you know, even though at 8 lenses in stock, I might look like a hoarder.

[MatjazO]

Good to see that a small super WA like this one can be pretty good. Not my cup of tea as it is way too wide for casual walk around. I would take zoom over it as being so wide it is difficult to sort out the framimg just by making a step froward or backward. 
Yet, always nice to have an option.

[wim]

So I wonder what the catch is. Field curvature?

That it does not fit on your camera :O

I don't think it would have been on my radar even if it had fit. I don't need just every lens on the planet, you know, even though at 8 lenses in stock, I might look like a hoarder.

8 lenses? OI would not call you a hoarder at all. IMO, you are only a hoarder if you keep lenses you do not and/or cannot use any longer.
Of course with that definition I am not a hoarder either, with a total of 39 lenses including converters, extenders and speed boosters ...

---

Good to see that a small super WA like this one can be pretty good. Not my cup of tea as it is way too wide for casual walk around. I would take zoom over it as being so wide it is difficult to sort out the framimg just by making a step froward or backward. 
Yet, always nice to have an option.

I wish a lens like this would have been available 40 years ago. I got a 20 mm lens back then, and a 15 mm was possible too, but the latter was 3x the price. and very big and heavy. The 20 mm was a month salary back then ....

It was a great lens at a time, but a wider lens would have been extemely useful to me for my purposes at the time. Of course now I own a 10 mm rectilinear lens, and a 17 mm TS lens, so I am not really complaining.

However, I may get one. Size and price seem rather convenient, and the sample photographs I have seen really look good ....

Kind regards, Wim

[Rover]

Well, I'm mollified then. And yes, I'm using all of my lenses from tine to time, although the primes inevitably get a lot less workout, and the two intermediate zooms are also used more rarely than the two go-to units, 16-35 and 100-400. In a pinch, I could keep only these two. However, I try to give the others something to do as well.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVYlhiiMShe/?utm_medium=copy_link
Out shooting village sports.

[MatjazO]

Glad to see it would work for you, Wim. Different strokes for different folks. Just shows that variety is preffered than one size fits all approach.

[wim]

Well, I'm mollified then. And yes, I'm using all of my lenses from tine to time, although the primes inevitably get a lot less workout, and the two intermediate zooms are also used more rarely than the two go-to units, 16-35 and 100-400. In a pinch, I could keep only these two. However, I try to give the others something to do as well.

https://www.instagram.com/p/CVYlhiiMShe/?utm_medium=copy_link
Out shooting village sports.

Nice, nice place you are in too.
In a pinch I could probably go with 4 or 5 FF lenses, but then, I prefer to shoot primes.
With M4/3 6 probably, 2 sets of 3.

Glad to see it would work for you, Wim. Different strokes for different folks. Just shows that variety is preffered than one size fits all approach.

Thank you! And yes, I agree.

Of course, I happen to have two systems, FF, Canon, and M4/3, Olympus, and with the latter I have kind of a double set of lenses, the pro stuff and a bunch of small,(er) compact lenses. It allows me to vary between systems based on travel requirements, which works well for me.

Kind regards, Wim