Wide-Angle Discussion Thread

>>2915477
anything below 25mm is pure shit. too much distortion.

it is nice not having to worry about focusing as much though.

unless your on a aspc. then 18 is p.good.

>>2915477
You think anything would look pure shit?
Im not sure on my favourite focal length.
I dunno what to go for on my A7R. Voigtlander 15mm looks appealing.

Who here Sigma 10-20mm? I just got it a few days ago but fell ill at the same time and haven't had a chance to go and use it, despite itching to do so.

Anyone have any experience using it?

>>2915482
>below 25mm is pure shit. too much distortion.

Nonsense.

With a good lens you don't get distortion.
You do have to mind the perspective, but as long as you keep the camera level it looks perfectly natural.

>>2915497
Is that a APS-C option?
Sigma should do an <18mm option in their Art line.

>>2915493

Hope you love purple glare.

Wide angle is 35mm (on ff)

>>2915517
And below..

>>2915512
The version III or FE version is corrected for the purple cast.

>>2915503
unless you have more than a grand for an art lens that has only 14-19mm they are shit.

unless you get an old manual lens even then its a push if its any good.

and the whole push and pull nature of the lenses that go below 25 on a full frame is a bit shit unless your a skateboard wanker like.

>>2915535
$1000 isn't much money in the world of lenses.
Yes my UWA was more expensive than that.
But even if your lens distorts, it's dead easy to fix in Lightroom.

>>2915535
>art lens

meme

>>2915511
Yes APS-C

>>2915554
Heard QC was iffy back when they were released. I chose the Tokina 11-16mm instead when I was using Canon APS-C. Had filter ring too. Happy shooting.

Are rangefinder lenses the best for wide angle?

>>2915676

That or large format.

>>2915477
Ultra wide is overdone but it has its uses

I've heard of a 12mm that has zero distortion, I'd love to get my hands on one

File: Ferawr-4589.jpg (535KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

535KB, 1000x668px

24mm just turned out to be my 'standard' lens!

Tried a 17mm but the distortion and the flares was huge!!!

talking about full frames btw..

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	E. Chiereguini
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	858
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:29 23:24:59
Exposure Time	1/320 sec
F-Number	f/2.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>2915679
why?

>>2915482
>anything below 25mm is pure shit. too much distortion.

Nikons rectilinear 14-24mm begs to disagree.

File: 28881732915_ec10faf153_k.jpg (2MB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2048x1367px

Nothing wrong with a bit of distortion

(12mm f2.8 Samyang)

>>2915736
barf

Not owning any wide angle lenses myself, I'm not sure what to dive into: 21, 25, or 28

>>2915745

valuable opinion, duly noted.

>>2915748
how would you solve my dilemma?

File: 20160813-DSC03020.jpg (1MB, 3000x2000px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2000px

>>2915757
There's this thing called Internet, pretty full of pictures of said focal length.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.0 (Windows)
Photographer	david mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.4
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:08:13 17:51:21
Exposure Time	1/125 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Brightness	5.8 EV
Exposure Bias	-0.3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2915497
Been using it for over half a year and I haven't run into any problems with what I've done. You get what you pay for, it's better than any kit lens but it's no L lens either.

>>2915676
>Are rangefinder lenses the best for wide angle?

On film they were.
Because they could have simpler optical formulas.

But on digital they cause too much vignetting.
And also modern designs makes lenses with complex optical formulas better.

>>2915745
A zoom lens.

File: DSC02851.jpg (1MB, 2000x1335px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1335px

Samyang 14 2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:03 10:41:15
Exposure Time	1/250 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.0 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: DSC02848.jpg (2MB, 2000x1335px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2000x1335px

>>2916275
Samyang 14 2.8

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:03 10:40:23
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	3.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: W I D E R.jpg (1MB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1280px

How W I D E is too W I D E /p/?

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS6 (Windows)
Photographer	Ray Neal Caird
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:07:14 11:41:00
Exposure Time	1/100 sec
F-Number	f/1.8
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	3200
Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	50.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1920
Image Height	1280
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2915477

I use the nikkor 14-24 2.8 at 14mm for wide astro-stuff and 24mm for landscapes, it's allright.

>>2916282
Fuck off Ray, you obnoxious cunt.

>>2915676
>>2915679
>>2915729
Consider the fact that focal length is roughly the distance from the sensor to a point half-way inside the lens where the image flips upside-down. If you have an 85mm lens on a camera with 44mm between the flange and sensor for the mirror to fit in, that still leaves you with about 20mm; but if you are using a 24mm lens, that means the focal point is... inside the mirror box?? On any SLR camera, wide angle lenses use a retro-focus design, meaning the image is first captured by a wide-angle component, and then re-projected by the rear elements in order to clear the mirror box. Essentially, these wide lenses are two lenses in one, which is why SLR wides are typically so large and expensive.

Mirrorless and medium/large-format view-camera systems can utilize symmetrical lenses, which are "true" wide angles, and have no retro-focus components, since these can be as up close to the film/sensor is it as mechanically feasible. However, light leaves the lens at the same angle it enters (hence symmetrical), which is not a good thing for digital sensors. While film can accept light hitting it at any angle, the photon wells of a sensor are straight, and also often very deep, so incident light will have a tendency to bounce off the side instead of entering, leading to an array of visual artifacts and discoloration. As a result, many high-end view camera lenses intended for digital use are semi-retrofocal, such as the Digarons produced by Rodenstock, which are more suitable for high-resolution 80~100mp digital backs than a comparable symmetrical lens from Schneider, which may be unusable even without movements.

>>2916279
>Sony users in charge of stopping down a lens

>>2916279
Left looks a bit soft but its dirt cheap-ness makes up for it.
>>2916282
And which do you use the most, landscapes wise?

>>2916315
Tamron 24-70mm VC stopped down to f/5.6. I only pull out the Sigma 12-24mm when I really need to get that extreme FOV because it's not really a particularly sharp lens corner-to-corner. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is barely used.

Been eyeing out that Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC though for a long while, but I'd feel like I need to offload some other lenses since I have too many at the moment. But that new EF 16-35mm f/2.8L USM III... So very noice

>>2916341
Hmm.
Im torn between 15mm/20mm and inbetween.
I have a 24mm but want wider.

>>2916487
Tamron 15-30mm is a beast of a lens, but if you're a Canon shooter and want the best, go for the monstrous EF 11-24mm f/4L USM or the 16-35mm f/2.8L USM III.

For a much more budget friendly UWA zoom the Tokina 16-28mm f/2.8 is another decent lens.

I'm using a 28mm on DX and I already feel that it's too wide. am I just retarded? Do you get used to the wider angles?
I used a nifty fifty from the 70's until now.

>>2915680
"Zero" distortion? Don't think that exists.

But you can get very good results with the APS-C 12mm Samyang f/2. Yup, you still want to apply correction in post - but it is a very strong lens overall.

https://www.flickr.com/groups/samyang_12mm_f2/

>>2915736
How does this look when you rectilinearize the shot?

>>2916919
With a wide angle lens you can capture the scene, not just a single subject.
The wide angle perspective can also look far more dramatic, which can make photographs more interesting.

When I go on holiday I only take my UWA zoom for daytime and a fast 50 for after dark.

>>2916919
For places and sceneries, that lens would be a lot narrower than I prefer.

But if your purpose is to primarily shoot your GF, it might be too wide.

>>2916341
How is the Canon 16-35 mk3 better than the Tamron 15-30?

>>2916924
>Don't think that exists.
There's that Laowa 12mm f/2.8 "Zero-Distortion" lens that's just been Kickstarted. Pre-production samples seem to back the claim up with decent sharpness across the frame.

Will be very interested to see how the production ones perform under real life scrutiny.

>>2916919
28mm on APS-C is too bloody long/tight for me.

>>2916946
It's optically a better performer with less distortion, but at twice the cost AND without the optical stabilization. The Tamron 15-30mm f/2.8 VC USD is a better buy for the money, but for the best performance, I'd go with the Canon.

>>2916944
I just find that creating compositions in wider focal lengths is very challenging. Mind you I don't photograph landscapes and scenery, mostly framed compositions with friends I recruit as models.

I liked a great many pictures I've seen that were made at a 28mm equivalent.

However, having been a poorfag I only practiced with a 50mm, and am now stuck in a place where I want to shoot more 28mm but don't bloody know where to begin. On a fifty, composition is like "just put things in the frame, figure it out"; on a 28 there's verticals and horizontals and distortion of things that go through too much of the frame.

tl;dr -- what're the basics of 28mm? Or wide angle in general?

>>2916949
> There's that Laowa 12mm f/2.8 "Zero-Distortion" lens that's just been Kickstarted.
They certainly seem interesting.

But yea, I'd wait for production samples. And then probably a price drop down to the early bird Kickstarter prices ('cause even on paper, they don't seem *that* much better than the much cheaper Samyangs).

>>2917020
> verticals and horizontals
Take them or your camera's electronic level as reference, as you prefer?

> distortion of things that go through too much of the frame
Most people only are bothered by the slightly unpleasant to uncanny effect distorted humans have - with objects, you can often just ignore it.

Even so, how about an example of what bothers you?

>>2915745
28mm

>>2917009
I couldn't tell with no examples.

Generally speaking, 42mm equivalent shouldn't be hard to do okay.

Perhaps you don't have decent lighting?

>>2917020
As long as you keep the camera level it will look natural.
So instead of pointing up/down, raise/lower the entire camera.

Also it looks more interesting when you have both something in the foreground and an interesting background.

>>2915941
Sony A72? Nice, have an A7 myself. What lens are you using?

>>2915477
What's the longest focal lengths you guys would be comfortable with just using zone focusing?

>>2917217
40mm

>>2916292
Thanks for explaining that.

So mirrorless UWA lenses can be made better than UW SLR lens?

Can the angle problem be overcome with BSI and curved sensors?

>>2916341
>Canon EF 17-40mm f/4L USM is barely used

Is there something wrong with it?

>>2916894
How is the 16-35mm "the best?"
Don't they lack in sharpness or was that just the previous versions?

>>2917480
Just an awkward focal range considering I already have a 12-24mm and 24-70mm.

>>2917640
By all accounts, the EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM is sharper than the f/4L IS USM which is already pretty sharp across the frame while the Tamron 15-30mm suffers from a bit of edge softness.

Anyone /tokina1116/ here?

Kind of regret buying it but I get a good photo from it once in a while.

using a 24mm on aps-c, and wondering how wide I can go that looks good before turning into an ugly circular distortion mess

also, how do wide angle lenses "designed" for crop censors work? are they just a lower 35mm focal length to compensate for the crop? such as a 15mm crop censor lens is just a 9mm lens but the crop factor would make it the 15mm?

File: DSC_8026_01.jpg (735KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1200x800px

Been shooting with Nikon 12-24mm for a bit over a year now and I think it's a wonderful lens.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D7100
Camera Software	ViewNX 2.9 W
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	1004
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	18 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:01:01 00:46:36
Exposure Time	80.6 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	400
Exposure Bias	2 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	12.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1200
Image Height	800
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	Low Gain Up
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

File: 12mmheliarschwarz.jpg (202KB, 933x904px) Image search: [Google]

202KB, 933x904px

Why haven't you guys taken the 12mm redpill yet?

>>2921507
why 12? why not 10? 15?

File: <untitled> 002.jpg (94KB, 666x1001px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 666x1001px

>>2921508
>why 12?
Perfect with either cropped or non-cropped.

why not 10? 15?
Such ugly numbers.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	666
Image Height	1001

File: <untitled> 003.jpg (141KB, 1001x666px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 1001x666px

>>2917020
action shots

try to have something in the foreground even when taking landscapes and sheeit

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1001
Image Height	666

>>2920697
got to say, ive hired it a few times before and it is an epic lense - could only have been better with stabilisation.

im thinking of buying the tamron 15-30mm because its sharp and has stabilisation too. gets good reviews.

>>2921519
>lense
don't do that

>>2921522

Great glass.

>>2921519
I don't really need stabilization, because I always have a tripod with me. Hard to say, what I end up getting, when I eventually switch to full frame. The 14-24 will probably be too expensive.

>>2921519
>>2921612

Stabilization on the Tamron is pretty much pointless becasue it doesn't stabilize the z-axis - which causes the most blur on ultra wide lenses.

Still, having used both I slightly prefer the Tamron over the Nikon becasue the Tamron feels much nicer in the hand.
But they are very similar.

The Tamron is cheaper and has much better warranty, so that's the one I bought.

File: Irix_Firefly_2.jpg (154KB, 1125x1000px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 1125x1000px

ordered this, maybe it'll be here next week. hopefully.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2015 (Windows)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1125
Image Height	1125
Number of Bits Per Component	8, 8, 8
Pixel Composition	RGB
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:03:16 12:07:54
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	1125
Image Height	1000

>>2921647
What the fuck is a "neutrino coating"

>>2921650
Just a buzzword for their lens coating process. At least when someone calls it a "nano" coat, it's believable, but neutrinos are so small they just freely pass through all solid matter, so it does nothing but sound cool and not infringe on existing names for the same shit,

>>2921647

>not having quantum antimatter plasma neutrino coating

File: fig2.gif (5KB, 450x344px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 450x344px

>>2921655
>At least when someone calls it a "nano" coat, it's believable

It's more than believable, it describes how they work: by being a specific thickness, 1/4th the wavelength of the light, measured in nanometers.

File: samyang_12mm_f2.jpg (19KB, 370x450px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 370x450px

>>2921507
12mm is gud.

I'd however suggest this one or even it's FF fisheye sibling.

>>2917479
Symmetrical wideangles start with an advantage regarding distortion and weight/size (and possibly sharpness too).

And retrofocals start with an advantage regarding vignetting and maximum aperture.

From there on, you can throw money at and overengineer either design to improve its weak points.

For instance, biogons are a hybrid design that retains the very low distortion of symmetricals, but also adds low vignetting and largish apertures.

The new Zeiss Opus series is an overengineered retrofocal design, exploiting large apertures and low vignetting inherent to the design, but also adding excellent sharpness and low distortion.

>Can the angle problem be overcome with BSI and curved sensors?
Not really, curved sensors cause issues with focusing, unless they also created a whole new series of lenses that project the image not on a plane, but on a curved surface.

If any progress is to be made, it'll probably come from better micro prism design on the sensor.

>>2921507
12-24mm Master Race >>2916282 reporting in

File: 25247985906_1adadeceb4_k.jpg (909KB, 2048x1367px) Image search: [Google]

909KB, 2048x1367px

>not using voigtlander full frame 10mm lense
plebs

File: statehouse_foyer_wide.jpg (1MB, 1466x999px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1466x999px

>>2921680

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	ILCE-7M2 v3.10
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	10 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016-06-14T18:40:53-04:00
Exposure Time	1/6 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Brightness	-0.3 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	10.00 mm
Image Width	1466
Image Height	999
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>2921676
>If any progress is to be made, it'll probably come from better micro prism design on the sensor.

Vignetting is caused by two things:
- less light per square mm falling on the sensor due to the angle.
- sensors that are less sensitive to light falling in from an angle.

The 2nd can be overcome with better sensors.
But the 1st is technically impossible to overcome, except by moving the rear element further from the sensor.

>>2921684
I was talking about the colour cast on Bayer sensors due to the angles of the rays hitting them, bouncing on the microprisms and hitting nearby photosites.

The natural vignetting (cos^4 falloff) is inherent to the symmetrical lens design and not something correctable (unless you change the design or physics).

>>2921683
>>2921680
it looks fucked anywhere off the centre of the frame. garbage.

File: 10mmv.jpg (391KB, 1600x900px) Image search: [Google]

391KB, 1600x900px

>>2921692
>>2921713
as expected of plebs

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Google
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Width	1600
Image Height	900

File: Canon_4427B002_EF_8_15mm_f_4L_Fisheye_732107.jpg (106KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 1000x1000px

>>2921725
>can't even fit the whole ferris wheel into the frame
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

>>2921895
this is cropped 16x9 screencap from timelapse video.
also, canon has recent proper 11-24 rectilinear lens instead of this piece of shit

>>2915698
If you learn to compose well you'll realize 24mm on ff is too fucking wide for a lot of things

>>2921938
but of course there's a chance that you'll be an ace at 24mm, don't wanna discourage you

File: 1461199345735.png (224KB, 901x680px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 901x680px

>>2921676
>Symmetrical wideangles start with an advantage regarding distortion and weight/size (and possibly sharpness too).
>And retrofocals start with an advantage regarding vignetting and maximum aperture.
>From there on, you can throw money at and overengineer either design to improve its weak points.
The Milvus 21 mm F2,8 and the Loxia 21 mm F2,8 are the living examples of what you just summed up.
The MTF graphs show they are neck to neck in performance, with a very small lead to the newer Loxia lens. But at the same time it is also the light lens and cheaper lens.

It's definitely cheaper and more efficient to start the wide angle lens design from the ground up as close to the sensor as possible.

Some of the Zeiss M mount lenses seem like Cosina-Voigtlanders with one stop slower max aperture for sharpness though.

>>2917025
Just this last week I was trying to photograph an old gas bell. With a 50mm I was able to take great detail shots that were simple to compose while putting only a reasonable amount of the surrounding pavement in frame (i.e., about a 7% sliver). Portrait orientation of course.

With a 28mm, I struggled to find an adequate composition in landscape orientation, and portrait would've put 1/3rd of the frame on the pavement _or_ made the verticals fall right over.

I'll post examples as soon as I've got them scanned, tomorrow perhaps.

>>2921966
Following your logic to the extreme, every lens is the same design. But we know that isn't true.
Zeiss use the most expensive anomalous dispersion glass, Voight lander lenses doesn't use that.

>>2921975
>But we know that isn't true.
>Zeiss use the most expensive anomalous dispersion glass, Voight lander lenses doesn't use that.
This isn't true for every lens, and we know a design / manufacturing relationship between the companies exists.

Look at the slow Zeiss 21 and tell me that isn't the C-V 21 in a more expensive barrel.

>>2921982
I will believe you if you can prove the construction of the glass elements is the exact same.

>>2921983
Why not look for yourself?

Next I'll tell you some Pentax / Zeiss stories that you won't believe too.

>>2921997
Because I believe in innocence until proven guilty. I don't need your stories.

>>2922001
Zeiss' T* coating is the exact same thing as Pentax's SMC, and that technology was developed at Pentax.

Next I'll tell you my Tamron / Nikon story...

>>2922003
I don't care about any of your stories. You've only proven that you're a goalpost mover.

>>2922005
So the Nikon 14mm f/2.8 lens is just the same exact thing as the Tamron 14 f/2.8 and inspection of the optical formula as well as the physical construction of the barrel will prove it.

Want to hear my raunchy Nikon / Sony story?

File: Screen Shot 2016-09-10 at 1.59.32 PM.jpg (100KB, 1619x808px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1619x808px

>>2922001
Here's the proofs, my little chicken.

The Zeiss is nothing more than the C-V 21 in a fancier barrel, with a half-stop slower max aperture.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Width	1619
Image Height	808

>>2922029
It looks like one of those design have used the other as base, and and tweaked the thickness of the lenses a bit. This is possibly enough to avoid lawsuits?

You need to prove the Voigtlander lens claim the patent of that design before Zeiss has its patent though.
Because you are implying Zeiss is the copy cat.

>>2922024
Some reviewers have claimed that the tamron actually out resolves the 12-24mm

I thought it was widely known that Zeiss manufacturs its mass-production lenses via Cosina in Japan.
If someone wants a real Zeiss lens actually hand-assembled by Germans in the Fatherland, you'll have to buy an Otus or one of the Master Primes.
The Japanese camera industry originated from the very fact that European cameras and lenses were some four times as expensive as what they could produce, and not much has changed. Look at genuine Leica, Rodenstock, Schneider, Angenieux, and Cooke lenses and they're all incredibly expensive, there isn't anything that's cheaper than $1000 but the very simplest lens designs, with most lenses easily being in the $2-5k range.

>>2922041
>violating patents
you are so fucking stupid lmao
cosina and zeiss WORK TOGETHER
cosina is a SUPPLIER to MANY other companies including Zeiss and Nikon

>>2922041
Cosina designed their 21 f/4 screw mount lens, and Zeiss partnered with them to offer it 1/2 stop slower in a fancier looking barrel.

You're BTFO

>>2922045
This is very easily believed, it's much easier to make a sharp prime than a sharp zoom for any given max aperture.

>>2922047
>I thought it was widely known that Zeiss manufacturs its mass-production lenses via Cosina in Japan.
My point is that Zeiss has obviously chosen some C-V lens designs to go into "their" ZM series.

>>2922001
>innocence until proven guilty
This is really telling though, you revealed a lot with this post.

You believe that a brand name infuses gear with quality magically, on a cargo cultic level. To you it's insulting and abhorrent that Zeiss would buy a Cosina designed lens in a Cosina made barrel and stick the Zeiss name on it, because it invalidates the panache you feel you display when you use a "German" piece of photo equipment.

To Zeiss and Cosina it's a mutually beneficial arrangement, to you it's heresy. Welcome to the photo business.

>>2922147
That's just retarded projection, as one would expect from a shitposting culture where you can accuse anyone of anything without the need to provide evidence.

First you claimed Zeiss copied Voightlander, now you realised you made an error and are backtracking, now you claim Zeiss is copied Cosina's design.
Either way you still need to provide the proper evidence, link me the patents to the Zeiss lens, the Voightlander lens, and the Cosina lens.

>>2922135
But can you actually prove who owned the design first?

You need to link to patents so we can look at their dates to properly asses who chose who.

>>2922287
I never claimed anybody copied anything.

My claim is that Cosina makes Zeiss lenses for Zeiss, some of which use optical formulae original to Cosina even, such as the slow 21's.

Not that Zeiss copied them, but Zeiss was more like, "Wow that's a nifty lens, would you please please make it for us in M mount, and make it 1/2 stop slower so the MTF looks nicer please please?"

>>2915497
I have it. The EX DC HSM one right? I like it. Yeah it's got a bit of distortion that makes itself apparent on the wider end but to be honest I actually kind of like the way it does distortion.

Best I've found for car shows. I can get up very close to cars without worrying about people walking in front of me and distortion seems minimal from that point.

It's actually becoming my favorite lens quickly.

>>2915511
APS-C. I run a Canon Rebel T6i.

>>2916282
I've got a 15mm and it's probably too wide. 20mm seems the sweet spot for me.

File: 15mm.jpg (32KB, 400x395px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x395px

>>2915729
>>2915676
Is this evidence enough?

File: Specs.jpg (63KB, 700x440px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 700x440px

F2 might be some sort of new record for a 15mm.

I've only seen F2.8 so until this happened.
>>2924353

I'm looking for a miniature black hole that I can stick on the front of my Canon 70D

>>2921683
This is a pretty good photo, what I don't like is the lamp posts in the foreground. They are too elliptical. If the lamp posts were not there it would be fine.

File: fer-5020.jpg (441KB, 668x1000px) Image search: [Google]

441KB, 668x1000px

>>2921938
>>2921941


I already got it hah but my street standard is 24, and recently made a shoot only with a 24mm

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D600
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	E. Chiereguini
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	858
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	24 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2016:09:13 12:46:28
Exposure Time	1/200 sec
F-Number	f/3.2
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/3.2
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	24.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown