IQ should be comparable to 1" compacts, maybe a bit better because of the RYYB sensor, but that category thinned out considerably. AFAIK only the Panasonic ZS300 is currently in production.
I do find it funny that smartphones are increasingly like proper cameras in both size, shape and weight. Part of their original appeal was that they just slipped in your pocket and you generally have them with you at all times. And I understand that appeal.
So this trend of bulking them up with lenses, grips and accessories is obviously just a way for manufacturers to try and keep you in their ecosystem, when an easy option was always there: a proper camera.
5 Likes
I did indeed get a few…
Of course the shutter crapped out when I was getting nice consistent exposures…
btw
Mamiya C330 Pro F
Seikosha S 80mm f/2.8
Kodak Tri-x 400
camera scanned
negadoctored, darktable
10 Likes
Yep. Also reading the marketing fluff for these products, especially the use of the word “professional”, gives some great laughs
2 Likes
I have the M.Zuiko 9-18mm, but sometimes, in narrow city streets, I still cannot get some buildings in my frame and need to cut some small piece off. Often, it is just a tiny bit that is missing, which is more frustrating as if it is obvious that the object/building is too large… therefore, I thought about getting an even wider lens. I tried to note down the FoV for the MFT lenses (surprisingly very linear in that range):
9mm ~100°
8mm ~107°
7mm ~114°
6mm ~122°
The Laowa 6mm f/2 would be the widest rectilinear MFT lens. And from what I read, it is quite good… however, on mpb, you get the Panasonic Lumix G Vario 7-14mm f/4 ASPH significantly cheaper. Of course, f/4 will not give me as much light in low light conditions and the FoV is smaller, but most if the time, I would not open the aperture that much (Laowa seems also to have strong vignettes at f/2). Laowa also has the 7.5mm, but I do not see the benefit of it. 7artisans has 4mm fisheye, but I would only be interested if it is possibility to correct the pictures in post if needed (no idea how much of the fov is lost in that case) - but is cheap (sometimes ~150€ for a new one)
What are your experiences or thought with regards to these lenses or these differences for ultrawide angles in general?
I would get the Panasonic 7-14mm. When doing landscapes or buildings, you are not going to open that lens wider than f/4, or even f/5.6. And it has AF, and is said to be a decent lens given the size. It is also on my list of lenses to get.
1 Like
A question particularly for the EU based members: If I buy a kit and re-sell the lens immediately and provide a copy of the invoice with it, does the buyer still have the warranty? In an online shop, the invoice is anyhow digital.
And maybe a more general question: how do you sell your gear? In particular if it is new? In the past, I used mpb, but in this case, I would sell a brand new item and the loss would be almost 50% while they would sell it for 90% of the original price. And how strong is the interest in gear that is sold privately in general?
I’ve been using /r/photomarket on reddit. Sure, more risk than dealing with MBP, etc but also more money. I haven’t had a bad transaction, all pieces I’ve sold have been for way more than a reseller offered (that’s why I tried it in the first place).
/r/photomarket seems pretty busy to me.
1 Like
My local photo store takes used gear. So does e.g. Calumet online. But most of the time I just sell on Kleinanzeigen and Ebay.
As for the warranty, as long as you have a proof of purchase (copy of the original invoice), the manufacturer should need to honor the warranty.
2 Likes
3 Likes
I just watched that Petapixel review this morning. It looks like a great option for APS-C. My only gripe is that the corners look soft, and that’s just because of my particular landscape needs. Soft corners don’t bother me at all with certain genres, but when I’m doing my woodland/landscape scenes, I prefer not to have to crop mushy corners out.
But other than that, I love how compact it is, and the price isn’t too bad. I’m seriously considering getting the Sigma Contemporary APS-C trinity at some point, although I probably don’t need to.
1 Like
I firmly disagree. I think you do, in fact, need them.
5 Likes
Diabolical 
–
I was thinking that it might be a nice companion for their 17-40, but then read that they also have plans for a 50-100 1.7?
17-40, 50-100 and a XF70-300 would be a perfect kit for travel.
I recently got the new-ish fuji 16-50. It is indeed nice and small. Weirdly, I found the internal zoom annoying: my fingers can’t tell any more where I am in the zoom range. I miss my numbered aperture ring, too.
The Sigma 18-50 would be an interesting alternative. But zooming the wrong way, no aperture ring, no 16mm? I think I’ll pass. The Sigma 10-18 is indeed a more interesting lens, especially at that tiny size! But still zooming the wrong way and no aperture ring. The Sigma 50-200 now does have an aperture ring; and if you had all three, they’d no longer zoom the wrong way!
No, no, no. On Saturday I’ll check if the 16-50 is indeed noticeably sharper than my 16-80. I’ll bet it will be a surprisingly negligible difference. At which point, I’ll send it back, and stick with my 10-24, 16-80, 70-300.
I already see myself taking test shots, comparing images, composing comparison graphs; all just to learn once more that modern lenses are all sharp enough. But GAS has me in its grips again. Before that scientific proof, I won’t acceit it.
3 Likes
I agree and you’re right, you absolutely need them.
1 Like
In this thread, expect nothing less, europlatus 
3 Likes
only three lenses? He needs many more
I’ve recently been slowly coming to terms with the fact that I prefer softer lenses for anything that isn’t a tele, as long as the out-of-focus areas are rendered nicely.
Unfortunately this is a lot more difficult to quantify than sharpness 
1 Like
I just tested all my zooms. 4 out of the 6 lenses zoom in by rotating the ring clockwise (from your point of view when shooting with the camera). Those are Fuji and Tamron zooms.
The two that zoom in anti-clockwise are the M.Zuiko and my old Canon kit lens.
I learned with the Canon, but I’m now mostly using the Tamron and Fuji lenses, so I guess a clockwise zoom feels a bit more natural to me. Getting Sigma lenses would probably mess me up a bit, but I’ve found that it doesn’t take me long to get used to the M.Zuiko. I usually just go the wrong way briefly, then realize it goes the other way and course correct. I don’t think I’ve ever really missed a shot because of it.
And it also got me thinking whether there’s a more “correct” way. Assuming you’re following best practices and cradling the zoom lens with your left hand underneath the zoom for stability, then to me I definitely think it’s a more natural movement to push the thumb up and rotate clockwise. When I use my M.Zuiko, I tend to use my fingertips and tip of my thumb rather than a whole hand motion.
Can you tell I’m bored at work?
This wonderful thread always delivers!
1 Like
I was so confused from the Sigma 17-50 lens back when I got it in early 2025. Both of my Nikon kit lenses zoomed the other way. It took me weeks to get used to it 
… and then I switched to Z5 ii. Luckily, Tamrons zoom the same way as Nikons, so I’m good (no Sigma zooms on Z mount yet AFAIK)