So I've decided to pick up one of these and pair it with my 16-35 fe for when I want to hike with really minimal gear. I love shooting wide, and am tempted by the 10mm, but at the same time I'm a little wary of going too wide - when shooting with my sigma 12-24 I often make an effort to zoom in a bit from 12mm for landscapes as mountains/background features can sometimes end up looking too small. Still, I do shoot at 12 and I'm finding 16 often not wide enough. So, first part of this question is to ask for input on whether the gap between 10 and 16 is too great and I'd be better served by the 12. Subjective, I know.
Second, less subjective part: has anyone compared the ultra wide and hyper wide yet? In terms of IQ, would I be better off with one or the other?
I don't have either, and I've never shot 10mm on FF!
But I'll say this (as someone who loves UWA): At this level of extreme wide angle, I think it is super, super difficult to get meaningful answers from all of us about whether 10mm vs 12mm is going to be of use to you. It will almost entirely boil down to personal preferences and what you shoot.
What I will say is that, for me, at a certain point in going ever wider-- I find fewer and fewer shots that work at each focal length. My sweet spot is around 18mm, which is a sort of peak UWA focal length for my interests, meaning that as I go wider or longer (until a point, around 28/30mm) there are fewer images I'd want to shoot at each focal length. That means by 12mm, there aren't a LOT of shots I want to shoot. And by 10mm there are even fewer. Of course, for those couple 10mm shots... 12mm won't be as good. But I have to be honest with myself: How much do I really want to spend to have FLs for the real corner cases (and can I rent if it's a job)? How much do I really want to carry or even store for those corner cases? How much energy do I want to use thinking about 10mm vs 12mm vs 14mm vs 16mm vs 18mm? It's surely not entirely free mentally even having to get so granular in one's considerations-- of course depending on the job/goal/hobby. If I'm getting paid $20K for a shoot-- you can bet I'll rent all those and a 11/12-xx mm zoom and get absolutely granular. If I'm shooting for myself, or a $1K job... I'm pretty sure I can get by without squeezing out that final diminished return that nobody but me will ever make sense of even if I pointed it out in screaming highliter.
I don't have either. I have the VC 15 but these two lenses are very tempting for sure. So much going on right now with ultra wides but not all of them on the street yet makes it even harder to decide. Mikes examples of just how wide you can go is really interesting to see in real world . 10 may make the most sense as far as gapping for me having the 15. Tough decisions right now with a bunch of ultra sides announced.
I have the 10 and it's great fun; my next step up is 15. I wouldn't want to carry both 10 and 12 when I'm also carrying a number of other lenses, so my suggestion is to buy the 10 and crop off a bit when it's too wide. It's easy to emulate 12 from 10, but not 10 from 12!
Mike,
Many thanks for the comparisons. I'm wrestling with the same "dilemma" of trying to decide which lens to get to complement my 16 and 14 UWA's. Both seem to be respectable lens with the slight edge given to the 12 on edge/corners. Foreground performance is probably the most decisive factor. Do you recall what f/stop these were shot at?
Dave
The 12mm, relative to the 16-35mm, although being wider "only" 4mm, in the ultra wide angle range is noticeable alright. But to me personally, the 10mm would make a more meaningful and significant transition. I have used my CV 10mm quite a bit lately and now even a 24mm angle of view feels too narrow .
If I want to go wider than 15mm, it's because I want the widest possible! That's why the 10mm makes more sense to me. Also, as Danny wrote, you can always crop the 10mm if needed.
Fred Miranda wrote:
If I want to go wider than 15mm, it's because I want the widest possible! That's why the 10mm makes more sense to me. Also, as Danny wrote, you can always crop the 10mm if needed.
I generally agree, but in this case, the 10mm is not as sharp across the frame as the 12mm. So shooting the 10mm as a 12mm will sacrifice some quality.
MikeEvangelist wrote:
I generally agree, but in this case, the 10mm is not as sharp across the frame as the 12mm. So shooting the 10mm as a 12mm will sacrifice some quality.
Mike,
From your copies, that is indeed the case. However, it's hard to know for sure analyzing only one copy of each lens.
We know that Voigtlander is not a quality control champion.
Thanks guys, and thanks Mike for the samples. I'll take a better look when I get home.
Of course it's hard recommending focal lengths to others, but I thought it couldn't hurt to ask, and actually I hadn't really considered getting the 10 and cropping. Shooting on an a7rii, so I've got the pixels to spare, but I really prefer to do my composition in camera. So, it's a tough call. Leaning towards the 12 if it is indeed sharper. Wish I could afford both!
Yes - in my mind it's a little more than a 10 vs 12 mm argument. Of course on a level playing field I would choose the 10mm. The recent history of CV quality control on the 15mm cannot be ignored as well. Nevertheless, I'm really liking what I'm seeing in terms of IQ and less vignetting on the 12mm . . . not to mention that the 12mm is only 283g vs 375g! As usual it's all give and take! Dave
dbehrens wrote:
Yes - in my mind it's a little more than a 10 vs 12 mm argument. Of course on a level playing field I would choose the 10mm. The recent history of CV quality control on the 15mm cannot be ignored as well. Nevertheless, I'm really liking what I'm seeing in terms of IQ and less vignetting on the 12mm . . . not to mention that the 12mm is only 283g vs 375g! As usual it's all give and take! Dave
They are really about the same weight.
The new 12/5.6 is actually 350g
.
Dave