File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
what is the widest non fisheye lens for 35mm? and what is the widest one for crop DSLR
>> Anonymous
Sigma 12-24 or Cosina-Voigtlander 12mm.
>> Anonymous
>>131105

Whoops, forgot the crop part. Should be the Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 10-22mm.
>> Anonymous
>>131107
Olympus 7-14 if you include 4/3 lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>131107
Isn't there also a Tamron 10-24mm to come out soon? Is that one for crop bodies only?
>> Anonymous
>>131305
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0802/08020102tamron1024.asp
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
You must get a 6mm

http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/companies/nikon/nikkoresources/fisheyes/6mmf28.htm
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
     File :-(, x)
>>131329
pic related
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>131330
>>131329

fap fao fap.

now to get that and a nikon:eos adapter :D
>> Anonymous
You can also get a fisheye and "defish" it using software if you're looking for hyperwide features and are using a DSLR.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
I think there is a 4.5mm on its way.
>> Anonymous
OP asked about non-fisheye lenses, faggots
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
>>131413

Yup, but the thread has found something more interesting to talk about.

Lollerskates!
>> iProd !8x7lXo9zIQ
>>131412
WAT
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Voigtlander 12mm Ultrawide Heliar.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
Though currently, it'd probably realistically be the Nikon 14-24 f/2.8 on a D3.
>> Anonymous
>>131629

uh

get your head out of nikon's ass

sigma 12-24 wins for widest
>> Anonymous
>>131629
Only if we limit the choice to "widest 35mm lenses that are still in production and don't suck".
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Sony's 11-18 is 35mm coverage from 13mm.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>131634
Basically, yes. lol
>>131635
You really think a designed-for-digital lens like that is going to be fantastic on full-frame? Even if its image circle starts covering at 13mm, I doubt it holds any great amount of detail or corrects for aberration at that far edge. There's a reason they don't market a version of that lens called the "13-18" for film or full-frame. C'mon. The 14-24 is unbelievably superwide, WITH top-notch image quality.
>> Anonymous
heavyweather is a true nikonfag

and i thought jeremo was bad
>> Anonymous
>>131638
The Sigma 12-24 is even more unbelievably superwide. Now please gtfo.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>131639
Dude, if you want substandard choices, go for the gold. Get the digital-only lens or the Sigma that'll start having problems in six to twelve months. I understand that my view isn't held by all, nor should it be, I suppose. It's just a product of necessity.
>> Anonymous
lol

nikonfag is a nikonfag
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>131638
I didnt say shit about it being good, but the OP didnt ask about quality either!

True 35mm coverage is the 12-24 sigma for us.
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
>>131647
Hey, I can say the exact same thing about Canon. Their 14mm is superwide, of excellent quality, and their full frame cameras are worthy partners for it.
>> Anonymous
except no one else is going on and on about how the nikon 14-24 is the widest lens around when it's just not
>> Anonymous
Holy shit, Butterfly is sounding intelligent and someone else is being a huge faggot!

Is this some bizarro /p/ I'm in?
>> heavyweather !4AIf7oXcbA
     File :-(, x)
BIZARRO /P/
>> Anonymous
you guys realize bizarro /p/ is /b/ right?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>131653
Wait ive posted 2 things, neither of which containted much more than just lense numbers. What are you on?
>> Anonymous
>>131666
Exactly. Keep this minimal posting up and you might become tolerable.