12 hours ago
|
Re: No true, actually...
In reply to brightcolours,
4 months ago
|
brightcolours wrote:
Sovern wrote:
brightcolours wrote:
Sovern wrote:
brightcolours wrote:
Telhma wrote:
brightcolours wrote:
Telhma wrote:
Okej, thanks for the information.
I was looking for a wide angel lens, and he said me i did not needed to buy a EF lens then on my croped camera, he said i needed to buy a EF-s, or some tamron he adviced me, because there the minimum focal length was giving the same wide feeling on a croped sensor then a EF on a full frame.
But, after reading all these posts, i think i found out, that when you wanna go realy wide, only a full frame sensor can do the job and whatever lens i use, the crop sensor will only capture center parts of the image.
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.
There is the Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, which goes to an equivalent of 16mm on FF... 16mm on FF is really wide!
Then there is the Sigma 8-16mm lens... It goes even wider: 8 x 1.6 = 12.8mm FF equivalent. That is super ultra wide!
If you want to go even wider, then uncorrected "fisheye" lenses are the way to go. Tokina has a 10-17mm zoom, Sigma and Samyang have special APS-C fish eye primes.
thanks for the help
greetings
Okej, yea, I mean, a full frame will always be possible to go wider then a croped, just because i lose the outside of my picture.
Not true... the widest corrected lens you can buy for FF is the Sigma 12-24mm lens. The widest lens you can buy for APS-C is the Sigma 8-16mm lens. The FF equivalent of the 8mm is 12.8 mm, so both are more or less of similar width.
Also, the normal UAW lenses like the Canon 17-40mm f4 and 16-35mm f2.8 for FF are about as wide as the Canon 10-22mm for APS-C.
So, basically, FF and APS-C go just as wide, but you have to choose the lens that gives you what you want.
FF will only go wider with the SAME lens.
And i think 30 percent on each side is a lot, that's why i said that if you want to go realy wide, you need a full frame.
Not true, see above.
greets
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.
An example of this is the 28 1.8. On crop body you would need a 17mm lens to be the equivalent of what the 28 1.8 is on FF and the 17-50 lens are a lot slower at 2.8 and don't have the same bokeh capabilitys of the 28 1.8 on FF as they are more or less F4.5 lenses since you have to multiply the aperture also on crop body.
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokeh
F1.8 to F4.5 is a huge difference in terms of bokeh and low light capabilitys.
On FF you can get a nice trio of primes such as the 28 1.8, 50 1.8(for backup or the 50 1.4) and the 85 1.8 and possibly a long telephoto like the 135F2 or 200 2.8.
On crop this is not possible and it becomes very expensive to get wide angle lens and the crop body wide angle lenses are mediocre at best as they are slow variable aperture lenses that cost $600+ with plastic bodys such as the Canon 10-22.
If you need wide end and speed along with bokeh go FF.
Blur. Most wide angle lenses have crummy bokeh.
The 10-22mm gives better results than the UWA's on FF (17-40, 16-35 L) by the way.
Blur/Bokeh I get them mixed up a lot but you know what I mean. I don;t see how the 28 1.8 USM has bad bokeh as it's based around the same structure as the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 both which have excellent bokeh producing capability's.
Based around the same structure? How is that? The 28mm f1.8 has pretty crummy bokeh, also for a wide angle lens. The 50mm f1.4 has quite ok bokeh, the 85mm hs very smooth bokeh. There is no common "structure" to these lenses, they are very different in optical design.
I'd like to see some proof that the variable aperture wide angles on crop give better results than on FF as FF produces less noise than crop body even at iso 100 so I find it hard to believe.
Noise? Who was talking about noise? If you want to compare lenses on different formats, do it right, with equivalent settings. The 10-22mm is sharper across the frame, and the FF sensors vignet more. The 10-22mm also has less distortion.
The 28 1.8, 50 1.4, and 85 1.8 all have the same aperture blade system so theoretically they should have the same kind of bokeh.
When I was talking about noise crop cameras produce more image noise than full frame cameras even at base iso.
Any format can vignet by the way it depends on how wide the lens is. I'm sure that the 10-22 isn;t as good as the Canon EF 14mm f/2.8L II USM Ultra-Wide Angle on Full Frame.
| Post (hide subjects) | Posted by | When | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | 1 | ||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago | |||
| 4 months ago |
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
