So, rumor has it...

Started May 6, 2013 | Discussions thread
Great Bustard
Forum ProPosts: 23,240
Like?
Re: So, rumor has it...
In reply to joger, May 6, 2013

joger wrote:

Great Bustard wrote:

joger wrote:

For what do you need a fast AF 17 mm prime?

Well, "need" is a strong word.  Let's say "want", instead.  Anyway, the reason I'd want such a lens is that I like the look of shallow DOF UWA.  However, as you would imagine, this requires a close focusing distance.  On the other hand, wide apertures on wide focal lengths can give quite deep DOF for many scenes, which is also a plus for light limited enviroments where there is motion that I'd like frozen.

i mean - what is the benefit of a moderate shallow depth of field on a super wide angle lens except the fact that you can win a bit more room for maneuver in the exposure time (which is not an issue any more since ISO 3200 is good enough for most situations)

Well, sure, there's always the "good enough" argument.  However, if we pursue that argument, I should be shooting crop instead of FF, no?

The TS-E 17 is as good as it gets optically and I have not seen to date a better wide angle lens in real world results (even shifted it is still fabulous)

I concur.  Rather expensive, though, and no AF.  And, yeah, I would need AF at 17mm much of the time.

In any case, I'd love a 17 / 2 that was sharp in the center from the get-go, sharp from corner-to-corner by f/4, and as sharp as sharp gets everywhere in the frame by f/5.6.

just out of curiosity:

seems like with all aperture (even near) almost everything seems to be in focus - hm ??

Indeed, for a subject distance of 3 meters, and, of course, that's a bonus for when you want a deeper DOF in a low light environment and you want to freeze motion.

With the TS-E 17 you can tilt and get a really shallow DOF - AF is not needed aas long as the focussing ring is smooth enough and the AF assist works well - of course a matter of personal taste.

For me the TS-E 17 is currently the best UWA on the market (Distagon 15 mm to be rented and tested by me)

A 17 mm f/2.0 would cost a fortune from Canon and you'd loose tilt and shift and maybe you win not very much in shallow DOF - I mean 6 m DOF at f/2.0 is still almost everything in focus.

Well, the Sigma 20 / 1.8 doesn't cost a fortune, and the Sigma 35 / 1.4 outperforms the Canon 35 / 1.4L and costs less.  So, for sure, a Sigma 17 / 2 "art" lens will cost more than their 20 / 1.8, but I'm betting it would cost considerably less than the Canon 17 TSE.

I fully agree on FF vs crop with longer lenses - there is a huge difference IMHO 50 % more DOF can make a huge difference when you want only a few inches in focus

of course a matter of taste - just wanted to add some thoughts and calculations

You can shoot whatever DOF you want on FF -- just stop down.  The advantage of crop is the higher pixel density of the sensor for when you are magnification or focal length limited.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow