JohnMatrix
Forum Enthusiast
i.e. does anyone make an f/2.8 rectilinear lens for a crop camera that'll give the same field of view as 14mm on FF?
just wondering?
just wondering?
Last edited by a moderator:
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Ef-s focal length
- Thread starter Telhma
- Start date
JohnMatrix
Forum Enthusiast
Telhma wrote:
Well, I want to get a fish eye, but i do not realy need the black parts in my image, so i do not need the circle vieuw
you should look at the Sigma 10mm f/2.8 EX DC (180deg diagonal fisheye for a crop camera)
It's already been mentioned, the Sigma 8-16mm, 8mm is about 12.8mm FF equiv.
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Why do you want an f2.8 lens? f2.8 on APS-C is equivalent to f4.5 on FF, by the way.
Last edited by a moderator:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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.
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.
Last edited:
brightcolours
Forum Pro
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokehSovern wrote:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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. 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.
PhotonFiend
Forum Enthusiast
a very nice explanation.
I'll take take another stab... take the camera out of the problem. take a two lenses off the camera and place a white piece of paper behind it. now try to image say a light bulb a fixed distance in front of the lens on that paper. an object imaged on the paper will have the same size for each lens ONLY if they both have the same focal length. Now take a 35mm square out of that image and then a 25mm square out of the image... your field of view has changed, but not the focal length of the lens(es) or the size (magnification) of objects in the images.
I'll take take another stab... take the camera out of the problem. take a two lenses off the camera and place a white piece of paper behind it. now try to image say a light bulb a fixed distance in front of the lens on that paper. an object imaged on the paper will have the same size for each lens ONLY if they both have the same focal length. Now take a 35mm square out of that image and then a 25mm square out of the image... your field of view has changed, but not the focal length of the lens(es) or the size (magnification) of objects in the images.
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.brightcolours wrote:
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokehSovern wrote:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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. 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.
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.
JohnMatrix
Forum Enthusiast
JohnMatrix
Forum Enthusiast
Why f2.8? For better subject isolation than a slower lens at the same focal length maybe, or to try and get the fastest shutter speed possible perhaps.
Also sorry but not sure why you brought up dof equivalency. I simply want to know if it's possible to buy a "fast" f2.8 rectilinear lens for a crop slr that gives the same field of view as 14mm on FF.
Last edited:
brightcolours
Forum Pro
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.Sovern wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokehSovern wrote:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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. 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.
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.
agree - 10-22 has well controlled distortion. when you are this wide, you are deep dof even wide open. only reason for f2.8 would be in pj mode to stop motion. the 10-22 is a lens I'd like, just wish it had IS.brightcolours wrote:
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.Sovern wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokehSovern wrote:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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. 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.
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.brightcolours wrote:
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.Sovern wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
Blur capabilities.... Not bokeh. The 28,, f1.8 does not have the most lovely bokehSovern wrote:
The only bad thing about crop is that there is a lack of wide angle primes within a reasonable budget.brightcolours wrote:
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.Telhma wrote:
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.brightcolours wrote:
You are wrong there too. There are lenses specifically designed for APS-C that go really wide too.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
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.
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.
Not true, see above.
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. 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.
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.
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.
Last edited:
Uh, no. Aperture blade shape/# is only ONE aspect of what determines bokeh. The optical design of the rest of the lens is at least as important, if not more. For example, aspherical elements often produce 'onion-ring' style OOF highlights, which often translates in to 'nervous' or 'busy' bokeh.
The 50mm f/1.4 is (I believe) a double-Gauss design whereas the 28mm f/1.8 HAS to be a retrofocus design as the focal length is significantly shorter than the lens-to-focal-plane distance, and includes an aspherical element. One would be foolish to assume they have similar bokeh characteristics if they had the same number/shape of aperture blades.
But it turns out that you're wrong there too -- the 28mm f/1.8 has a 7-blade aperture while the 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 have 8-blade apertures.
Last edited:
Yep, the only thing aperture blades control is the shape of highlights when the lens is stopped down. If you care about how the blur looks, you learn to start looking at the lens prescriptions and following spherical aberration pretty close. Undercorrected tends to be most people's favorite--blur that fades out from a bright middle area (behind the focal plane). Overcorrected SA (which is very a very common feature on just about all double gauss designs) leaves brighter rings around the blur behind the focal plane (but it looks great in front of the focal plane. There are other things to watch for but that's an easy one.
Thanks for taking the time to look that up for me.
brightcolours
Forum Pro
I brought up DOF equivalency because you brought up f2.8 (probably thinking of the f2.8 lenses on FF). If you want to have f2.8 FF like possibilities, you will need f1.8 on APS-C.
JohnMatrix
Forum Enthusiast
Nope, I was just enquiring about something faster than an f/4.5 APS-C zoom lens that covers the 9mm FL.
but thanks anyway.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum