[Brightcolours]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288340283' post='3830']

Hi Mike,



I don't particularly understand what you are trying to say here. The equivalent of a 10-12 mm lens on APS-C on FF is 16-19 mm lens on FF, and there are plenty of those, if you are talking about zoom lenses, and plenty when talking about primes, while there are no equivalent primes for APS-C. And you certainly don't need a tilt-shift lens for the same "cool options", because we are only talking about normal DoF here.



The big advantage of FF also has been that there were good UWA lenses available, although that is mitigated to some degree by the slew of APS-C UWA lenses that has come out over the last 5 years or so. The big advantage of APS-C is the extra "reach" it gives you, due to the "cropfactor", which can IOW be a good thing with telelenses.



Kind regards, Wim

[/quote]

Obviously, the tilt shift remark is strange, I agree. I do not understand it either. There is no DOF difference between APS-C and FF, when you use an equivalent aperture (1.6x crop factor), and image affecting diffraction sets in at the same time (when using equivalent apertures) (the exception is the Sigma 12-24mm FF lens). And there indeed are NO primes that are really wide on APS-C.



There is however one (or two) advantage(s) with UWA zooms on APS-C compared to UWA zooms on FF. They (depending on which one you choose) have quite a bit less barrel distortion, especially when you look at the Canon EF_S 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 USM, Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 and Sigma 8-16mm.



The 2nd advantage is the price and size of the UWA zooms.



So it is not like there are no advantages at all... there are, depending on your priorities and choices.