10-29-2010, 08:18 PM
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288352488' post='3831']
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.
[/quote]
Depends on how you look at it. The Canon 17-40L is slightly cheaper than the EF-S 10-22, and performs better on FF than the 10-22 does on APS-C. It has a bit more barrel distortion indeed, but for landscape shots this doesn't matter, and converging lines in architecture shots mask the barrel distortion in many cases.
I don't know what you mean by your statement on the Sigma 12-24 EX, it being an exception. If you mean lens quality to be avoided, I wholeheartedly agree, however.
The Tokina 11-16 is indeed very good, and the Sigma 8-16 appears to be good too. I just hope the QC on this lens is a bit better than on the 12-24 EX. Of course, the 8-16 has wavy distortion.
However, give me a good prime anyday, and indeed, those are only available for FF. Shoot with a TS-E 17, and you will understand what I mean. A bit more expensive, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.
Kind regards, Wim
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.
[/quote]
Depends on how you look at it. The Canon 17-40L is slightly cheaper than the EF-S 10-22, and performs better on FF than the 10-22 does on APS-C. It has a bit more barrel distortion indeed, but for landscape shots this doesn't matter, and converging lines in architecture shots mask the barrel distortion in many cases.
I don't know what you mean by your statement on the Sigma 12-24 EX, it being an exception. If you mean lens quality to be avoided, I wholeheartedly agree, however.
The Tokina 11-16 is indeed very good, and the Sigma 8-16 appears to be good too. I just hope the QC on this lens is a bit better than on the 12-24 EX. Of course, the 8-16 has wavy distortion.
However, give me a good prime anyday, and indeed, those are only available for FF. Shoot with a TS-E 17, and you will understand what I mean. A bit more expensive, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />.Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
