12-21-2010, 12:20 AM
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292860543' post='5126']
I didn't want to start another FF vs. APS-C discussion.
[/quote]
But as Brightcolours and I put it... you can up the ISOs on the FF (to match the APS-C shutter speeds that you would have used) and still get the same output (if not better).
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292860543' post='5126']
Personally, I benefit more from the added reach of APS-C, therefore I don't really plan buying a FF camera anytime soon.
[/quote]
There are two problems here:
1. People forget that for a given lens (focal length and f-number), due to the wider FOV on FF, you can use a slower shutter speed and therefore increase the light gathering ability further. So even if you ignore light gathering equivalence completely, hand-holdability differences are obvious.
2. I seriously doubt you're going to get any more "reach" by using this lens at f/1.4 on an APS-C because of lens resolution and shallow DOF. Plus if you get a 35mm lens for FF, you get the same reach as the 24mm on APS-C... in fact, you get more, because there's no 21MP APS-C camera at the moment.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292860543' post='5126']
Anyway, I just thought it would be nice to see how well it stacks up on a high-resolution APS-C sensor.
[/quote]
If you're going to use this lens stopped down... you'll get some of the highest resolution you can get at this focal length using DSLR lens. If you want plain resolution (not aperture), go for the TS-E 24L. A comparison of them all can be found below:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
If you're going to shoot wide-open, then you don't need to worry about resolution that much because DOF takes care of it to a good extent.
GTW
I didn't want to start another FF vs. APS-C discussion.
[/quote]
But as Brightcolours and I put it... you can up the ISOs on the FF (to match the APS-C shutter speeds that you would have used) and still get the same output (if not better).
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292860543' post='5126']
Personally, I benefit more from the added reach of APS-C, therefore I don't really plan buying a FF camera anytime soon.
[/quote]
There are two problems here:
1. People forget that for a given lens (focal length and f-number), due to the wider FOV on FF, you can use a slower shutter speed and therefore increase the light gathering ability further. So even if you ignore light gathering equivalence completely, hand-holdability differences are obvious.
2. I seriously doubt you're going to get any more "reach" by using this lens at f/1.4 on an APS-C because of lens resolution and shallow DOF. Plus if you get a 35mm lens for FF, you get the same reach as the 24mm on APS-C... in fact, you get more, because there's no 21MP APS-C camera at the moment.
[quote name='sth' timestamp='1292860543' post='5126']
Anyway, I just thought it would be nice to see how well it stacks up on a high-resolution APS-C sensor.
[/quote]
If you're going to use this lens stopped down... you'll get some of the highest resolution you can get at this focal length using DSLR lens. If you want plain resolution (not aperture), go for the TS-E 24L. A comparison of them all can be found below:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-21mm-f-2.8-ZE-Distagon-Lens-Review.aspx
If you're going to shoot wide-open, then you don't need to worry about resolution that much because DOF takes care of it to a good extent.
GTW