[Steinar1]

[quote name='youpii' timestamp='1287681422' post='3726']

Another advantage of FF not listed yet is the availability of wide angle primes.

There are no equivalent of the high end 14/2.8, 24/1.4, or 35/1.4. Neither there is for their affordable F/2 counterparts.

[/quote]



Sigma has an DG EX issue of 8mm 3,5, 15mm 2,8, 20mm 1,8, 24mm 1,8, 28mm 1,8 and 50mm 1,4 that are all excellent lenses at competitive prices. Both Tamron and Sigma have excellent macro lenses for FF cameras. I find FF owners are well served at high quality levels. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Kindly Vieux Loup

[mike]

I think you need on of each! I generally prefer the aps-c for landscapes and macro and FF for portraits and studio. Using a 10-12mm lens on an aps-c gives a lot of cool landscape options which you would pretty much need a T&S lens on an FF. Conversely, I enjoy the 85/1.8 and 300/2.8 on my FF!



Come to think of it, I always wanted a fuji gx680....

[wim]

Hi Mike,

[quote name='mike' timestamp='1288326832' post='3829']

I think you need on of each! I generally prefer the aps-c for landscapes and macro and FF for portraits and studio. Using a 10-12mm lens on an aps-c gives a lot of cool landscape options which you would pretty much need a T&S lens on an FF. Conversely, I enjoy the 85/1.8 and 300/2.8 on my FF!



Come to think of it, I always wanted a fuji gx680....

[/quote]

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

[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.

[wim]

[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

[mike]

[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.

[/quote]



I'm not sure what you don't understand? Many people in this thread talked about the shallower dof you can get with a FF. The converse is true also.



Assuming a crop factor of 1.6, for the same fov (which is really what matters) you get at least 1.6x more dof for a given aperture. Therefore, with a 12mm instead of a 18mm focusing at a hyper-focal distance I can get from closer to the lens to infinity and with the ability to use a faster aperture. With the FF you may not be able to step down enough, or if there's a breeze, the shot will be longer and this will show up.



IMO, one of the main advantages of the T&S lens on 35mm format for landscape is the ability to get a very big dof with a larger aperture than you could w/o it. This is particularly useful if there's any subject movement.



There's a nice summary here: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html



Note the first and last bullets.



Cheers

[wim]

[quote name='mike' timestamp='1288400012' post='3835']

I'm not sure what you don't understand? Many people in this thread talked about the shallower dof you can get with a FF. The converse is true also. [/quote]

No, it isn't. That's where you are wrong.

Assuming a crop factor of 1.6, for the same fov (which is really what matters) you get at least 1.6x more dof for a given aperture. Therefore, with a 12mm instead of a 18mm focusing at a hyper-focal distance I can get from closer to the lens to infinity and with the ability to use a faster aperture. With the FF you may not be able to step down enough, or if there's a breeze, the shot will be longer and this will show up.

Well, I guess you never realized that because of the fact that noise on FF is a lot less, you can actually use higher iso to compensate and get faster shutter speeds, while still maintaining better IQ than with APS-C. The funny thing is that iso, DoF, diffraction, etc. is all in balance if you want to achieve the same DoF. The only thing different is that overall FF still wins on IQ, because noise is one of the characteristics not conforming to the cropfactor. In short, you should not only look at DoF but at all factors that are at play with regard to taking photographs, and you'll find that FF still does better on all aspects than APS-C, except for reach, as I mentioned. There is a reason why FF generally is considered to be better for landscapes than APS-C cameras ...



Furthermore, you can get away with a 1.6X slower shutter speed than with APS-C for the same FL, or exactly the same shutterspeed when FL is selected for the same AoV in order to get exactly the same amount of shake or movement blur. F.e., a 15 mm FL on APS-C requires at least 1/(15*1.6) s = 1/24 s shutterspeed, while for the same AoV on FF you would need a 24 mm lens requiring 1/24 s (the crop factor is 1 for FF). IOW, APS-C does not have an advantage here at all.

IMO, one of the main advantages of the T&S lens on 35mm format for landscape is the ability to get a very big dof with a larger aperture than you could w/o it. This is particularly useful if there's any subject movement.

Regarding TS lenses: I don't think you entirely grasp the concept. You don't get more DoF with TS lenses. TS lenses allow you to place the plane of focus more effectively, which allows one to create the illusion of more DoF, or less DoF for that matter. Tilting doesn't magically create more DoF. And generally speaking, using a tilt setup does not make for a good compensation for subject movement. The only thing that does, is shutterspeed. And here APS-C certainly does not have the advantage.

There's a nice summary here: [url="http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/technical/digitaldof.html"]http://www.bobatkins...digitaldof.html[/url]



Note the first and last bullets.



Cheers

A few comments on the article by Bob Atkins: this is rather general stuff, with some equations thrown in to make it look less general.



Ever heard, f.e, of the diffraction limit? That sets in 1.6X earlier with APS-C than with FF, which is exactly why you can only achieve the same deeper DoF with APS-C as with FF, but FF gives you the benefit of shallower DoF too. BTW, this is also true for cameras with even deeper DoF. A camera with a cropfactor of 6 may seemingly have much deeper DoF, but that is only true while diffraction doesn't cancel out DoF sharpness, diffraction sets in even faster with these cameras, namely the same factor 6 faster.



Furthermore, anybody who has done a lot of photography knows that the hyperfocal distance is something that generally doesn't work too well. Why? Simply because it doesn't necessarily put the main object or subject in a photograph in the sharpest focus. And with digital this is even worse than with film, because film has a CoC-buffer if you like, equal to the thickness of the film emulsion (0.2 mm), which digital doesn't have.



Neither does APS-C suddenly gain on FF for hyperfocal distance if one chooses to use it regardless, provided one uses an equivalent aperture and the same AoV.



In short, knowing now where you are coming from makes me understand better what you were trying to say. However, the way I understand it now, it is based on partly incorrect assumptions or partial knowledge, which is why I was thrown off.



Regards, Wim

[popo]

Specifically on TS lenses, to me it seems traditional simple DoF considerations seem inadequate an expression. Particularly for a landscape application where the subject is often on a plane from you to infinity, you could say the effective DoF, at least for the subject, is infinite if you put the cone of focus roughly from yourself to infinity, and the OOF areas would be put out of shot.



Hmm... I probably should rewrite that but I haven't had enough coffee yet!

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']

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.

[/quote]

You are right in the price, the 17-40 used to be the more expensive lens, but it is not anymore. And the 10-22mm can have its barrel break, leaving you with 2 half lenses.

But my point was not that the 10-22mm was a better lens in all aspects, just in distortion.

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']

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.

[/quote]

An exception in distortion, it is virtually barrel distortionless.

It is a bit hyperbolic, to say this Sigma should be avoided, by the way. A good copy can give very nice results.

[quote name='wim' timestamp='1288383505' post='3834']

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

[/quote]

You do not hear me disagree here.

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1288433859' post='3840']

You are right in the price, the 17-40 used to be the more expensive lens, but it is not anymore. And the 10-22mm can have its barrel break, leaving you with 2 half lenses.[/quote]

So does the 17-40L, actually, at a predetermined point for the lowest amout of repair costs possible <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I happened to see one on Friday, actually. I don't know of course whether the 10-22 has a predefined break point, but all the L's actually do, the idea being that you can continu to shoot if you have another lens available, and that repair cost is minimized.

But my point was not that the 10-22mm was a better lens in all aspects, just in distortion.

Yes, it has better distortion figures. I liked it when I had it, but I preferred the 17-40 on FF over the 10-22 on APS-C.

An exception in distortion, it is virtually barrel distortionless.

That is, IMO, literally its only commendable characteristic. However, 6 stops of vignetting wide open (still three at F/8 and F/11), 1/3 of the image being unusable due to smearing of details, no flare resistance whatsoever, the worst lateral CA I have ever seen - no thanks, not for me.

It is a bit hyperbolic, to say this Sigma should be avoided, by the way. A good copy can give very nice results.

Did you ever try to find a good one? This lens was recommended to me by a photographer friend, who used to own one. So, despite the pictures I had seen on the internet, taken with this lens, I decided to get one. I tried four, a Nikon mount demo specimen, with Nikon -> EOS adapter, the demo specimen with Canon mount, and two with Canon mount, which I owned for a (short) while, one extremely short, the other slightly longer.



I just couldn't live with it, it was just too disappointing. The upshot was that I ended up paying twice as much for a Nikkor 14-24 with G-EOS adapter. That was good, just awkward in use. The Nikkor I replaced later with a TS-E 17L. Even better, and much easier to use.

You do not hear me disagree here.

<img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Kind regards, Wim