[Guest]

Ouch. That will be fun on your next hike  Do you plan to carry it to the top of the  Himalaya ?

[Klaus]

Ouch. That will be fun on your next hike Do you plan to carry it to the top of the Himalaya ?

Hiking with this? Nooo wayyy. 😉

[toni-a]

Maybe it's too early to answer since review is not over yet, however for portraits which combo should be better, getting this one on APS-C or getting the classic 70-200f2.8 on full frame since I've got both systems, the advantages of weight and size APS-C has don't seem to  stand up anymore with this one

[Klaus]

It can't be any smaller. Lenses of the same equivalent specs have the same weight/size plus/minus a bit (notwithstanding fresnel lenses).

This is a "80-160mm f/2.9" lens. 

[JJ_SO]

NO, IT'S NOT! 

 

Otherwise it would be specified as such one. Please stop this equivalencing shit - on Nikon it's a different equivalence, on Sigma sd quattro H again another one - and since no AA filter is involved, you get different airy disks. Your reply is generalizing and therefore wrong.

 

DoF is no exact science and depending on sensors, Anti Aliasing filters and print scales. The speed of a lens in terms of aperture is remaining and for some, if not most buyers of fast lenses much more important than this crappy, lousy equivalencing blurb.

[Brightcolours]

It can't be any smaller. Lenses of the same equivalent specs have the same weight/size plus/minus a bit (notwithstanding fresnel lenses).

This is a "80-160mm f/2.9" lens. 

You have to add "on Canon APS-C". And to not trigger JoJu, you better write "equivalent to FF" instead of merely putting in between "". 

[Brightcolours]

NO, IT'S NOT! 

 

Otherwise it would be specified as such one. Please stop this equivalencing shit - on Nikon it's a different equivalence, on Sigma sd quattro H again another one - and since no AA filter is involved, you get different airy disks. 

Haha, who would have guessed that Airy disks (pattern resulting from diffraction in the optics) would change because one uses or not uses an AA filter in front of a sensor.

 

To Paraphrase youyou, "Your reply is just wrong." 

[Klaus]

NO, IT'S NOT! 

 

Otherwise it would be specified as such one. Please stop this equivalencing shit - on Nikon it's a different equivalence, on Sigma sd quattro H again another one - and since no AA filter is involved, you get different airy disks. Your reply is generalizing and therefore wrong.

 

DoF is no exact science and depending on sensors, Anti Aliasing filters and print scales. The speed of a lens in terms of aperture is remaining and for some, if not most buyers of fast lenses much more important than this crappy, lousy equivalencing blurb.

 

This is an APS-C lens with an APS-C image circle - you may argue with 1.55x or 1.6x there but that's about it.

[Brightcolours]

This is an APS-C lens with an APS-C image circle - you may argue with 1.55x or 1.6x there but that's about it.

Or 1.51x or 1.53x, it very much depends on which sensor in which Nikon APS-C body.

 

Klaus, since you have the lens and the bodies to try, could you mount it on the 5DS-R to see which part, if any, this lens actually will provide an FF image circle? 

I know that most UWA zooms will have no black vignetting at the longer part of the zoom range, and that most standard APS-C zooms have no usable range on FF. How is that with this portrait zoom? Is the long end actually black vignet-free?

[JJ_SO]

This is an APS-C lens with an APS-C image circle - you may argue with 1.55x or 1.6x there but that's about it.

 

1.6 to 1.34! The lens also covers the new Sigma Foveon APS-H. 

 

You were referring to the lens, not to the limits or crop factor of Canon APS-C size. Ignoring the speed of the lens, which is the reason for it's size, price and weight is the result of this silly equivalence games.

 

You also would not "equivalent" a remote controlled model racing car going up to 100 km/h to be 2000 km/h fast because the genuine "FF"-car model is 20 times bigger. 100 km/h = 100 km/h.

 

Also, FF is just one of many sensor sizes. Given the amount of phone cameras and their sensor sizes, there's no reason to declare FF to a reference. Not many of today's daily camera users ever took pictures on film - or full frame cameras, which are NOT the center of photographic world anymore. So, I think it's better to use the true specifications and not equivalence numbers.