[quote name='Bryan Conner' timestamp='1306862293' post='8966']
thanks for the suggestion PoPo. But, I think that the best use of my money now is to apply it towards a full frame body in the near future.
Yes Markus, it is almost blasphemy. I wonder if Sigma thought Zeiss had a facility there and they could spy...or did Zeiss say "there goes the neighborhood" and move?
[/quote]
3 relatively affordable alternatives (full frame and wide angle prime):
- Voigtlander 20mm f3.5 SL II. Very compact, very nicely built. Manual focus. Very nice little lens for the money, on APS-C. Still nice on FF, within its limits.
http://www.voigtlaender.de/cms/voigtlaender/voigtlaender_cms.nsf/id/pa_fdih7pyj95.html
- Tamron 17mm f3.5, Tokina 17mm f3.5. Both are out of production, On the whole the Tokina is a little better (and offers AF). The Tokina will still be nice on FF due to very low barrel distortion, compared to for instance the Canon EF 17-40mm f4 L USM.
- Samyang 14mm f2.8. Very high barrel distortion, but also very high resolution and very low CA! Gem of a lens, but manual focus only.
[quote name='Bryan Conner' timestamp='1306851536' post='8960']
I am seeing that as I am looking. Maybe a better use of the money would be to put into my full format body fund. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/cool.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='B)' />
[/quote]
Might be a better choice... But bear in mind that FF bodies require high quality UWA's than the APS-Cs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='  ' />....
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1306906629' post='8974']
Might be a better choice... But bear in mind that FF bodies require high quality UWA's than the APS-Cs <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />....
[/quote]
That is not based on much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />....
You can get great results with a bargain basement Tokina 19-35mm.
While you do get more barrel distortion, usually, on FF, you get a higher resolution too with the current sensors, and so the distortion correction resolution hit will not be that severe.
And on vignetting/light fall off, you can't combat that with higher quality UWA's, as it is sensor related.
FF will give better "dynamic" (not dynamic range, but dynamic feel) quality anyway....
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1306922892' post='8976']
That is not based on much <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=' ' />....
You can get great results with a bargain basement Tokina 19-35mm.
While you do get more barrel distortion, usually, on FF, you get a higher resolution too with the current sensors, and so the distortion correction resolution hit will not be that severe.
And on vignetting/light fall off, you can't combat that with higher quality UWA's, as it is sensor related.
FF will give better "dynamic" (not dynamic range, but dynamic feel) quality anyway....
[/quote]
A bigger image circle compared to the one on cropped sensor, has it's price I think. Why when some UWA zooms are huge and bulb-like when some others are rather small? The glasses used should better be larger for FF (retro focus design and light transmission), and these larger glasses must be produced with higher precision to avoid problems concerning spherical aberrations. Thus the higher quality and price for FF compatible UWA lenses. That said, I agree that there are affordable lenses (like the one you've mentioned) but FF is something that people usually choose for portrait or wide angle. And I personally don't think that the strong point of FF should be wasted by using a low grade lens.
Vignetting (not the mechanical one) is in general sensor related: edges must get more amount of photons in a perpendicular angle. The latter is what you've mentioned, but the amount of light depends on the design of the lens.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1306925054' post='8978']
A bigger image circle compared to the one on cropped sensor, has it's price I think. Why when some UWA zooms are huge and bulb-like when some others are rather small? The glasses used should better be larger for FF (retro focus design and light transmission), and these larger glasses must be produced with higher precision to avoid problems concerning spherical aberrations. Thus the higher quality and price for FF compatible UWA lenses. That said, I agree that there are affordable lenses (like the one you've mentioned) but FF is something that people usually choose for portrait or wide angle. And I personally don't think that the strong point of FF should be wasted by using a low grade lens.
Vignetting (not the mechanical one) is in general sensor related: edges must get more amount of photons in a perpendicular angle. The latter is what you've mentioned, but the amount of light depends on the design of the lens.
[/quote]
There is no difference regarding retro focus design... It is not like the APS-C lenses can sit closer to the sensor.
The APS-C ones need to bend light a lot more too to get the same field of view, CA being a bigger problem sooner.
There is nothing being "wasted" by making a good photo with an affordable lens on a full frame body. It is all about the photo, not the price of the gear.
Of course, one can also make great photos with an EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II, or a 16-35mm f2.8 L USM II. But at f8 one will be hard pressed to tell those apart from for instance that Tokina.
And the FF-Tokina combination will beat an APS-C + Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 too, at f8...
bryan conner
Unregistered
Thanks Brightcolors for the suggestions. I will definitely keep those in mind if I decide to buy a UWA for my 40D.
My thinking on saving the money was as follows: The 15-30mm lens on my 40d Canon is = to a 24-48mm lens on a full frame body. If I purchase a full frame body, which I intend to do for next body, my 28mm will become more practical as a wide angle lens....it will be 28mm in field of vision instead of @ 45mm. I did not use the 15-30mm lens very much at all. But, now that I don't have it, I am missing it.....LOL.
But, if I find an appetizing price on one of the lenses mentioned, I may purchase one of those.
thanks again for the suggestions, I appreciate it.
[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1306928590' post='8979']
...
There is nothing being "wasted" by making a good photo with an affordable lens on a full frame body. It is all about the photo, not the price of the gear.
...
[/quote]
Of course it all about the photo... I really don't understand why this very simple fact is put on the table when it comes to comparing lenses. Consider that the same person takes photo of the same scene with the same body but different lenses... How many pro / photo artists can you count who use low grade equipment and shout out "it's all about me, not the equipment" (except for Ken Rockwell maybe)... Photographic talent without a decent equipment can be no way better than photographic talent with a decent equipment.
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1307003841' post='8994']
Of course it all about the photo... I really don't understand why this very simple fact is put on the table when it comes to comparing lenses. Consider that the same person takes photo of the same scene with the same body but different lenses... How many pro / photo artists can you count who use low grade equipment and shout out "it's all about me, not the equipment" (except for Ken Rockwell maybe)... Photographic talent without a decent equipment can be no way better than photographic talent with a decent equipment.
[/quote]
A cheap Tokina 19-35mm at f8 on a full frame body is decent equipment. A photo taken with that does not get significantly better with more expensive lenses, and also won't get better with APS-C cameras with APS-C UWA.
There are a LOT of "photo artists" who use very low priced equipment and get what they need.
It is as simple as... just get the tools you need. If you need good quality UWA at f8 and up, even a Tokina 19-35mm which costs €100 will be fine.
Other example:
My Canon EF 35mm f2 lens is a cheap, simple lens. It costs a fifth of for instance a Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM. Yet, some photos that I have made with the 35mm f2 can not be bettered with the 35mm f1.4 L.
You can twist it any way you want, but no, full frame wide angle does NOT need "higher quality optics". In fact, the optics can be of "lower quality" because the pixel density is lower, CA will be less due to not as short focal length. That you point out that the top UWAs have a lot more glass which makes them much more expensive is fine.. Does not mean that FF needs more expensive UWAs though.
Now if we talk about EQUIVALENT lens specs, it gets even more interesting. Suppose we have a FF body with EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II. Very expensive wide angle prime of high quality.
Equivalent APS-C lens?
15mm f0.9 lens. I want to bet that a 15mm f0.9 lens will be a LOT more expensive than a 24mm f1.4 L....
|
