File :-(, x, )
Question about Canon 28mm Anonymous
What's up /p/?

I have used a 50mm Nikon AIs with a Nikon FG I think and fucking love the field of view.

So I want to replicate it with my Canon dSLR. So naturally, I take 50 and divide it by 1.6 and that's 31.25mm.

The closest lens in the Canon lineup is the 28mm. There's a f/2.8 and a f/1.8 version.

My question is, these lenses are made to be wide angle lenses for film cameras.

And I'm going to use them as a normal lens for crop.

Will there be distortion found in wide angle lenses? I'm just worried that I'm using a "makeshift" solution, ie. use a wide angle as a normal.

I've used the almighty 17-55 f/2.8 IS and even that one has distortion problems at the wide end.
Comment too long. Clickhereto view the full text.
>> Anonymous
Probably not. It's a smaller angle of view because it crops out the corners, where distortion is usually found.

Plus, they're primes, that's a zoom. Prime will have less distortion.

Go pull samples and see for yourself if you think they're distorted or not, that's the real call.
>> Anonymous
sigma 30mm f/1.4 is way superior
>> Anonymous
Your only going to find distortion lets say on buildings. Not an entire amount though, about 1.8% or so for the 1.8.

http://www.photozone.de/canon-eos/155-canon-ef-28mm-f18-usm-test-report--review?start=1

to save the time. Not entirely sure how accurate his mtf's are on that site, but it'll give you a good idea. He has a review of the 2.8 also.
>> Anonymous
>>235436Probably not. It's a smaller angle of view because it crops out the corners, where distortion is usually found.

Yeah, but hear me out and correct me if I'm wrong.

A 50mm is designed to give a certain field of view, it's narrow.

The 28mm is designed to give a wider field of view in the same area. So naturally, it, lack of better terms, bends more light in, so it stretches shit around.

So the 28mm on crop, WOULD give me close to 50mm for field of view, wouldn't it be less "straight" than a true 50mm?

Not sure if my reasoning works.
>> Anonymous
>>235444Your only going to find distortion lets say on buildings. Not an entire amount though, about 1.8% or so for the 1.8.

I'm going to be using it for people and at no more than 1 meter away.

So it's all negligible?
>> FrtFlks !TU/JllqeAU
You'll get some kind of perspective shift but I prefer it that way since 50mm just looks too flat most of the time.
>> Anonymous
>>235454

But yeah.. that's kind of what I want. The flatter perspective from near telephoto length.

50mm on crop is pretty good. But I do want the wider field of view.
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>235430
i have this lens(for a crop camera) and i highly recommend it
i took this pic with it:
>>233000
>> Anonymous
why does it say ultrasonic on it?
>> Anonymous
>>235465
It does automatic USM, it's a new optical thing.
>> Anonymous
>>235464

It does look like there's an amount of distortion when you're up close. Or maybe she just has a fucked up face.

>>235465

Because it does have an ultrasonic motor?
>> Anonymous
>>235466

so whats USM? me no speako good photo lingo.
>> Anonymous
>>235468
Faster, quieter autofocus.
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>235467
it doesn't have much distortion, it's just that it was a close-up picture of a face, not always the best results
>> Pentard !pjwjmEQ1RM
ITT: trooooollllsssssssssssss
>> Anonymous
Damn, I guess there's no other solution and it's all minimal.

I wish I could afford a 5D and use a 50mm as a 50mm. :[
>> Anonymous
>>235474

Uh, what? How am I trolling?
>> hekrob !NpuBFNCrvo
>>235474
i'm not trolling
>> Anonymous
sigma 30/1.4
>> Anonymous
I use Canon EF 24mm F/2.8 on a cropped sensor and I get good results.
>> Anonymous
i use a sigma 20/1.8 on a 350d... roughly the equiv of a 35mm on a full frame.

if you look in older books about photography, a lot of them will recommend a "golden trio" of prime lenses - 35, 50, and 85. of course this was before crop sensors, so a 1.6x equiv would be 20, 35, and 50.
>> Anonymous
I'm just curious but does anyone have any comparison shots for a 30mm on crop, 50mm on FF, and 80mm on MF to see if there's any distortion/perspective differences.
>> Anonymous
>>235925I'm just curious but does anyone have any comparison shots for a 30mm on crop, 50mm on FF to see if there's any distortion/perspective differences.

Yes, that's exactly what I'd like to know.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
sigma 30mm f/1.4 srsly

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS 40DCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:06:16 01:24:30Exposure Time1/125 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating400Lens Aperturef/3.5Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length30.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width1000Image Height667RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
also, every lens is going to have lots of distortion at 17mm.. fitting that field of view onto a rectangle inherently will have distortion at the edges/corners
>> Anonymous
<copypasta>
>a. What's perspective/compression?
How close things in the foreground look to things in the background
>b. Is it dependent on focal length?
Not exactly. It's dependent on camera to subject distance.
>c. I've heard it's dependent on focal length
It's not. Focal length changes apparent subject size, but not perspective
>d. Then why does the perspective on a wide angle look different from a telephoto?
Because when you shoot with a telephoto, you move away from the subject, and when you shoot with a wide, you move closer to the subject
>e. I don't believe you
You don't have to! If you have a zoom lens, you can test it yourself! Using the 18-55 kit lens standard on most DSLRs, for instance, emulating a 2x sensor crop factor is easy:
1. Put the camera on a tripod
2. Take a picture at 18mm
3. Without moving anything but the zoom knob, take the picture at 36mm
4. Open up the shot taken at 18mm and take a 2x crop (i.e., half size. Any good image editor should be able to do this)
5. Compare perspective to the 36mm-shot. It'll look the same (although the 18mm will be lower resolution, because you cropped it)
>f. I still don't believe you. I've always been told that smaller focal lengths give weird perspective
That's a useful rule of thumb, yes, but it's not actually true. As another example, Point & shoot digital cameras have very large crop factors and very short actual focal lengths. By this logic, a Canon PowerShot G9 (with 7.4-44.4mm zoom lens) would only be capable of super-mega-ultrawide to slightly-wide perspectives.
>g. But how could a 50mm lens have different perspective when it's on a crop camera as it does on a full-frame camera? It's still the same lens!
Because focal length doesn't affect perspective. When you put the 50 on the crop sensor, to get the same picture, you take a few steps backwards to accomodate the crop factor.
>h. I still don't get it
Then you're hopeless.
</copypasta>
>> Anonymous
>>235983

Damn, nice shot!
I might have to put that lens on my list.


Why the fuck is it over $400 though?
The 50mm 1.4 is only $200... I could understand maybe $300, but jesus christ... twice as much?!?
>> Anonymous
>>235986

That doesn't help at all.

A guy with a 5D and 50mm and another with a crop camera with a 28-30mm will be close enough in distance to subject for the picture to be the same.

The question is, does the wide angle inherently have more distortion than the 50mm.
>> Anonymous
>>235995The 50mm 1.4 is only $200... I could understand maybe $300, but jesus christ... twice as much?!?

The Canon 50/1.4 isn't $200, more like $320.

The Sigma is 30mm and wider than the 50mm, therefore it's more expensive.

It also has true HSM/USM. And it's optimized as fuck to be used at f/1.4 and lens coatings.
>> Anonymous
>>235995
Supply and demand.

Also, EF 50mm f1.4 is OVER THREE HUNDREEEED, not $200.

>>235996
Yes, wider lenses have more barrel distortion. Most lenses correct for this and it doesn't matter unless it's ultra-wide or you're shooting architecture.
>> Anonymous
>>236001

so it's all negligible
>> Anonymous
>>235986
*sniff*
I miss ac.
>> Anonymous
>>236007
Things will all be fine with any of the lenses mentioned ITT unless you're anal, shooting architecture, and mind taking one minute in Photoshop. Note the "and." These are all necessary conditions for you to have cause to bitch at them. Pick the one you like and run with it.
>> beethy !vW/UaE6zYU
>>235986
GOD I MISS THIS MAN
(also)