File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Will a 10mm lens on a 1.6 crop body look the same as a 16mm lens on a full-frame digital?

I'm a landscape photographer and I'm trying to decide if UWA pictures require a full-frame camera or if I can get away with say a 40D and a 10mm Sigma lens?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Camera SoftwarePicasa 3.0Camera ModelCanon EOS 40DImage-Specific Properties:Exposure Time11/2000 secF-Numberf/4.0ISO Speed Rating200Focal Length50.00 mmUnique Image ID8ebdb05d61944b3a1cf9ee12676b4618
>> Anonymous
yes
>> Anonymous
UWA on crop bodies are almost an oxymoron.

Get a FF DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>195815UWA on crop bodies are almost an oxymoron.

lol...
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>195815

guys what's going on here

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS DIGITAL REBELCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop Elements 2.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/2.5Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution180 dpiVertical Resolution180 dpiImage Created2007:11:17 21:35:47Exposure Time4 secF-Numberf/16.0ISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias-1.7 EVMetering ModePatternFlashNo FlashFocal Length50.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height533RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Martin !!ve2Q1ETWmJH
>>195812
the sigma 10-20 is made for digital crop bodies.
it'll give you a 10mm?
>correct me if im wrong.
>> Anonymous
>>195812
Yes, you can.
>> Anonymous
>>195831
No it won't. It'll give you 10mm x crop ratio.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>195831

we've ALSO been over this before.. /me facepalms
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>195825
Just chillin, bro

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKONCamera ModelE990Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop 7.0Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2004:01:15 11:01:42Exposure Time1/1000 secF-Numberf/7.9Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashFlashFocal Length23.40 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width504Image Height381
>> Anonymous
OP here.

Okay. Not to beat the dead horse from the inside, but how can I justify the ~$1500 price difference of the 40D and the, say 5DmII, or even the current 5D? Is the full-frame worth it or can a lower focal range compensate on a crop-body?
>> Anonymous
>>195852

Come back when they make $1,000 full frame bodies and I'll buy you.
>> Anonymous
>>195854
I'll propose you yet another option. An UWA lens, like the one I posted here, for full frame, which goes for 600 bucks.>>195852

And a full frame film body to go with it when you really need to push for the additional field of view. Even a cheap body for like 100 bucks will do fine.
>> Anonymous
>>195854how can I justify the ~$1500 price difference of the 40D and the, say 5DmII, or even the current 5D? Is the full-frame worth it or can a lower focal range compensate on a crop-body?

Assuming you have 0 lenses.

$2,000 buys you a 40D body along with one very good lens or 2-3 primes.

The same amount gets you a 5D body and nothing to take pictures with.
>> Anonymous
>>195857And a full frame film body

lol....
>> Anonymous
>>195860
Bite me asshole, I'm giving a suggestion, and I'm pointing out an important detail. There -are- APS SLRs so go sit on a dick, meticulous motherfucker.
>> Anonymous
I was thinking like:

40D - $900
10-20mm F4-5.6 EX DC HSM (doesn't have to be fast, I won't use it for anything but scenery and a tripod, anyway) - $500
EF 50mm 1.4 - $300 for portraiture

... out the door for under two grand, I can even afford a few filters or a tripod to go alone with it.
>> Anonymous
>>195877

they don't make fast UWA anyway

but that looks fine, except you're fucked for the whole standard range unless you really don't need it
>> Anonymous
>>195879

oh wait, there's the 16-35 2.8, nevermind
>> Vincent !!8LCSE0Zp1mL
Tokina makes an 11-16mm f2.8
Its new and considered to be a pretty damn awesome lens, and its pretty cheap too ($600 i think)
>> Anonymous
>>195882
and the new tokina 11-16 2/8 which is supposedly fapworthy :D
>> Anonymous
>>195929
>>195930

Slow hivemind.
>> Anonymous
Don't forget all the different primes available, too.
>> Anonymous
>>195931
lol i had it opened in a tab and didnt read it for a while >_O
>> Anonymous
>>195929
I just got this lense saturday. Haven't had a chance to fully test it out yet but will later tonight. So far it's amazing.
>> Anonymous
$600 for a lens that goes from 11 to only fucking 16 is pretty damn hard to swallow unless it's absolutely stellar

it's not like anyone needs wide aperture at these ranges anyway
>> Anonymous
If you're a landscape photographer, you need a 4x5 field camera and a 65mm super-angulon.
>> Anonymous
>>195860
Actually not a bad idea. Velvia looks fucking awesome for landscapes.

Also great shot OP if it's yours.
>> Anonymous
Op did you shoot that? That's beautiful. Was wondering if anybody had noticed. : P
>> Anonymous
>>196039
This man read my mind, that's just what I was thinking. Velvia + film body + superwide lens you can use in both fullframe and digital. You wouldn't be using it for taking snapshots, I assume.
>> Anonymous
>>196049
Landscapes on 135? Why? Unless there's some particular lens or film not available in a larger film format you want to use?
>> Anonymous
>>195954
no, no you don't. shut the fuck up.
>> Anonymous
My main question isn't regarding what the best lens is, though I would love to know how a Sigma compares with a Canon L when it's half the price, but rather is there significant distortion when using a 10mm lens on a crop body to simulate a 16mm lens on a full frame?
>> Anonymous
>>196131
No more than a 16mm lens of equal quality would have.
>> Anonymous
>>196133
but don't lenses below 15mm usually have the circular fisheye distortion? or only those marked fisheye?
>> Anonymous
>>196134
Only those marked fisheye. For example, the 14-24 Nikkor is wider than 16mm but is still rectilinear.
>> Anonymous
>>196134
Only those marked fisheye.

If you're going for lowest distortion in a non-L ultrawide, your best bet is to use a full-frame lens on a crop body. Much of the distortion will be cropped out.

Absolute best would be a prime of that sort. If you can take the hit in length, Tamron or Tokina (forget which) makes a 14mm lens.
>> Anonymous
>>196137
>>196136
Is this a ghetto way of doing it? I feel like I'm doing something way wrong.
>> Anonymous
No, ghetto way is buying a cheap Russian fisheye and using software to make the final result rectilinear.

You'd be doing it the same way most people with a crop sensor camera get ultrawides.

On another note, guys, AC's thread is gone now.
>> Anonymous
>>196128
Why? I'm serious, if OP is interested primarily in landscape photography and is considering spending a bunch of money on a DSLR body and ultrawide lenses, there is no reason he shouldn't get a cheap 4x5 setup instead.