File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Okay, this is kind of a stupid question ;_;

I've checked the statistics on my photos and most of them are in the 24-28mm range.

Now, I took those using an EF-S lens, which I'm guessing the 24-28mm means is really actually 24-28mm on the lens but in reality, it's 38.4-44.8mm equivalent.

If I haven't lost you there, now I want to buy a prime because I'm a cheap bastard and can't afford the fucker I was using.

Does this mean that if I get the EF 24mm 2.8 or EF 28mm 2.8, the field of view will be more or less the same as it was on the EF-S lens?
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeFUJIFILMCamera ModelFinePix F30Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS2 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/2.8Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution187 dpiVertical Resolution187 dpiImage Created2007:01:21 21:29:08Exposure Time1/4 secF-Numberf/8.0Exposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/8.0Brightness2.5 EVExposure Bias1 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length24.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width400Image Height600RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
This is what the EXIF looks like if that helps.
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
You have to know whether your data is coming from the Focal Length or Focal Length (35mm Equivalent) EXIF fields. I assume what the shoop is telling you in that windows is the lens' actual focal length.

PS good on ya using a Mac.
>> Anonymous
>>207686

So, if Photoshop's EXIF reports actual focal length, that means:

24mm on the EF-S 17-55 = EF 24mm = EF 24-70 at 24mm = 38.4mm (35mm equivalent)

True?
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>207689
yosh.
>> Anonymous
Okay, I think Photoshop's EXIF reports actual focal length, because the 17-55, even at 17mm only gives you 27.2mm so there's no way that was 35mm equivalent.

Now that that's solved.

I like the 28mm 2.8's price but really want the 24mm 2.8's field of view ;____;

It's $300, goddamnit.

The Tamron 17-50 2.8 is "only" $420, covers that same range AND more. Too bad the 24mm 2.8 isn't any faster :/
>> okto !.ZlrOYZhsk
>>207695
I know it's balls expensive, but at least drool over the EF 17-40/4 L. It's a VERY highly thought of lens, and is useful both on crop and full-frame bodies. On crop it's a wide-short telephoto zoom, on the FF it's an ultrawide-normal.
>> Anonymous
Meh, I want 2.8 or faster and

>> it's balls expensive

I could get the 24mm 2.8 AND the 50mm 1.4 for less.

My budget is $300 :/
>> Anonymous
>>207743
I believes he wants a lens faster than f4..
>> Anonymous
>>207686
>PS good on ya using a Mac.
HOLY SHIT WHAT A FAGGOT HOW COME NO ONE SPOTTED THIS YET OMG MAC THE PHOTOGRAPHER'S OS AMIRITE WOW WHAT A FAGGOT