Got a new Lens this week.

[rooflessdriver]

After much research and price watching on http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk I finally took the plunge and bought the wide angle lens I have been hankering after.

 

 

 

 

As my Canon 5D is a full frame body, it really is wide and I found I was walking a lot more yesterday taking some pics near the office!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So far I am very impressed with it.

Edited September 5, 2012 by rooflessdriver

[Rich]

Wow, that's not a cheaper lens! Photos look great

 

Who do you use for insurance?

[rooflessdriver]

I just declared all my camera kit to household insurance and they have accepted it. (even away from home).

I should really consider camera insurance with the lenses I have, but never looked into it.

 

I'm going to Iceland later in the year for the Northern Lights, so this is the perfect lens for that.

[Rich]

For the kind of kit you have separate insurance is probably wise but at least it's covered.

 

I look forward to the northern light photos, love ones like these

[parthiban]

Nice lens and nice photos! How does it all work with the range and the sensor size? What does that 16-35mm for full frame equate to if it was a lens for a smaller sensor like in my D90?

[Tony]

I like those pictures especially the phone box.

[rooflessdriver]

Nice lens and nice photos! How does it all work with the range and the sensor size? What does that 16-35mm for full frame equate to if it was a lens for a smaller sensor like in my D90?

 

Thanks!

According to the this link ( http://visibledust.com/sensorsizes.php ) the D90 has a 1.6x sensor, so using a Nikon equivalent 16-35mm lens would actually give you 26x56mm lens (approx)

[Sagitar]

After much research and price watching on http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk I finally took the plunge and bought the wide angle lens I have been hankering after.

 

 

So far I am very impressed with it.

 

Absolutely top quality glass. It draws well, is sharp right into the corners and has little vignetting even when wide open, but it's a very expensive item when compared with other Canon wide angles that are only marginally less good. I suppose it depends very much on whether f/2.8 is really necessary and what you are prepared to pay for the last ounce of performance.

 

For Parthiban, I would say this lens makes little sense at all on other than a full frame sensor, because the money has been spent on making the lens work well at the extremity of full frame and you would be discarding that part of the image if you put it on a 1.5X or 1.6x sensor.

 

Wide angle on smaller sensors is a real problem. I bought myself a Fuji X-1Pro a few weeks ago because my Canon full frame bodies and lenses are just becoming too heavy for me to carry around. I like the Fuji, but the one thing that I really miss is a proper wide angle lens. The sensor is APS-C size and the widest that Fuji do at present is an 18mm, so effectively I cannot get any wider than the equivalent of about 27mm full frame.

 

I have no knowledge of the Nikon range, but If I were wanting the best wide angle effect for the money on APS-C slr I would look at a couple of Sigma lenses. I am pretty sure they do one that goes down to 10mm on a Canon APS fitting and I know that there is a 12-24mm full frame lens that works pretty well, because I have one.

[Tony]

Can i ask you guys a real numpty question...... Do you still use film or is it all digital nowadays and if yes doesn't the options like photoshop remove the need for excellence? Only a question peeps please don't be offended.

[Sagitar]

Can i ask you guys a real numpty question...... Do you still use film or is it all digital nowadays and if yes doesn't the options like photoshop remove the need for excellence? Only a question peeps please don't be offended.

 

I don't see why anyone should be offended by your questions Tony.

 

There are still lots of people using film; some for preference, and some in larger formats. I still use film in a medium format camera occasionally, but less and less.

 

Does Photoshop remove the need for excellence - in my view absolutely not, but it would take some time to tell you why I think that.

[parthiban]

Thanks for the explanation, wasn't thinking of buying one, was just trying to understand how these numbers all work - basically because the lens I have is 18mm at its widest but is obviously nowhere near what that one is at 16mm.

 

Probably a silly question but whether you buy a lens for full frame or smaller (think Nikon call them DX lenses), does 16mm always mean 16mm? What is that measurement referring to exactly?

[Sagitar]

whether you buy a lens for full frame or smaller (think Nikon call them DX lenses), does 16mm always mean 16mm? What is that measurement referring to exactly?

 

16mm (or any other specified length) is the focal length of the lens. It is part of the specification of the lens and therefore independent of the way in which the lens is applied. So, a 16mm lens is always a 16mm lens.

 

The focal length of a simple lens is the distance from the focal centre of the lens to the plane of focus (i.e. the film or sensor plane) when the lens is focused at infinity. I spoke of a simple lens because it is possible to do clever things to change the distance from the focal centre to the film plane while maintaining the characteristics of the desired focal length. You wouldn't want a 500mm lens to stick out half a metre in front of the camera!

 

If a lens is designed to cover full frame the circle of coverage that it projects onto the film plane will be slightly larger in diameter than the diagonal of a 36mm x 24mm rectangle. If the sensor is smaller than full frame then the outer part of the circle of coverage is lost and the coverage will be similar to that achieved by a lens of longer focal length. The ratio of the two focal lengths will be the same as the ratio of the diagonals of the two sensors.

 

So if you have a 1.5x sensor the coverage for a 16mm lens will be equivalent to a full frame lens of 24mm. N.B. This is not a change of focal length, the lens is still a 16mm lens, just a change of coverage.

 

The lenses designed especially for smaller sensors recognise that the outer part of the circle of coverage is not needed and so the design can be simpler and more economic. However, the coverage rules still apply and a 16mm lens on an APS-C sensor will give coverage equivalent to about 24mm full frame.

[rooflessdriver]

A good example picture to explain the above would be something like this

[parthiban]

Sorry for hijacking this thread but this is really interesting stuff! All starting to make sense as to why using Nikon as an example, the FX fisheye is 16mm while the DX fisheye is 10.5mm - I assume they get the same results but the lens needs to be "closer" due to the reduced sensor size.

 

Don't really need a wideangle so this is all more just for info and curious as I've never really understood how it all works. Also explains how the travel zoom I recently bought gets wider than my SLR with its effective 25-500mm range - another question now answered!

 

Why is it that cameras with full frame sensors are so much larger? I don't think my D90 is much larger than the 35mm film SLR we have, yet the current Nikon full frame cameras have much larger bodies. Is it more to do with all the other bits in there, and technically they could make a smaller full frame body but just aren't doing it?

[Sagitar]

Why is it that cameras with full frame sensors are so much larger?

 

I think the biggest single reason is probably mirror size. It needs a bigger mirror to cover the larger sensor and more space has to be allowed behind the lens so that the bigger mirror stays clear of the lens while swinging.

 

But you also need to look at other aspect of the specification of the camera. The body may be made much more robustly than a smaller camera and more attention may have been given to water resistance so it will stand up better to rough usage. It may have capacity to shoot in burst mode at (say) 10 frames a second, so it will have more powerful mirror return mechanisms and better damping. It may have a bigger battery and perhaps a built-in vertical grip and duplicate controls.

 

I think manufacturers are trying to make smaller full frame cameras and the way forward may be with mirrorless approaches. There is a rumour that Sony are about to launch a full frame compact. One of the factors has been the cost of a full frame sensor. If you are going to spend a lot of money on the sensor then arguably you wouldn't want to put it in cheap body.

[parthiban]

I suppose that leads on to the further question of what actually makes an SLR better than a compact? Is it simply that it is a more expensive camera and therefore has a better quality sensor, better quality lenses, and is more customisable?

 

And therefore if you give a compact these same attributes (like what cameras like Sony's NEX range are trying to do) you end up with a camera that is at least almost as good as an SLR - and for many casual users like myself, potentially all you will ever need)?

[Sagitar]

what actually makes an SLR better than a compact?

 

That's far too big a question . . .

 

"SLR" is a functional description. It's essence is an optical viewfinder that lets you see what the lens sees. It lends itself well to interchangeable lenses because of its viewing arrangements.

 

"Compact", on the other hand, is just a description of the size of a device and it may include a very wide range of functional differences. My Fuji X-Pro1 is compact when compared with my Canon 5D2 or 1DIII, but it's just about the same size as Leica M9 and I'm not sure that many Leica users would see the M9 as a compact camera or would be ready to admit that it was less good than an SLR.

 

I think it's about "horses for courses" and you have to describe the course before you decide on the horse. For example, I would happily cover a sporting event with the 1DIII but I have a small black Panasonic TZ10 that would be a much better camera for a family party.

[parthiban]

Haha absolutely, that's why I asked it!

 

My question was more about what makes an SLR take better pictures than most other cameras - and whether the reason is because it's an SLR, or because of the higher quality components that make it up.

 

Compacts in their current guise are cheap - but if someone made a £1,000 compact camera with high quality components like an SLR, would you get a very similar quality of photo? Is there anything in particular about the body and construction of an SLR that makes it conducive to better quality photos?

[Sagitar]

Haha absolutely, that's why I asked it!

 

My question was more about what makes an SLR take better pictures than most other cameras - and whether the reason is because it's an SLR, or because of the higher quality components that make it up.

 

Compacts in their current guise are cheap - but if someone made a £1,000 compact camera with high quality components like an SLR, would you get a very similar quality of photo? Is there anything in particular about the body and construction of an SLR that makes it conducive to better quality photos?

 

I don't think an SLR is inherently better than any other format if the only thing that you are looking at is image quality, If you compare like with like - same glass quality; same quality and size of sensor, same processing engine quality; same engineering quality in the structure that relates them, - then you'll get the same image quality.

 

If you compromise any of those things in pursuit of other goals then you will not get the same image quality, but then image quality alone may not be at the top of the designers list of priorities.

 

As I tried to say in my first answer, you have to decide what is important before you decide on which camera. If image quality is everything, then maybe you go for a 10 x 8 field camera and a drum scanner. You might also need an Ansel Adam's burro . . . . .

[rooflessdriver]

I think it's about "horses for courses" and you have to describe the course before you decide on the horse. For example, I would happily cover a sporting event with the 1DIII but I have a small black Panasonic TZ10 that would be a much better camera for a family party.

 

I would agree with this whole heartedly. Couple of years ago, a group of us went to the 'Ring in our MX5's.

Normally I would take all my camera gear, but as I was sharing the car, space was limited, so I took the 5D with 70-200mm f2.8 lens and my panasonic TZ10.

 

I took around 250-300 photos with the Pano for general stuff and maybe 60 panned track shots of the guys and girls with the 5D.

 

The Panasonic TZ10 is a cracking little camera that for general photos does a very good job but not fast enough for motorsport.

Thats where the interchangeability of SLR lenses come in to play.

[parthiban]

With the newer crop of interchangeable lens cameras, could we reach a point in the not too distant future where the SLR is no longer necessary? Surely the idea of SLR only really made proper sense when you were shooting with film - with digital you can see on a screen exactly what you are about to shoot (sort of) so is it quite as important?

[Sagitar]

With the newer crop of interchangeable lens cameras, could we reach a point in the not too distant future where the SLR is no longer necessary? Surely the idea of SLR only really made proper sense when you were shooting with film - with digital you can see on a screen exactly what you are about to shoot (sort of) so is it quite as important?

 

It is if you want to follow action. The picture on the screen takes a finite time to write. It isn't formed instantaneously, it's written line by line, just like TV. So you are not actually seeing what is in front of the camera, only what was there a split second ago. The best ones do it at high frequency, but they are still not as good as an optical viewfinder. Cameras like the Leica use an optical viewfinder, but then have to do very clever things to get the framing right. The SLR has none of these problems; what comes through the lens is what you see in the viewfinder. The Fuji X-Pro1 allows both approaches. It offers the option of optical or electronic and it works well, but it's not in the same street as my 1DIII when it comes to action photography.