| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/24/2006 11:48:26 PM · #1 |
Hello,
I am looking at the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF 16-35mm f/2.8L vs the Canon Zoom Super Wide Angle EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS
The first lens has an angle all the way up to 108 degrees. But I am assuming the crop factor decreases this. I just want to make sure I am calculating it right.
(1/1.6)*108=
.625*108=67.5
Is that right?
Also, on a side note. Would it be better to get the L lens or the EF-S lens that has IS? |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:27:45 AM · #2 |
The field of view at the 16mm end of the 16-35 would be 81.4 degrees on a 1.6x crop camera.
If you never plan on getting a full-frame camera then the EF-S lens might be a better choice, however if you plan to get a full frame camera in the future then your EF-S lens will NOT work on that camera. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:29:55 AM · #3 |
I'm thinking the multiplier only applies to the equivalent focal length and not the angle of view.
Do you plan on ever buying a better camera, like one with a FF sensor? That's the question. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:34:55 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by Plexxoid:
I'm thinking the multiplier only applies to the equivalent focal length and not the angle of view.... |
The smaller sensor will give you an image that LOOKS like it's been taken with a lens having a smaller field of view since it basically crops a central portion of the total field of view of the lens. |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 02:08:14 AM · #5 |
from my understanding the diffence in the field of view IS the crop factor.
Check out this link: FoV and AoV |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:35:14 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
The field of view at the 16mm end of the 16-35 would be 81.4 degrees on a 1.6x crop camera.
If you never plan on getting a full-frame camera then the EF-S lens might be a better choice, however if you plan to get a full frame camera in the future then your EF-S lens will NOT work on that camera. |
How did you come up with that 81.4 degrees?
Yeah, I do plan on getting a full-frame camera, so I am thinking the L lens probably. I was thinking of maybe getting the EF-S then trading it in, but if the L lens has an 81.4 angle of view even with the 1.6x crop factor, it will be good enough until I do get a FF camera.
Thanks for all the help everyone! |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:54:13 AM · #7 |
A lot of people are really liking the 17-50 f/2.8 too..
Photozone.de gives some pretty impressive results for that lens, even compared with the very good 16-35mm...
I hear that it's still a bit hit and miss with the quality, but if you get a good one... |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 11:55:56 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by diginux:
Originally posted by doctornick:
The field of view at the 16mm end of the 16-35 would be 81.4 degrees on a 1.6x crop camera.
If you never plan on getting a full-frame camera then the EF-S lens might be a better choice, however if you plan to get a full frame camera in the future then your EF-S lens will NOT work on that camera. |
How did you come up with that 81.4 degrees? |
16mm x 1.6 = 25.6mm equivalent focal length. From Canon's lens list, angular coverage of 24mm lens on FF camera is 84 degrees. So yeah, that's about right. Bear in mind, however, that these are DIAGONAL coverage; horizontal coverage, the more useful measurement IMO, is less... in the case of the 24mm lens (the 16mm on your APS-C sensor), horizontal coverage is 74 degrees, where diagonal coverage is 84 degrees.
R.
Message edited by author 2006-07-25 11:56:12.
|
|
|
|
07/25/2006 12:02:21 PM · #9 |
What Robert said...
Also, to elaborate on why you can't just divide the AoV by the crop factor, it is because rectilinear lenses do not use equiangular projection. What that means is that as you move away from the center of the sensor, let's say 1mm at a time, the first millimeter covers more "angular distance" than the last. From a practical standpoint, that means that objects near the edge of the frame appear stretched somewhat, in order to keep striagh lines straight.
BTW, many fisheye lenses *are* equiangular (or very close to it). |
|
|
|
07/25/2006 03:53:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by eschelar:
A lot of people are really liking the 17-50 f/2.8 too..
Photozone.de gives some pretty impressive results for that lens, even compared with the very good 16-35mm...
I hear that it's still a bit hit and miss with the quality, but if you get a good one... |
Are you referring to the Tamron lens? Because I am not familiar with Canon having a lens with those specs. I would prefer to stay with Canon, as they seem to have the best quality of lenses so far that I have seen.
Again, thanks everyone for the help. This seems to be a great place to get help. It is very much appreciated. Hopefully after a while I will be able to know enough to help other people out :) |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/18/2025 03:25:17 PM EDT.
