| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/15/2013 09:48:20 PM · #1 |
| just realized that I don't know why they exist. is it because they're cheaper to make? |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 09:49:43 PM · #2 |
| Cheaper, smaller, lighter. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 09:51:21 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
just realized that I don't know why they exist. is it because they're cheaper to make? |
Pretty much, yes. Since they are designed to cover a smaller image circle, they are lighter and more compact, and basically less glass is cheaper than more glass, plus it's easier to design a lighter, rigid "frame" for smaller glass. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 09:57:25 PM · #4 |
Going to the other extreme, a tilt/shift lens has to throw an image circle considerably larger than the FF sensor, so look at the sheer SIZE of this beast, the 17mm TS-E from Canon:
And have a peek at how much GLASS there is in it: weighs a TON!
Message edited by author 2013-04-15 21:58:20. |
|
|
|
04/15/2013 10:28:19 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
just realized that I don't know why they exist. is it because they're cheaper to make? |
and buy.
|
|
|
|
04/15/2013 10:54:39 PM · #6 |
They are not always cheaper! Check out the "pro" panasonic lenses...e.g., the 12-35 F2.8 (24-70) at $1135 on Amazon or the 35-100 F2.8 at $1399. Well, I guess that's still cheaper than what's charged for the Canikon equivalents, but I don't think they are really the same caliber...and they are not CHEAP!
But since I never would consider carrying my 70-200 F2.8 or 24-70 F2.8 on hikes because they are so big and heavy...there's definitely a place for these lighter equivalents. Someday I may invest...
And speaking of lighter, my G5 with a 100-300mm (200-600) with OSS weighs just over 2lbs. Less than my D600 alone (or something like that).
So with higher resolution crop cameras, you also get the benefit of more enlargement of fine detail...like the 16mp G5 above, or my new D7100 which has 24mp on a crop sensor, making my 300mm lens 450mm at 24mpixels. I can't crop my way to that on the D600.
Message edited by author 2013-04-15 22:55:22. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 07:40:18 AM · #7 |
| the canon EF-S 10-22 costs more than its FF equivalent EF 17-40L |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 09:02:11 AM · #8 |
| so basically, not much of a point except size and often cost (and i guess the fact that there would be no wide angle options available otherwise) |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 09:23:40 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
(and i guess the fact that there would be no wide angle options available otherwise) |
not sure i understand that point.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2013 09:39:41 AM · #10 |
They are made because they make crop sensor cameras.
It's the same reasoning that they make car tires for cars and truck tires for trucks. They do the same job, but they work best with different "right" sizes for different applications.
Re  Mike's post, if they made 10mm lenses for full frame cameras, the angle of view would be more than 180 degrees, which would be very cool, but not practical to design, optically speaking. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 09:43:42 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by LanndonKane:
(and i guess the fact that there would be no wide angle options available otherwise) |
not sure i understand that point. |
Mike, if we used just full frame lenses, then they always come with a penalty for magnification, for example, Nikkor lenses have a 1.5x magnification factor. Therefore, a 28mm lens would be a 42mm equivalent on the DX partial frame chips. The result is that wide angle lenses become a problem to achieve due to this magnification factor. Whereas, if you are like me and shoot lots of telephoto images, the extra magnification becomes a bonus. Does that make sense? |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:13:56 AM · #12 |
no, i get that, i just wasn't understanding how there wouldn't be any wide angle. Canon for instance only make one dedicated UWA angle EF-S lens (the 10-22) out of teh entire line of EF-S lenses. Every other focal length can be achieved using EF lenses.
so to say their wouldn't be any wide angle option available as a point or reasoning for a crop lens, i missed. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:44:39 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They are made because they make crop sensor cameras.
It's the same reasoning that they make car tires for cars and truck tires for trucks. They do the same job, but they work best with different "right" sizes for different applications.
Re Mike's post, if they made 10mm lenses for full frame cameras, the angle of view would be more than 180 degrees, which would be very cool, but not practical to design, optically speaking. |
Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fisheye is the widest angle lens to date. Its field of view is 220 degrees on a 35mm frame, it can see behind itself. Last time one sold, it was priced at a mere $160,000.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 10:45:37. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:47:03 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They are made because they make crop sensor cameras.
It's the same reasoning that they make car tires for cars and truck tires for trucks. They do the same job, but they work best with different "right" sizes for different applications.
Re Mike's post, if they made 10mm lenses for full frame cameras, the angle of view would be more than 180 degrees, which would be very cool, but not practical to design, optically speaking. |
Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fisheye is the widest angle lens to date. Its field of view is 220 degrees on a 35mm frame, it can see behind itself. Last time one sold, it was priced at a mere $160,000. |
Also, this was used as the eye of "HAL" in SO2001 |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:50:36 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They are made because they make crop sensor cameras.
It's the same reasoning that they make car tires for cars and truck tires for trucks. They do the same job, but they work best with different "right" sizes for different applications.
Re Mike's post, if they made 10mm lenses for full frame cameras, the angle of view would be more than 180 degrees, which would be very cool, but not practical to design, optically speaking. |
Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fisheye is the widest angle lens to date. Its field of view is 220 degrees on a 35mm frame, it can see behind itself. Last time one sold, it was priced at a mere $160,000. |
Also, this was used as the eye of "HAL" in SO2001 |
That was the Nikon 8mm f8, a much smaller, less expensive lens. The objective on the 6mm is about the diameter of a dinner plate. and convex by a few inches...it's enormous.
Message edited by author 2013-04-16 10:52:02. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 10:55:08 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by MelonMusketeer:
They are made because they make crop sensor cameras.
It's the same reasoning that they make car tires for cars and truck tires for trucks. They do the same job, but they work best with different "right" sizes for different applications.
Re Mike's post, if they made 10mm lenses for full frame cameras, the angle of view would be more than 180 degrees, which would be very cool, but not practical to design, optically speaking. |
Nikon's 6mm f2.8 fisheye is the widest angle lens to date. Its field of view is 220 degrees on a 35mm frame, it can see behind itself. Last time one sold, it was priced at a mere $160,000. |
Also, this was used as the eye of "HAL" in SO2001 |
That was the Nikon 8mm f8, a much smaller, less expensive lens. The objective on the 6mm is about the diameter of a dinner plate. and convex by a few inches...it's enormous. |
OH hell... Now I'm all disappointed with HAL. I thought it was the really big one for some reason. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:04:32 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by Mike:
no, i get that, i just wasn't understanding how there wouldn't be any wide angle. Canon for instance only make one dedicated UWA angle EF-S lens (the 10-22) out of teh entire line of EF-S lenses. Every other focal length can be achieved using EF lenses.
so to say their wouldn't be any wide angle option available as a point or reasoning for a crop lens, i missed. |
Think "ultrawide", which is really what we're talking about here. In other words, 16 mm give or take. On FF. Means 10-11 mm on APS-C sensors. Didn't exist for Canon before the 10-22 mm EF-S lens came out. Now, if they'd built this lens with coverage for FF (which they could have done) it would have been larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As it is, the 10-22 is an extremely well-designed lens, one of the best ultrawides around for ANY format, at a very attractive price point.
The 10-22 from Canon is actually a better lens, optically, than their 17-40 mm, which was mentioned earlier. It's the equal in quality to the 16-35 mm in the Canon lineup, but that's a MUCH more expensive lens... |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:11:49 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
no, i get that, i just wasn't understanding how there wouldn't be any wide angle. Canon for instance only make one dedicated UWA angle EF-S lens (the 10-22) out of teh entire line of EF-S lenses. Every other focal length can be achieved using EF lenses.
so to say their wouldn't be any wide angle option available as a point or reasoning for a crop lens, i missed. |
Think "ultrawide", which is really what we're talking about here. In other words, 16 mm give or take. On FF. Means 10-11 mm on APS-C sensors. Didn't exist for Canon before the 10-22 mm EF-S lens came out. Now, if they'd built this lens with coverage for FF (which they could have done) it would have been larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As it is, the 10-22 is an extremely well-designed lens, one of the best ultrawides around for ANY format, at a very attractive price point.
The 10-22 from Canon is actually a better lens, optically, than their 17-40 mm, which was mentioned earlier. It's the equal in quality to the 16-35 mm in the Canon lineup, but that's a MUCH more expensive lens... |
12mm rectilinear on FF is available (sigma) |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:36:13 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
no, i get that, i just wasn't understanding how there wouldn't be any wide angle. Canon for instance only make one dedicated UWA angle EF-S lens (the 10-22) out of teh entire line of EF-S lenses. Every other focal length can be achieved using EF lenses.
so to say their wouldn't be any wide angle option available as a point or reasoning for a crop lens, i missed. |
Think "ultrawide", which is really what we're talking about here. In other words, 16 mm give or take. On FF. Means 10-11 mm on APS-C sensors. Didn't exist for Canon before the 10-22 mm EF-S lens came out. Now, if they'd built this lens with coverage for FF (which they could have done) it would have been larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As it is, the 10-22 is an extremely well-designed lens, one of the best ultrawides around for ANY format, at a very attractive price point.
The 10-22 from Canon is actually a better lens, optically, than their 17-40 mm, which was mentioned earlier. It's the equal in quality to the 16-35 mm in the Canon lineup, but that's a MUCH more expensive lens... |
12mm rectilinear on FF is available (sigma) |
and is one of my personal favorite lenses, despite its shortcomings. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 11:48:43 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Mike:
no, i get that, i just wasn't understanding how there wouldn't be any wide angle. Canon for instance only make one dedicated UWA angle EF-S lens (the 10-22) out of teh entire line of EF-S lenses. Every other focal length can be achieved using EF lenses.
so to say their wouldn't be any wide angle option available as a point or reasoning for a crop lens, i missed. |
Think "ultrawide", which is really what we're talking about here. In other words, 16 mm give or take. On FF. Means 10-11 mm on APS-C sensors. Didn't exist for Canon before the 10-22 mm EF-S lens came out. Now, if they'd built this lens with coverage for FF (which they could have done) it would have been larger, heavier, and much more expensive. As it is, the 10-22 is an extremely well-designed lens, one of the best ultrawides around for ANY format, at a very attractive price point.
The 10-22 from Canon is actually a better lens, optically, than their 17-40 mm, which was mentioned earlier. It's the equal in quality to the 16-35 mm in the Canon lineup, but that's a MUCH more expensive lens... |
12mm rectilinear on FF is available (sigma) |
and is one of my personal favorite lenses, despite its shortcomings. |
Mine too. |
|
|
|
04/16/2013 01:50:31 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
The 10-22 from Canon is actually a better lens, optically, than their 17-40 mm, which was mentioned earlier. It's the equal in quality to the 16-35 mm in the Canon lineup, but that's a MUCH more expensive lens... |
Many of the original reviews on the 10-22 said that this lens was proof that no EF-S lens would ever get the red band and the L designation of the best in line lenses, because the optics are better than the gold band would imply. |
|
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: 07/27/2025 07:38:30 AM EDT.
