| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/16/2004 11:19:14 AM · #1 |
Here are some tests I did with three lenses:
//www.pbase.com/jmsetzler/lens_tests
The first two shots are with the Sigma 12-24 @ 12mm and 24mm. The third shot is with the Canon 28-105 at 28mm. The fourth is with the Canon 50mm and the 5th with the Canon 28-105 @ 105mm.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:21:15 AM · #2 |
Measurbator!
More seriously - its a worthwhile thing to do - I did the same with my 17-40 and 70-200s a few weeks ago, just to get an idea of what goes on.
I'd suggest doing landscape versions too - the 'wide' rather than 'high' aspect can be quite instructive too.
Also interesting is for each focal length, shoot wide open or one stop down), middle of the aperture (or around the 'sweet spot' - f8 or so) and stopped right down (or one stop up).
Gives a good indication of the huge difference focal length makes on depth of field changes by aperture.
Message edited by author 2004-04-16 11:24:17.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:26:42 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Measurbator! |
Naah, doesn't qualify, there's no ruler in the pic! ;)
The 12mm view is seriously wide! At some point I really want to get an ultra-wide rectilinear. I'm really torn between the 12-24 and the 15-30. The 15-30 is attractive because it's a little faster, and it will look wider anyway in a couple years when I upgrade to a larger sensor camera, LOL.
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 11:30:41 AM · #4 |
Here's an exercise to try to determine how your lens(es) see the world.
//members.rogers.com/orleansphotoclub/assignments/assignment1.html
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:02:18 PM · #5 |
John,
I recall that at one point you intended to get a sf 14mm. Did the 12-24 replace that acquisition?
In my case I opted for a 17-35, but still feel someday that a sf 14 could be added.
If the 12-24 was an "in stead of" purchase, was the zoom flexability the deciding factor?
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 12:07:47 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
The 15-30 is attractive because it's a little faster, and it will look wider anyway in a couple years when I upgrade to a larger sensor camera, LOL. |
That was largely why I got the 17-40. It is pretty wide as it is, but with no doubt a 1.3x or FF camera in my future, 17mm becomes pretty wide
|
|
|
|
04/16/2004 01:05:41 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by Flash:
John,
I recall that at one point you intended to get a sf 14mm. Did the 12-24 replace that acquisition?
In my case I opted for a 17-35, but still feel someday that a sf 14 could be added.
If the 12-24 was an "in stead of" purchase, was the zoom flexability the deciding factor? |
The zoom flexibility wasn't much of a factor. I was looking at the situation from an economical standpoint mostly. The 12-24 was $150 less than the 14mm. The 12-24 isn't as fast as the 14mm, but aperture is not going to play much of a role in what I intend to shoot with this lens. My objectives are primarily interior/exterior architecture and landscapes. I can't imagine shooting any of those without a tripod, so hand holding in low light isn't an issue for me. I will likely use this lens some for family get-together photos, but I will also use a flash with indoor shots of that nature.
My methods of photography have kept me from buying a lot of high priced lenses with big apertures. I do very little sports/action photography and I love to use my tripod.
|
|
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: 06/12/2025 07:29:32 AM EDT.
