Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 33

Thread: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

  1. #1

    Default uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Hi

    I was comparing the test results from photozone.de for tokina 11-16, sigma 8-16 on crop and canon EF 17-40 and 16-36 on FF, and it appears that uwa distort more in FF than in crop.

    is it the case? if so, then uwa is better on crop than FF... at least in terms of distortion...

    btw i find the tokina lens perform the best, but one downside is the lack ofMF button... i cannot use use AF and then switch to MF without affecting the focus.

  2. #2

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Well, you need to understand that the "sweet spot" effect still applies in terms of distortion. The base lens design is still as if it was an 11-18 in 35mm equivalent, but with less glass.

    For FF, I recommend the Sigma 12-24, very good distortion characteristics.
    Alpha

  3. #3

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    Well, you need to understand that the "sweet spot" effect still applies in terms of distortion. The base lens design is still as if it was an 11-18 in 35mm equivalent, but with less glass.

    For FF, I recommend the Sigma 12-24, very good distortion characteristics.
    seems that Canon uwa lenses aren't that great leh...

  4. #4
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    Hi

    I was comparing the test results from photozone.de for tokina 11-16, sigma 8-16 on crop and canon EF 17-40 and 16-36 on FF, and it appears that uwa distort more in FF than in crop.

    is it the case? if so, then uwa is better on crop than FF... at least in terms of distortion...

    btw i find the tokina lens perform the best, but one downside is the lack ofMF button... i cannot use use AF and then switch to MF without affecting the focus.
    For the sake of discussion, you first need to identify what kind of distortion you are referring to. Is it perspective distortions or curvilinear distortions?? Wihout establishing that, any discussion on distortions can be misleading and confusing. The former is an inherent propeerty of wide angles. The latter can be minimised with lens design.

  5. #5

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    For the sake of discussion, you first need to identify what kind of distortion you are referring to. Is it perspective distortions or curvilinear distortions?? Wihout establishing that, any discussion on distortions can be misleading and confusing. The former is an inherent propeerty of wide angles. The latter can be minimised with lens design.
    i got the info from the site, it didn't state whether it is perspective distortions or curvilinear distortions leh...

    it did mention SMIA TV distortion... u know what is that?

  6. #6

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    seems that Canon uwa lenses aren't that great leh...
    They're not known for their UWA lenses, true. They are very good in super telephoto though.
    Alpha

  7. #7

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    They're not known for their UWA lenses, true. They are very good in super telephoto though.
    luckily there are 3rd lenses here to save the day....

    sigh.. why Canon don't outsource their uwa to others lei ?



  8. #8
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Rashkae View Post
    They're not known for their UWA lenses, true. They are very good in super telephoto though.
    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    luckily there are 3rd lenses here to save the day....

    sigh.. why Canon don't outsource their uwa to others lei ?

    Well, or perhaps they are too well known for the UWAs..... in a wrong way

    The new TS-E 24mm MK II and TS-E 17mm are reputed to be very good though.

  9. #9
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    i got the info from the site, it didn't state whether it is perspective distortions or curvilinear distortions leh...

    it did mention SMIA TV distortion... u know what is that?
    If its from the site then it should be referring to curvilinear distortions. They usually don't cover perspective distortions because its inherent in the design, its silly to even mention about them.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Numnumball's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Central
    Posts
    13,914

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    luckily there are 3rd lenses here to save the day....

    sigh.. why Canon don't outsource their uwa to others lei ?


    There's also adapter readily available to use Nikon lenses..
    I turned PRO in diaper chg!
    My Flickr|My Son

  11. #11

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    If its from the site then it should be referring to curvilinear distortions. They usually don't cover perspective distortions because its inherent in the design, its silly to even mention about them.
    wow.. u do know alot on uwa... so both can be corrected hor? "pai say" i didn't google lah...

  12. #12
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    wow.. u do know alot on uwa... so both can be corrected hor? "pai say" i didn't google lah...
    Curvilinear distortions can be corrected or avoided with careful composing. Perspective distortions cannot be corrected but can be minimised with careful composing as well.

  13. #13

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Curvilinear distortions can be corrected or avoided with careful composing. Perspective distortions cannot be corrected but can be minimised with careful composing as well.
    tks alot

  14. #14
    Senior Member giantcanopy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    SG
    Posts
    6,232

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    seems that Canon uwa lenses aren't that great leh...
    i would not put it to that extent. kit has outlined some excellent wide lenses. Anyway the canon uwa are gonna be easily sharper than the sigma 12-24mm. The only thing being sigma is the only current maker of an autofocusing rectilinear wide angle lens at 12mm for FF sensors.

    ryan

  15. #15

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    For the sake of discussion, you first need to identify what kind of distortion you are referring to. Is it perspective distortions or curvilinear distortions?? Wihout establishing that, any discussion on distortions can be misleading and confusing. The former is an inherent propeerty of wide angles. The latter can be minimised with lens design.
    photozone.de shows barrel distortion/pincushion distortion results.

    so it's the latter, there is no reason why a lens test site would talk about horizontal/vertical perspective distortion... at least not a reputable one!

  16. #16

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by giantcanopy View Post
    i would not put it to that extent. kit has outlined some excellent wide lenses. Anyway the canon uwa are gonna be easily sharper than the sigma 12-24mm. The only thing being sigma is the only current maker of an autofocusing rectilinear wide angle lens at 12mm for FF sensors.

    ryan
    in general though, canon zooms have their distortion very poorly controlled.

    everytime i see a curved horizon in naturescapes that curved, i know it came from a FF camera with 17-40 L.

  17. #17

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Curvilinear distortions can be corrected or avoided with careful composing. Perspective distortions cannot be corrected but can be minimised with careful composing as well.
    yes, this is right.

    anyways, why worry, just use ptlens, us$25 will correct your barrel distortion very well.

  18. #18
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,651

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    in general though, canon zooms have their distortion very poorly controlled.

    everytime i see a curved horizon in naturescapes that curved, i know it came from a FF camera with 17-40 L.


    You don't need to pair the 17-40 f/4 to find out about its curves. This is shot with a 10D


    In all fairness, the 16-35 f/2.8 MKII was much better in controlling barrel distortions but still pretty visible.


    Then there came the Nikkor 16-35 f/4 which takes the cake. Its a semi-fisheye at 16mm I tell ya!!!

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    3,911

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kit View Post
    Then there came the Nikkor 16-35 f/4 which takes the cake. Its a semi-fisheye at 16mm I tell ya!!!
    That bad? You know I'm not a fan of the 14-24...

  20. #20

    Default Re: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    yes, this is right.

    anyways, why worry, just use ptlens, us$25 will correct your barrel distortion very well.
    so if i use ptlens i can correct even the distortion produced canon 17-40, 16-35 izzit?

    wa something new to me... learn something today tks alot

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •