Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 33 of 33

Thread: uwa distort more in FF than in crop?

  1. #21

    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
    ya sigma is really a great lens maker... it's good that they are here to help those with low budget .. haha...

  2. #22

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

    Quote Originally Posted by sfoto100 View Post
    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
    yes, even if your lens is new and you don't have it, can email the ptlens dude, he will do a profile somehow.. can't remember the procedure.

    i haven't gotten ptlens yet, but i've seen what it can do, correction of barrel distortion is superb - much better than the nonsense that photoshop can give you sometimes, which is only good for more "normal" lenses. UWA can forget about it.

  3. #23

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    That bad? You know I'm not a fan of the 14-24...
    http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492...5_4_ff?start=1

    16mm = whooping -4.34% barrel

  4. #24

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

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    yes, even if your lens is new and you don't have it, can email the ptlens dude, he will do a profile somehow.. can't remember the procedure.

    i haven't gotten ptlens yet, but i've seen what it can do, correction of barrel distortion is superb - much better than the nonsense that photoshop can give you sometimes, which is only good for more "normal" lenses. UWA can forget about it.
    finally i go and google.. and here it is:

    http://epaperpress.com/ptlens/


    oh my goodness... at first i thought it is a piece of glass to be attached to the uwa... haha....

  5. #25
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    That bad? You know I'm not a fan of the 14-24...
    Why not? Distortions?

  6. #26
    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
    Why not? Distortions?
    In the context of this thread and that response yes. And conditioned by the fact that I have a bit of archi work as you know.

    But generally the one thing that really, really gets me is the desperate propensity to flare. Although it's been a while since I used an UWA as regularly so that might have something to do with it too.

  7. #27
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    In the context of this thread and that response yes. And conditioned by the fact that I have a bit of archi work as you know.

    But generally the one thing that really, really gets me is the desperate propensity to flare. Although it's been a while since I used an UWA as regularly so that might have something to do with it too.
    I see. Never had flare problems so bad that it changed my viewed on the lens actually. Since you are into archi stuffs now, its also handy for interiors

  8. #28
    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
    I see. Never had flare problems so bad that it changed my viewed on the lens actually. Since you are into archi stuffs now, its also handy for interiors
    I've been doing rush work that they needed quickly, first. That didn't include interiors so I've not had to think about that just yet, just outdoors so far. Have wished I had a 17PC though *ahem*.

  9. #29
    Senior Member Kit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Upper Bukit Timah
    Posts
    11,650

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Jed View Post
    I've been doing rush work that they needed quickly, first. That didn't include interiors so I've not had to think about that just yet, just outdoors so far. Have wished I had a 17PC though *ahem*.
    Oh yeah..... wondering when Nikon is going to catch up with a wider T/S.

  10. #30

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

    I read the reviews on the photozone etc for the UWA lenses.
    And since this thread is talking UWA; Nightmare and Rash also mentioned Canon is not well known for their UWA, do you guys experienced bad things when you used Canon 10-22 ? From the review looks good though it is old lens.

    Still fighting my inner self to choose Tokina's 11-16 2.8 or 10-22
    I read a lot of people experiencing focusing problem and some qc problem
    Last edited by joker134; 3rd June 2010 at 03:55 PM.

  11. #31

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

    i think the canon 10-22 is fine as uwa go. i've seen it before, the problem is that it just isn't worth the additional money you pay over third party lenses like the sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, imho.

  12. #32

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

    Quote Originally Posted by night86mare View Post
    i think the canon 10-22 is fine as uwa go. i've seen it before, the problem is that it just isn't worth the additional money you pay over third party lenses like the sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6, imho.
    Yes that's the thing.
    But I saw somebody from dpreview returned his Tokina 11-16 f2.8 copy twice and finally got his 10-22 and said the USM paid off the trouble of focusing and unsharp copy of Tokina.

    Now the problem is does the 200 bucks difference justify peace of mind and the big aperture

  13. #33

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

    Quote Originally Posted by joker134 View Post
    I read the reviews on the photozone etc for the UWA lenses.
    And since this thread is talking UWA; Nightmare and Rash also mentioned Canon is not well known for their UWA, do you guys experienced bad things when you used Canon 10-22 ? From the review looks good though it is old lens.

    Still fighting my inner self to choose Tokina's 11-16 2.8 or 10-22
    I read a lot of people experiencing focusing problem and some qc problem


    but what will be the benefit for choosing the canon 10-22 over tokina 11-16?

    the only things i am worried about tokina are:
    1. lack of manual focus button
    2. it may not AF for future bodies, but i think Tokina will release firmware to solve this

    but tokina 11-16 are:
    1. sharpest
    2. f/2.8

    these 2 advantages won over canon by much more!!!


Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

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
  •