Advantage of UWA on FF?


Status
Not open for further replies.

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#1
Hi all can anybody address the question above? Besides better "IQ, and ISO" what other drastic improvements can I see if I upgrade from a 10-22 on a 1.6 crop VS a similar UWA on a FF?

The allure of poor corner distortion and unwanted vignetting is not all that enticing, please halp kthx
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#2
Hi all can anybody address the question above? Besides better "IQ, and ISO" what other drastic improvements can I see if I upgrade from a 10-22 on a 1.6 crop VS a similar UWA on a FF?

The allure of poor corner distortion and unwanted vignetting is not all that enticing, please halp kthx
U get to utilise the entire lens instead of just the centre part.
 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#3
Err true, but why do people always say FF is for UWA, 1.6 crop is for tele lenses. I can understand that with tele you get the extra reach but for UWA on FF what you get is the bad edges! pfft?
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#4
Err true, but why do people always say FF is for UWA, 1.6 crop is for tele lenses. I can understand that with tele you get the extra reach but for UWA on FF what you get is the bad edges! pfft?
FF for UWA cos u can utilise lenses like 14mm and fisheye. 1.6X for tele cos due to the crop, a 200mm lens will be equivalent to 320mm.

How bad are the edges? Does this look bad??

 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#5
Was that on your 17-40? How would you think the lens compares with the 10-22 on a 1.6, it is a fair comparison right? Sorry to sound so kaypoh, this is just my way of learning : d
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#6
Hi all can anybody address the question above? Besides better "IQ, and ISO" what other drastic improvements can I see if I upgrade from a 10-22 on a 1.6 crop VS a similar UWA on a FF?

The allure of poor corner distortion and unwanted vignetting is not all that enticing, please halp kthx
it is said mainly because

1. you lose out with WA lenses with the crop factor ( your once swee 17mm UWA becomes just another WA) :thumbsd:

2. with the crop factor your 200 f2.8 suddenly becomes a 300 f2.8 :thumbsup: and your once upon a time 1:1 macro becomes a 1.5:1 macro :thumbsup:
 

denniskee

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2003
5,468
2
0
bukit batok
Visit site
#7
and your once upon a time 1:1 macro becomes a 1.5:1 macro :thumbsup:
hi otega,

i thought 1:1 means, 3.6cm (horizontal line) in real life is captured as 3.6cm on sensor, saw, using a canon 100mm macro lens at min focus dist.

as such, even if u use it on a corp factor camera body with exact parameter as above, it still does 1:1, but in this case, due to smaller sensor, the lens still sees 3.6cm in real life (FF lens), but only able to capture 2.25cm(typo error) (same horizontal line as above) on the sensor?

i not into closeup photography, so not sure on this.
 

Last edited:

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#8
hi otega,

i thought 1:1 means, 3.6cm (horizontal line) in real life is captured as 3.6cm on sensor, saw, using a canon 100mm macro lens at min focus dist.

as such, even if u use it on a corp factor camera body with exact parameter as above, it still does 1:1, but in this case, due to smaller sensor, the lens still sees 3.6cm in real life (FF lens), but only able to capture 22.5cm (same horizontal line as above) on the sensor?

i not into closeup photography, so not sure on this.
It will still be 3.6 cm on the sensor, but with the added cropping of the periphery on a DX sensor, it seemed you got more magnification out of the macro lens

Ryan
 

denniskee

Senior Member
Oct 26, 2003
5,468
2
0
bukit batok
Visit site
#9
It will still be 3.6 cm on the sensor, but with the added cropping of the periphery on a DX sensor, it seemed you got more magnification out of the macro lens

Ryan
now i more confused, if it is still 3.6 cm physically on the sensor, but sensor of 1.6x crop camera is only 2.25cm wide (agar agar), how to capture something thats bigger than its physical size. remember, it is 1:1 macro lens we talking here.

if it is not physically 3.6cm om the 1.6x crop sensor, that means it is shrunk, so the lens no longer produce 1:1 effect?

if it is 3.6cm on 3.6cm on the 1.6x crop sensor, than wouldnt that produce the exact same picture as the FF camera?
 

Rashkae

Senior Member
Nov 28, 2005
19,105
12
0
#11
now i more confused, if it is still 3.6 cm physically on the sensor, but sensor of 1.6x crop camera is only 2.25cm wide (agar agar), how to capture something thats bigger than its physical size. remember, it is 1:1 macro lens we talking here.

if it is not physically 3.6cm om the 1.6x crop sensor, that means it is shrunk, so the lens no longer produce 1:1 effect?

if it is 3.6cm on 3.6cm on the 1.6x crop sensor, than wouldnt that produce the exact same picture as the FF camera?
No. On a crop camera, it would crop the image. So it's still 3.6cm, but now you're only "seeing" a smaller area.
 

giantcanopy

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2007
6,232
2
0
SG
#13
There is no confusion. The flange - focusing distance is still the same for DX / FX regardless of sensor size, and the smaller sensor does just that - it provides a cropped image, be it macro, wide angle, telephoto etc.

If the subject is 10mm, it will be 10mm on the FX and 10mm on the DX, just that comparatively it is larger on the DX and in a way a magnification / cropping.

If the subject is 36mm, it will be 36mm on the FX, and 36mm on DX, just that u wun see the whole of the 36mm on DX, but rather the cropped part at the centre - and hence the seemingly increase in magnification as a result of crop.

Ryan
 

munkey

New Member
Apr 25, 2007
448
0
0
32
#14
Wow major OT there. lol SO can I assume that with the 16/17mm on FF vs 10-22 on 1.6x there is NO significant Advantage? Besides the better IQ, ISO that comes with the camera of course.
 

Snoweagle

Senior Member
Jan 26, 2005
14,002
0
0
Pasir Ris, Singapore
#15
Was that on your 17-40? How would you think the lens compares with the 10-22 on a 1.6, it is a fair comparison right? Sorry to sound so kaypoh, this is just my way of learning : d
Yes it's my 17-40 at 17mm end. 10-22 on a 1.6x will be similar to a 16-35 on FF. As 10-22 is EF-S, 1.6x users can't go any wider unless they use 3rd party ones but will cause vignetting on the corners.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom