Whats the different from CF and FF?
- Thread starter MrFunnyBaby
- Start date
yes, that is a given.
the information that DD123 seems to suggest is new to me though. any idea what that is about?
never mind... on saturday I try to do a comparison with NNB's camera. I shoot at 12mm (widest) and he shoot at 18mm. We post up and see
My bad. seems aspect ratio is the same. But I saw it with by own eyes on NNB's shots. we shot side by side at the marina barrage. even though our FOV is almost the same, he is 16mm, I am 11mm, his pictures came out very much wider. Which made me so confused... I was on the verge of moving to a D700 already... He seems to be able to capture a lot more at the top and bottom. Pulling my hairs out already. why why why???!! I asked NNB why it seems so, he said to me that is the power of the FX... "true wide" he says.
Last edited:
Nikon were being pessimistic about the wideness of the 16-35VR? Maybe it's actually 14mm at its widest, and the 14-24 is actually 12, and so on.... :bsmilie:
Bro, you can't relly on the 11mm versus 16mm info... Nikon 16-35mm has a 107 deg angle of view at the widest... whereas Tokina 11-16mm has only 104 degrees Angle of View at 11mm - clearly 16-35mm beats the Tokina 11-16mm... (I think you haven't checked on this, do a google search on the 11-16mm's spec) I don't think it's the FX advantage... 3 degrees extra is going to be a big difference when you have a large scene to capture. The further the distance the greater the differences will be! Yes it is larger in terms of FX versus DX, but not when you compare Angle of view between lenses. If you want to beat the 16-35 in terms of capturing more angles on the DX - it would have to be the 10-24mm (angle of view is 109 deg). Not sure about Tamron's or Sigma's 10-24/10-20 Angle of view - need to research. You might wanna borrow Wildcat's 10-24mm (provided he goes along with the idea) on your D300s to test it out on this coming outing - I'll bet that the 10-24mm DX is wider than 16-35mm...
Therefore, don't just go by the millimetres on the lens - they cannot be trusted to deliver the wideness you'd expect from the focal lengths. The Angle of View is the thing to look out for...
Last edited:
It makes sense that the 16-35 has a wider view than 11-16, and narrower than 10-24.
10 x 1.5 = 15mm
11 x 1.5 = 16.5mm
which corresponds to the angle of view being in between...
I haven't thought of that, but I guess you pretty much figured out the math part! :thumbsup: :bsmilie:
And just for comparison sake - 14-24mm has a Angle of 114 degrees at the widest, beats the 10-24mm any day - the king of UW!
Last edited:
In that case, it is understood that Tamron or Sigma's UWA at 10mm should be the same as 15mm on FF then... It is THAT simple huh?... haiz... :sweat:
Not that simple... Just did a quick search on Tamron and Sigma's UWA specs...
Tamron 10-24mm has a 108 deg. 44' angle of view (Rumoured to be Nikon 10-24mm's evil twin bro... even though the interiors are completely different...)
Sigma's 10-20mm has a 102.4 deg angle....
So Sigma is going to be narrower than Nikon's 16-35mm VR and SHOULD be narrower to Tokina's 11-16mm as well...
Angle of view is still the thing to check for, folks. Unless the lens specs themselves are falsified or listed improperly...
Tamron 10-24mm has a 108 deg. 44' angle of view (Rumoured to be Nikon 10-24mm's evil twin bro... even though the interiors are completely different...)
Sigma's 10-20mm has a 102.4 deg angle....
So Sigma is going to be narrower than Nikon's 16-35mm VR and SHOULD be narrower to Tokina's 11-16mm as well...
Angle of view is still the thing to check for, folks. Unless the lens specs themselves are falsified or listed improperly...
Last edited:
Not according to DPREVIEW
Well, check THIS out:
Sigma's OWN website
Who would you trust? DPREVIEW or SIGMA?
So Sigma deliberately lie to make their angle smaller? Or did someone at DPREVIEW assumes that any 10mm should be at 109 degrees? (Simply cut and paste the spec from Nikon's 10-24mm?)Just checked again...both f/3.5 and f/4-5.6 Sigma 10-20mm has a 102.4 deg....ACCORDING to Sigma that is...
Last edited:
the one that DPReview reviewed was the f/4-5.6 one... but that doesn't explain the discrepancy.
I suspect someone was being lazy or sneaky... :think:
Anyway as far as I've been led to believe, the shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view.
I suspect someone was being lazy or sneaky... :think:
Anyway as far as I've been led to believe, the shorter the focal length, the wider the angle of view.
Then the specs are all bogus? Cannot be... Why be so precise? Why not just round up to 102 deg instead of 102.4 degs?
no, focal length is not really representative of field of view.
10mm fisheye for example on DX lens will have a much wider FOV than a 10mm rectilinear lens.
so things like how well the distortion is corrected would also PROBABLY affect effective FOV.
that said, we can usually expect a 10mm lens to be wider than an 11mm lens, given that they are both rectilinear.
10mm fisheye for example on DX lens will have a much wider FOV than a 10mm rectilinear lens.
so things like how well the distortion is corrected would also PROBABLY affect effective FOV.
that said, we can usually expect a 10mm lens to be wider than an 11mm lens, given that they are both rectilinear.
Last edited:
Similar threads
