Seems like no one mentioned DOF.
At the same fov, the FF will hv nearly 50% shallower dof compared to aps-c sensor.
This is great for portrait shooters and bokeh lovers.
Ah. I meant without crop factor conversion then it'll be wider and taller.
yes, but DD123 seems to be suggesting is that:
have 10mm on APS-C format (15mm effective focal length in 35mm terms)
versus 15mm on FX
15mm on FX frame will have MORE in the frame - height wise at that. this is confusing. my understanding has always been that they are exactly the same, after you do the crop factor conversion.
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
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: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.
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.
It makes sense that the 16-35 has a wider view than 11-16, and narrower than 10-24.Bro, you can't relly on the 11mm versus 16mm info... 16-35mm has a 107 deg angle of view at the widest... whereas 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...
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...
11*1.5 = 11 + 5.5 = 16.5 mm.........
not 16mm....
isn't that what I wrote? :dunno:
:angel:
You replying to someone else?
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...
Not according to DPREVIEW
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.
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!