Wide angle lens
Jul 10, 2013 13:40:40 #
The crop factor is not my brainchild. Its the standard in the industry when converting dx focal lengths to 35mm. Your argument is with the engineers...not me.
Jul 10, 2013 13:50:37 #
Ok- reposting this, to put the images with the correct focal lengths in the same post.
Here is a test with two Sigma lenses on a DX body:
One lens is a 10-20 DX set on 12mm
The other is a 12-24 FX also set at 12mm.
There is a little difference (due to an inaccurate zoom ring?), but not anywhere near 1.5x.
When I did this test about a year ago with the Nikon D7000 using a DX 17-55 and an FX 24-70 both set to 35mm, the images were virtually identical...Nikon's markings may be more accurate or it's just more accurate at a longer focal length.
Here is a test with two Sigma lenses on a DX body:
One lens is a 10-20 DX set on 12mm
The other is a 12-24 FX also set at 12mm.
There is a little difference (due to an inaccurate zoom ring?), but not anywhere near 1.5x.
When I did this test about a year ago with the Nikon D7000 using a DX 17-55 and an FX 24-70 both set to 35mm, the images were virtually identical...Nikon's markings may be more accurate or it's just more accurate at a longer focal length.
Sigma 10-20 DX set at 12mm
Sigma 12-24 FX set at 12mm
Jul 10, 2013 13:59:14 #
Every once in a while, a Realtor friend asks me to shoot a home for her. I shoot Canon products, and used my 50D to make the shoots. I use a Canon EF-S 10-22mm USM lens. I shoot the house at the lowest JPEG, since the photo will be downloaded to a MLS program. At the widest angle the 10-22 gives a rather distorted wall of some of the rooms, almost like a fisheye distortion. So, I use the lens at about 18mm to get straight lines. Since I am only called upon for the really expensive, large homes, I called my friend and asked what she used on the moderate, smaller houses. She said a Nikon P&S. Keep in mind these photos are not going to be judged, or critiqued, so present the photos in a downloadable format that the Realtor can download to the program used to display the photos. You may have to adjust the size to show the entire photo.
Jul 10, 2013 14:42:38 #
I purchased a TOKINA SD11-16 f2.8 (IF) DX good lens for around $550-$600. Have good shots and use for tight party and room shots. Good for me, see what others have to say about it?
Jul 10, 2013 14:43:31 #
OK Light House...willing to eat a little crow here. I had a long discussion with a cam expert and I stand corrected. There is no difference between fx and dx focal lengths except the fx image circle is larger than the dx so that it covers the fx sensor size. GoofieNewfie's test set me straight. Thanks...my curiosity has paid off and have learned something new again. Sorry for the arrogant comments. Thought all this time I was correct about the crop factor and its use. Some body send me a crow!
Jul 10, 2013 15:03:23 #
rrg6481 wrote:
OK Light House...willing to eat a little crow here. I had a long discussion with a cam expert and I stand corrected. There is no difference between fx and dx focal lengths except the fx image circle is larger than the dx so that it covers the fx sensor size. GoofieNewfie's test set me straight. Thanks...my curiosity has paid off and have learned something new again. Sorry for the arrogant comments. Thought all this time I was correct about the crop factor and its use. Some body send me a crow!
Contrary to a post I read somewhere else, you don't need to know crop factors to be a good photographer, but it helps. Don't eat crow, just knowing that another convert has seen the light is good enough for me.
Jul 10, 2013 15:26:01 #
Jerry, does your statement mean its not worth buying? I just brought one for my D5000 on amazon for about 40 bucks, just to play around, if I put it on my 18-55 lens will I be able to take a close up of the face of a wrist watch? Thanks erry hope your well.
Jul 10, 2013 15:57:51 #
If you keep the the D3200 ,I think your best/simplest solution is the Sigma 17-70 F2.8-4 - prefeably used from KEH or from a good feedback seller on ebay! These are about $400 + or - now new, about $300 used. But for serious wide angle work I recommend Sony NEX with in camera sweep panorama and HDR. I use a manual old Vivitar 24mm lens with an adapter on the NEX for panos - results are stunning !
Jul 10, 2013 17:44:09 #
Hi c8group,
My home is for sale. The commercial photographer that took the indoor pictures used a 14mm wide angle which tends to make the rooms, etc., look unusually long but is necessary in order to get all the room into the picture. I tried it with my 18mm and that just wasn't wide enough. I can't make a specific brand recommendation.
My home is for sale. The commercial photographer that took the indoor pictures used a 14mm wide angle which tends to make the rooms, etc., look unusually long but is necessary in order to get all the room into the picture. I tried it with my 18mm and that just wasn't wide enough. I can't make a specific brand recommendation.
c8group wrote:
Greetings Folks!
I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D3200. Funds are low right now so I would like to find out if there is a lens that does a decent job on the cheap. I see many lenses for around $50.00 and the costs can go to around $700.00. I am aware you get what you pay for but I'm hoping for a miracle.
I will be shooting interiors for real estate agents.
I need a wide angle lens for my Nikon D3200. Funds are low right now so I would like to find out if there is a lens that does a decent job on the cheap. I see many lenses for around $50.00 and the costs can go to around $700.00. I am aware you get what you pay for but I'm hoping for a miracle.
I will be shooting interiors for real estate agents.
Jul 10, 2013 18:12:48 #
lighthouse
Loc: No Fixed Abode
If someone has been polite of course there is no need for them to eat crow.
If someone has been arrogant and disrespectful about it, I am going to pull up a front row seat and watch them chew and choke on every rancid mouthful.
If someone has been arrogant and disrespectful about it, I am going to pull up a front row seat and watch them chew and choke on every rancid mouthful.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
Contrary to a post I read somewhere else, you don't need to know crop factors to be a good photographer, but it helps. Don't eat crow, just knowing that another convert has seen the light is good enough for me.
Jul 10, 2013 18:40:13 #
K...get a chair...I feel pretty much like a heal ...but on the bright side I do understand it more thoroughly. Thanks...and my apologies. OK ...that hurt!
Jul 10, 2013 19:18:34 #
The easiest way to convert to 35mm focal length, is to take the zoom numbers on your lens i.e. 18-135mm and divide each number by 2! "That is if you have an APS-c sensor in your camera....Let's continue
2 divided into 18 = 9! Simple so far I hope!
Then take the original number 18 and add the quotient number "9" + 18 = 27...This new number is the 35mm focal computation...
Soooooo....your 18-135 lens is a 35mm equivalent
27-202mm....And back in 1970...People would have killed to have a zoom len's range like that!
Let's do another one 70-300 zoom...70 + 35 = 105 and
300 + 150 = 450...Sooo...You have a 105-450 zoom range
Now if you are wondering what 105-450 is in magnification power, take each number and divide by 50 which is the 35mm equivalent to what you see is neither magnified or wide angle...So a 105mm computed focal length is 2.1X magnification and 450mm is a 9X magnification.
See attached photo of lens angles of acceptance from 180 degree super fisheye, to 3 degrees for super tele lenses
2 divided into 18 = 9! Simple so far I hope!
Then take the original number 18 and add the quotient number "9" + 18 = 27...This new number is the 35mm focal computation...
Soooooo....your 18-135 lens is a 35mm equivalent
27-202mm....And back in 1970...People would have killed to have a zoom len's range like that!
Let's do another one 70-300 zoom...70 + 35 = 105 and
300 + 150 = 450...Sooo...You have a 105-450 zoom range
Now if you are wondering what 105-450 is in magnification power, take each number and divide by 50 which is the 35mm equivalent to what you see is neither magnified or wide angle...So a 105mm computed focal length is 2.1X magnification and 450mm is a 9X magnification.
See attached photo of lens angles of acceptance from 180 degree super fisheye, to 3 degrees for super tele lenses
Lens chart...Angles of acceptance
Jul 10, 2013 19:23:42 #
I prefer my way:
Look through the finder.
Back up or zoom wider if you don't have what you need in the frame.
No math needed!
Look through the finder.
Back up or zoom wider if you don't have what you need in the frame.
No math needed!
Jul 10, 2013 19:25:41 #
Digiphot2 wrote:
The easiest way to convert to 35mm focal length, i... (show quote)
That's all fine for the Nikon shooters as Nikons APS sensor has a 1.5X factor. But what about the Canon APS-C shooters who have a smaller sensor? Their sensors require a 1.6X factor to determine 35mm equivilancy. And then there are the Canon mid-sized sensors that have a 1.3X factor to figure out. And the 4/3's and M4/3's guys all have a 2X factor to work with. Your theory works for Nikon and Sony DSLR's though. And I won't even get into bridge and P&S conversions here, there are just way too many sensor sizes.
Jul 10, 2013 21:11:59 #
Yeah! But now the mystery has been disclosed, and now you are certifiably photographic! Ha Ha! In other words, Stupid is as Stupid does , but knowledge in any form trumps Stupid and just plain dumb luck!
I have a name for the cameras of people who buy them for the name only, to make them photographers...PHD's! Press Here Dummy!
But put in place of other items of expertise, the same holds true...Buying a Maseratti, will not make you capable of driving in the 24 hours of Lamans! It takes intelligence, and knowledge of physics and G-force and the Cohesion of the rubber that your tires are comprised of too! And you thought is was driving!
I once knew a young man who purchased a $375.00 Nikormat in 1969 dollars, to try to show me up. All I had was a 1950's Olympus range finder camera I purchased at a Tacoma Pawn shop for $30.00, and a 1949 G.E. Selenium light meter. But I had been an artist for over eight years prior to my purchase of this camera. He was just a dork who thought that if you throw enough money at anything, you will become that thing! WRONG! All he accomplished was to show our Shipmates at Coast Guard Base Ketchikan, how not to take pictures with a very expensive camera.
I have a name for the cameras of people who buy them for the name only, to make them photographers...PHD's! Press Here Dummy!
But put in place of other items of expertise, the same holds true...Buying a Maseratti, will not make you capable of driving in the 24 hours of Lamans! It takes intelligence, and knowledge of physics and G-force and the Cohesion of the rubber that your tires are comprised of too! And you thought is was driving!
I once knew a young man who purchased a $375.00 Nikormat in 1969 dollars, to try to show me up. All I had was a 1950's Olympus range finder camera I purchased at a Tacoma Pawn shop for $30.00, and a 1949 G.E. Selenium light meter. But I had been an artist for over eight years prior to my purchase of this camera. He was just a dork who thought that if you throw enough money at anything, you will become that thing! WRONG! All he accomplished was to show our Shipmates at Coast Guard Base Ketchikan, how not to take pictures with a very expensive camera.
My awards and medals from the USCG and my Ship
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.