How wide?

plloydie

plloydie

Messages
1,141
Name
Paul
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm very slowly upgrading my kit with the view eventually to go FX. My current camera is a D90, I want a Nikon 24-70mm which I will buy before a FX camera. I use a Sigma 10-20mm lens on my D90 which I'm happy with but will the Nikon 24-70mm on a full frame camera go as wide as the Sigma 10-20 mm on my D90 if not how much "width" will i lose?

Regards
 
You'll loose 9mm which is a lot at the wide end! Your 10-20mm is a 15mm equivalent.
 
Last edited:
In terms of field of view the sigma is equivalent to 15-30mm on full frame, so there would be some overlap. Your 24-70 on your D90 is equivalent to about 36-105. There's dozens of threads on here about crop factors and fields of view well worth having a quick look round the Talk Basics section of the forum.
 
Basically the 24mm wide end on a Nikon FX camera will be the same field of view as 16mm is on your D90.
 
To be honest I can't really explain this but... when I used crop sensors I found that UWA lenses like the 12-24 I used to own didn't always work too well with landscapes, I much preferred the bottom end of the 17-70 lens I had (26-35 equivalent FX). Having moved to the D800 a while ago and bought the 16-35 though I now find myself shooting around 16mm a great deal more frequently, the wider aspect just seems more comfortable somehow on FX

Simon
 
hot-ice said:
I'm very slowly upgrading my kit with the view eventually to go FX. My current camera is a D90, I want a Nikon 24-70mm which I will buy before a FX camera. I use a Sigma 10-20mm lens on my D90 which I'm happy with but will the Nikon 24-70mm on a full frame camera go as wide as the Sigma 10-20 mm on my D90 if not how much "width" will i lose?

Regards
Click to expand...

If you really do want to go FF you could go for a Sigma 12-24mm. It's a FF lens that's quite wide on APS-C and on FF its... very wide! Plus it's a fantastic lens.

I've sold all my DSLR kit now but I was very happy with the Sigma 12-24mm on my APS-C Canon 20D and on my 5D it was simply amazing. It's a lovely lens and mine replaced a Canon 10-20mm and IMVHO was a lot better than the Canon lens.

Might be worth looking inti this lens if you are going to go FF.
 
Nawty said:
Basically the 24mm wide end on a Nikon FX camera will be the same field of view as 16mm is on your D90.
Click to expand...

This is the correct answer to the OP's question.
 
the 10 20 can be used on full frame, after 14 15mm there's no vinyette. And 10mm is a lot of wide fun :-) with some vinyette
 
woof woof said:
If you really do want to go FF you could go for a Sigma 12-24mm. It's a FF lens that's quite wide on APS-C and on FF its... very wide! Plus it's a fantastic lens.

I've sold all my DSLR kit now but I was very happy with the Sigma 12-24mm on my APS-C Canon 20D and on my 5D it was simply amazing. It's a lovely lens and mine replaced a Canon 10-20mm and IMVHO was a lot better than the Canon lens.

Might be worth looking inti this lens if you are going to go FF.
Click to expand...

Only issue with this lens is the silly front element. Cant use filters and if your going wide id suspect at least some landscape work
 
barratt1988 said:
Only issue with this lens is the silly front element. Cant use filters and if your going wide id suspect at least some landscape work
Click to expand...

And just for information for anyone possibly interested in gthe Sigma 12-24mm...

I'm amazed how often this is said on forums probably by people just repeating what they've read on forums?

You can fit a filter / filter holder to the lens with the "bucket" in place. I can't remember at what point it stops to vignette... but the option is there if you are using the lens at the longer end plus of course you can hold or blue tac or otherwise attach / place a filter against the fixed hood with no vignetting. A quick search on line (Youtube maybe?) should get you to some exemples of how it can be done. And not everyone uses filters. Personally apart from ND's to get the shutter speed down when using my G1 I haven't used a filter for something like seven years.

So for many people the silly front element is something between an irritation that can be overcome and a non issue and a price worth paying for using this lens :D
 
woof woof said:
And just for information for anyone possibly interested in gthe Sigma 12-24mm...

I'm amazed how often this is said on forums probably by people just repeating what they've read on forums?

You can fit a filter / filter holder to the lens with the "bucket" in place. I can't remember at what point it stops to vignette... but the option is there if you are using the lens at the longer end plus of course you can hold or blue tac or otherwise attach / place a filter against the fixed hood with no vignetting. A quick search on line (Youtube maybe?) should get you to some exemples of how it can be done. And not everyone uses filters. Personally apart from ND's to get the shutter speed down when using my G1 I haven't used a filter for something like seven years.

So for many people the silly front element is something between an irritation that can be overcome and a non issue and a price worth paying for using this lens :D
Click to expand...

The cover which comes with the lens to allow a thread cn be used but at like 24mm so pointless it being a UWA and not many people will want that wide unless shooting landscapes. If it wer me id rather have a 16mm lens than 12 as the 4mm isnt worth the issues.
 
woof woof said:
And just for information for anyone possibly interested in gthe Sigma 12-24mm...

I'm amazed how often this is said on forums probably by people just repeating what they've read on forums?

You can fit a filter / filter holder to the lens with the "bucket" in place. I can't remember at what point it stops to vignette... but the option is there if you are using the lens at the longer end plus of course you can hold or blue tac or otherwise attach / place a filter against the fixed hood with no vignetting. A quick search on line (Youtube maybe?) should get you to some exemples of how it can be done. And not everyone uses filters. Personally apart from ND's to get the shutter speed down when using my G1 I haven't used a filter for something like seven years.

So for many people the silly front element is something between an irritation that can be overcome and a non issue and a price worth paying for using this lens :D
Click to expand...

Sigma 12-24mm for full-frame is a great lens, especially the Mk2 version. Filters an be fitted, but they're big, expensive and cumbersome. Formatt Hitech makes an adapter called Lucroit, or one like on this vid http://www.benjacobsenphoto.com/2010/gear/filters-for-lenses-that-cant-take-filters/

You can't just BluTack a 100mm grad in front though, not if you want to shoot on FF at 12mm. It needs the much bigger and more costly 150-165mm size.
 
hmm its ok on the sony alpha platform, and the second shot probably has the hood on.

its the slower and cheaper 10-20 i have.
 
i just looked at negatives (used it with film camera) and most look like the top image, but i used it at wider end mostly
 
measured negative, 31mm across (36 is normal) but i had a uv filter on, which i think is viewable just, so u would get a smidge wider without it. that was at the wider end
 
The shots above were taken using the older variable aperture version of the lens (the slower and cheaper one), can't remember if the hood was fitted. The hood wasn't the cause of the vignette - it (the vignette) shows circular marks and the hood is almost certainly smooth. By any definition, the vignette on the 20mm shot isn't "no vignette". The reason you probably don't see much vignette on the prints is that labs almost always crop a fair bit, as is evidenced by your measurement of 31mm of width on the negative.
 
the 2nd has the hood im pretty sure, as mine looked boxy with hood on, thats the effect of a petal hood...
stuff towards the 20mm end of the has a image circle of 38-40mm, not enough for full coverage (4mmish triangles in each corner) and i think its "clipping" my uv filter slightly, plus theres a rear baffle, if your where brave you could try to remove it i guess :)
but you could do panaramicish of 36x16 ish
cant be many lenses that are wider than that and not fisheye?


boots cropped some pics off center, curiously
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top