whats wider ?
- Thread starter holty
- Start date
- Messages
- 4,926
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
You would need a 15-30mm on full frame to match the DX lens for wideness.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 11,618
- Name
- Jim
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Wideness?
- Messages
- 4,926
- Name
- Graham
- Edit My Images
- No
Of wideidity, yes.
- Messages
- 2,469
- Name
- Adam
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Steve Smith
Joe
- Messages
- 9,277
- Edit My Images
- No
- Messages
- 1,369
- Name
- Chris
- Edit My Images
- Yes
If you're after widthfulness on a crop sensor camera don't forget the excellent Sigma 8-16mm, a linear perspective lens (i.e. not a fisheye lens, straight lines in the world are straight in the image) with which you can photograph all four walls of a room while standing inside it. It's not only usefully wider than their good 10-20mm but better in IQ.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 270
- Edit My Images
- No
Or if you wouldn't mind a prime then go with Samyang/Rokinon 14mm, it is wider than 10-20 on DX or 15-30 on FX, it is like a 15mm fisheye de-fished, but sure you have to look at that ugly distortion from this 14mm.
Not sure about Canon 14mm how wide it is or how is the distortion, but the price of it has a big ugly distortion in budget.
Not sure about Canon 14mm how wide it is or how is the distortion, but the price of it has a big ugly distortion in budget.
- Messages
- 940
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
How is it wider than 10mm on DX (15mm DX equivalent) ? Wouldn't 14mm equate to 21mm DX?
- Messages
- 270
- Edit My Images
- No
Your reply has some mistakes or confusing me, 10mm on DX is equivalent to 15mm or 16mm on FX, if we consider that DX is 1.5 or 1.6, so 14mm is definitely wider than 15 or 16, or do you think that 16 and 15 are wider than 14mm?
Also, this Samyang is working on FX to give 14mm full coverage, i think it will be slightly a bit wider than 10-20 on DX body, the only 2 wider non fisheye lenses that will give you the widest than 10mm on DX or 14-16mm on FX are Sigma 12-24 and Canon 11-24 as both fit on FX to give a true 11 and 12mm as widest.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 270
- Edit My Images
- No
Also, from OP, he was comparing between DX and FX, he didn't mention a 2 lenses on DX only or 2 lenses on FX only, but if i have given both then i will definitely go with FX and equivalent lens of 10mm on that DX or even wider, 16-35 and 15-30 and 14-24 are the top quality lenses for FX, only Canon 11-24 kills them all but with almost highest price too.
- Messages
- 940
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
14mm on FX is equivalent to 21mm on DX. Which is wider than 15 or 16mm.
As far as I understand, the focal length quoted by companies is generally the 35mm (fx) equivalent, rather than what it would be on a crop sensor?
You even stated yourself that 10-20mm is 15-30mm on DX format, so why not apply that same logic to a 14mm lens?!
- Messages
- 270
- Edit My Images
- No
No, i didn't say that, 10-20 on DX format is equivalent to 15-30 on FX format not DX format, watch carefully to what me or other wrote, 15-30 on Dx is equivalent to about 22.5[say 23 or 24 if 1.6x is the crop factor]-45, but we are comparing a DX lens on DX format with an FX lens on FX format, not logic to compare that 14mm of FX on DX when there is a lens that is designed for DX and wider than 14mm on DX, but 14mm on FX format is wider than 10mm on DX format, and there is no lens that has 10mm that can fit on FX format yet, unless you modify that 10-20 to be fit on FX and it will has some issues, but you keep saying that 14mm on DX, NOOOO, 14mm on FX vs. 10mm on DX.
- Messages
- 11,513
- Name
- Stewart
- Edit My Images
- Yes
No, that's the wrong way round. 14mm on DX is equivalent to 21mm on FX.
No, that's wrong. The focal length is the focal length. It's a physical property of the lens which is not dependent on the sensor format. So for example the Nikon 40mm f/2.8 DX lens has an actual focal length of 40mm. It's DX only, and the field of view it offers is equivalent to a 60mm lens on FX, but it's still physically a 40mm lens.