[TZH]

I'll add the missing smiley for you

.....thanks

[Aristophanes]

I would really enjoy using DFA*12-24

12mm for FF? Monster lens even at f/4.

Maybe you meant 14-24, equivalent to this:



From here:

Nikon AF-S Zoom Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8G ED AF Lens 2163 B&H Photo

FF + Fast Glass requires Fat Wallet.

[eddie1960]

this is FF Aristophenes and it's 12-24 but not that speed




12-24mm F4.5-5.6 DG HSM II - Wide Angle Zoom Lenses - SigmaPhoto.com

and it's fisshy but he Canon 8-15 f4.0 is also FF



The Nikon though is the only fast Zoom I know of (and more reasonably priced than some of the Canons

in primes the widest non fisheye Prime for any 35mm ever made AFAIK is the voigtlander 12mm 5.6 which comes in LTM and M mount

[ElJamoquio]

in primes the widest non fisheye Prime for any 35mm ever made AFAIK is the voigtlander 12mm 5.6 which comes in LTM and M mount

I assume that's for a rangefinder (M-mount, I don't know what LTM is)? That's almost like cheating when comparing it to mirror lenses... although it does show the flexibility of a non-mirror system.

[eddie1960]

I assume that's for a rangefinder (M-mount, I don't know what LTM is)? That's almost like cheating when comparing it to mirror lenses... although it does show the flexibility of a non-mirror system.

m39 leica mount.
so screw mount RF.
or in leica m

[Kryscendo]

If you want reasonably priced FF lenses, you're going to have to buy old film lenses.

Thankfully, this is one advantage Pentax has- fast and affordable full frame lenses over the course of years and years.

[ihasa]

FF + Fast Glass requires Fat Wallet.

Less urgent need for fast glass - better high iso and narrower dof.

[falconeye]

Less urgent need for fast glass - better high iso and narrower dof.

I assume you are fully aware that you contradict yourself here?

Fast glass is better high iso and narrower dof. It is the same thing.

Please google and read about lens equivalence to understand why. This article may be a good start though:
Luminous landscape

Besides the larger VF and more accurate AF, the whole point with an FF camera is that it provides access to lenses where equivalent lenses don't exist for APSC. As long as you confine yourself to equivalent lenses on FF, FF produces identical images. By definition.

[gazonk]

I assume you are fully aware that you contradict yourself here?

Fast glass is better high iso and narrower dof. It is the same thing.

Huh? The point is that with FF, you can get better high ISO and narrower DoF without the fastest glass! For instance, the M-40/2.8 will give you narrower DoF @2.8 on FF than the 28/2.8 will give you on APS-C.

[markku55]

Huh? The point is that with FF, you can get better high ISO and narrower DoF without the fastest glass! For instance, the M-40/2.8 will give you narrower DoF @2.8 on FF than the 28/2.8 will give you on APS-C.

May be even 28/2,0 is with deeper DOF than 40/2,8 or close to similar.
Actually APS-C needs always much faster glass than FF to give the same DOF with the same angle of view.
Also the FF lens do need much lower resolution to be as good as similar angle of view for APS-C need for same result.

[Sinister]

Most of the pictures I adore do not rely on shallow DOF. If needed, my requirements are fulfilled with a 77/1.8, 43/1.9 or 55/1.4. The only thing APS-C is not capable of and what I would like to have, the the DOF of a 35/1.4 on fullframe.

[falconeye]

Huh? The point is that with FF, you can get better high ISO and narrower DoF without the fastest glass! For instance, the M-40/2.8 will give you narrower DoF @2.8 on FF than the 28/2.8 will give you on APS-C.

Please, follow the advice given in my post you just cited.

To address your particular comment: An FF 40mm/2.8 and an APSC 27mm/1.9 are equivalent lenses, giving same DoF and same low light performance. But the 27/1.9 is NOT faster glass than the 40/2.8: Both lenses have identical aperture diameters and should have equal manufacturing cost.

Except that the 27mm already needs a retrofocus design with a FF mount like the K mount. Which was my point actually, the choice of available glass.

Maybe, we actually want to say the same: i.e., that a FF camera needs more moderate F-stop figures for equal performance. But I wouldn't call it slower glass as this would imply lower cost while in fact cost is equal (except for wide angle and apertures below f/2).

[borno]

A nice thing about having a couple different crop factor sensors, it's like having another set of lenses. My 16-28mm f2.8 tokina is really wide on FF while it is wide to almost normal on a aps-c. I can go from 16mm - 400mm with three decent zooms for travelling (640mm with crop factor) so I'm pretty happy.

[Pål Jensen]

Please google and read about lens equivalence to understand why. This article may be a good start though:
Luminous landscape

Besides the larger VF and more accurate AF, the whole point with an FF camera is that it provides access to lenses where equivalent lenses don't exist for APSC. As long as you confine yourself to equivalent lenses on FF, FF produces identical images. By definition.

This is faulty logic because formats aren't equivalent (thats why people choose one over the other). Trying to make them so via lenses or cropping makes the point of using a certain format pointless.
I've never heard of a photographer who bought an FF camera in order to get lenses otherwise not available for APS. Most photographers are pragmatic and buy the lenses that fit their needs whatever format. Very few have extraordinary lens requirement that are not generally available almost anywhere. To few to make any system viable...

[Pål Jensen]

Most of the pictures I adore do not rely on shallow DOF. .

Hardly any picture ever published rely on on DOF too shallow not to be possible also with APS.
More DOF at a certain magnification at a certain aperture is more useful in 99% of real life cases...