Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005
Digital SLR for Wide Angle Fan?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Greg G - 08 Jan 2005 12:53 GMT I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really like wide-angle photography and it seems that only special (read: expensive) lenses will do what I want due to the smaller-than-35mm sensor.
The lenses I use most with my 35mm film cameras are 28mm and 17mm. And those are old Canon FDs, which I don't expect to be able to use with a digital camera.
Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size" sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else?
Ron Lacey - 08 Jan 2005 13:16 GMT >Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size" >sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else? Depends what you mean by reasonalbe, there are none in the price range of the D70 or DRebel. The Sigma 12-24mm (18mm with the focal length factor on a D700) can be had for around $600.
Ron
Ron Lacey Murillo Ontario ron@ronsfotos.com
paul - 08 Jan 2005 16:44 GMT > Depends what you mean by reasonalbe, there are none in the price range > of the D70 or DRebel. The Sigma 12-24mm (18mm with the focal length > factor on a D700) can be had for around $600. Nikon's 12-24 costs $1,000 plus a $1,000 D70 body.
Greg G - 08 Jan 2005 21:27 GMT >> Depends what you mean by reasonalbe, there are none in the price range >> of the D70 or DRebel. The Sigma 12-24mm (18mm with the focal length >> factor on a D700) can be had for around $600. > >Nikon's 12-24 costs $1,000 plus a $1,000 D70 body. Hmmm. So far it looks like I'll stick to film...
Greg Guarino
Siddhartha Jain - 08 Jan 2005 13:31 GMT > I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into > a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really like [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size" > sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else? Want to have some fun and not spend a zillion dollars. Lookup the net for the Peleng 8mm ($200) and the Zenitar 16mm ($100). And you will have to get a M42-to-EOS adapter to use these (I am assuming you have a Canon dSLR). There are M42-to-Nikon adapters as well.
You can use the old FD lenses with the Canon digital SLRs. All you need is a FD-to-EOS adapter and lots of patience. Check eBay, they are available for around $90.
HTH,
Siddhartha
Frank ess - 08 Jan 2005 19:22 GMT >> I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into >> a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > need is a FD-to-EOS adapter and lots of patience. Check eBay, they are > available for around $90. Looks as if Adorama lists an FD-EOS adapter for around $40. CZFDEOSA Adorama Canon FD Lens to EOS Body Adapter 39.95 Anyone tried this? I have a 50mm FD macro I'd like to use...
 Signature Frank ess
Siddhartha Jain - 08 Jan 2005 19:59 GMT > Looks as if Adorama lists an FD-EOS adapter for around $40. > CZFDEOSA Adorama Canon FD Lens to EOS Body Adapter 39.95 > Anyone tried this? I have a 50mm FD macro I'd like to use... There are two types of adapters: 1. Mechanical adapter: Does not allow focus to infinity 2. Optical adapter: Has an optical element and allows focus to infinity.
The latter are around $80-$90 and the former are the ones that Adorama's selling. However, the optical adapters aren't that great in quality so you might have to hunt down one of Canon manufactured FD-to-EOS adapters that are expensive and hard to find.
But if you want good quality at cheap prices then you can buy the tonnes of M42 lenses off eBay and a $12 mechanical M42-to-EOS adapter. Good quality Pentax Super-Takumar M42 lenses go for very low prices on eBay. I bought a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for approx $50 and am very happy with it (for my Canon 300D).
More about manual lenses on EOS bodies here on Bon Atkin's wonderful site: http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html HTH,
Siddhartha
Frank ess - 08 Jan 2005 22:30 GMT >> Looks as if Adorama lists an FD-EOS adapter for around $40. >> CZFDEOSA Adorama Canon FD Lens to EOS Body Adapter 39.95 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Siddhartha Thank you. Plenty to learn and think about.
 Signature Frank ess
Greg G - 08 Jan 2005 21:35 GMT >> I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into >> a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >is a FD-to-EOS adapter and lots of patience. Check eBay, they are >available for around $90. I haven't bought a DSLR yet. I was curious about the possibility of using my FD lenses with a digital, but I seem to remember hearing some discouraging things about it. If anyone has some first-hand info, or a link to such, I'd really appreciate it.
Greg Guarino
Skip M - 08 Jan 2005 15:10 GMT > I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into > a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really like [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size" > sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else? In full size (35mm equivalent) sensor cameras, there are currently only three choices, the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (Canon lens mount) for $4500, the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (Nikon mount) at $5000 and the Canon 1DS Mark II at about $8000. Not exactly "affordable" for the run of the mill photographer. They are high resolution cameras, though, the Kodak offerings weigh in at 13.8 megapixels, the Canon at 16.7, more than twice the next best "affordable" DSLR. If you're looking for fixed focal length lenses, there doesn't seem to be much available wider than 14mm, which won't give you the same field of view as a 17mm on a 35mm film camera, unless you want to go the fisheye route. Canon makes a 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 zoom that'll get you 16mm at the wide end on a RebelD or 20D, Nikon makes a 12-24 f4, on their 1.5x sensor that will look like a 18mm did on a 35mm film camera. Olympus makes an 11-22 f2.8-3.5, but their smaller sensor makes that something like a 22mm at the wide end. KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, but, of course. Sigma makes a 12-24 f4-5-5.6 in several of the above mounts, but the lens is rather slow.
 Signature Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
John Francis - 08 Jan 2005 19:22 GMT >KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45
Roland Karlsson - 08 Jan 2005 19:43 GMT > Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45 If you don't limit yourself to original lenses, there is (at least for Pentax) possible to buy third party stuff.
/Roland
Skip M - 08 Jan 2005 20:28 GMT >>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . > > Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45 Missed the 16-45, and what I was talking about was for zooms, which I didn't, at that point, make very clear.
 Signature Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
John Francis - 08 Jan 2005 20:56 GMT >>>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . >> >> Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45 >> >Missed the 16-45, and what I was talking about was for zooms, which I >didn't, at that point, make very clear. Well, it's not really much wider than 17mm, so you're excused :-)
By all reports it's an excellent lens. I've only played with one briefly, but if I made much use of shorter focal lengths it would be in my bag.
The 17-35, by the way, isn't a normal zoom; it's a fisheye zoom. It's a really great lens on a film camera, but on the *ist-D you lose most of the fisheye feel, and just end up with a zoom lens with rather pronounced barrel distortion.
This shot was taken with the fisheye zoom at 17mm (on film):
<http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/muir-14.jpg
Skip M - 08 Jan 2005 22:11 GMT >>>>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . >>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > <http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/muir-14.jpg> What an interesting thought... There had been some accusations, over the years, that the Vivitar 17-35 was a fisheye zoom, but I'm sure that wasn't Vivitar's intent!
 Signature Skip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Tom Monego - 09 Jan 2005 00:06 GMT >>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . > >Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45 The Pentax 14mm is in the $1400-$1600 categorymore than even the *ist. Tokina is bringing out a 12-24mm, both Adorama and B&H are selling it for $499 but it is still a vapor lens (Canon and Nikon only).
Tom
Darrell - 09 Jan 2005 01:11 GMT > >>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . . > > > >Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45 > > The Pentax 14mm is in the $1400-$1600 category more than even the *ist. Tokina
> is bringing out a 12-24mm, both Adorama and B&H are selling it for $499 but it > is still a vapor lens (Canon and Nikon only). The Canadian retail of the SMC DA Pentax 14mm f:2.8 (IF) ED is normally around $750.00 I have one and it's a great lens, FOV equal to a 21mm. USA price at B&H is: $660 usd (USA) or $499 (grey)
Ed Avis - 08 Jan 2005 22:56 GMT You might make do with a 1.3 crop factor (eg Canon 1D) and a 14mm lens: this will give roughly the same field of view as 18mm on a full-frame camera.
Canon's 10-22 lens on a 300D or 20D sounds appealing though: get around the smaller sensor size by mounting the lens closer to the sensor, this is a bit like miniaturizing the whole camera. (I haven't tried this lens.)
 Signature Ed Avis <ed@membled.com
JR - 08 Jan 2005 16:38 GMT The Tokina 12-24/4 lens is now available and I have a had time telling the difference between that and the Nikkor 12-24/4 lens. At $499 it's a great buy for wide angles.
JR
> I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into > a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really like [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size" > sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else?
|
|
|