Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
PhotoKB Home
Discussion Groups
Digital Photography
Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot Cameras
Film Photography
35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther Equipment
Photo Technique
Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique General
General Photo Topics
General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK Photography
DirectoryPhoto Clubs

Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / January 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Digital SLR for Wide Angle Fan?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
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?
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.