Those who think they know everything...

[pradeep1]

annoy those of us who really do. :D

Got into a discussion with a "pro" photographer in my hometown. Regarding FOV crop on 1.6 dSLRs like the 10D or 20D.

So we are discussing lenses and I tell him that I would be interested in getting a 17-40L for my planned 20D or DrebXT that I'll purchase this year, and he argued with my selection of the 17-40L. I want the 17mm wide angle end to do landscape photography. I figured the 17mm would have an equivalent FOV of 27mm of a regular 35mm camera...so great for landscapes and all.

His argument is that I don't need this "fisheye" lens and that it would be a waste of money. I ask him why? He says that the 17mm has such large distortion at the edges, that it is practically useless.

He argues with me. I roll my eyes. :rolleyes:

I tell him that because the 10D (he has one) has a smaller sensor, it has a FOV crop of 1.6 and therefore I would be using only the center portion of the lens' image projection, thus removing the edge distortions that you would expect to see if you were using the 17-40L on a 35mm full frame.

He kept arguing with me. Telling me that I was wrong. I just breathed deeply and thought, ho hum. Granted, I've never used a 17-40L on a 10D before, but from what I have read, I think it will work as I expect.

Did I miss something. Am I wrong? Or am I trying to disprove my wife's U.C.A.W.I.P. theorem - U Can't Argue with Insane People?

Thanks for the advise, oh sane ones. 3:09 AM, I need to get some sleep.

Peace out. :cool:

[Moppie]

There is someone (and Im ashamed that I can't remember who) who posts fisheye model photos in the people section.
It shows exactly what you are talking about, limited distortion at the edges.

[kb244]

Its useless to argue with those that are dead-set that they have the credentials to be right. :D

[Tom W]

Even on a full-frame camera, the 17-40 would not be classified as a "fisheye". Ultra-wide? yes. Perfectly distortion-free? No.
But it, like most lenses, is rectilinear, or at least as rectilinear as an ultra-wide zoom can be.

And you're right to expect good performance on the 10D. In fact, it is an excellent performer on that camera.

[primoz]

Lets put aside this arguing about which I think same as someone else mentioned before...It's useless to argue with someone who "knows" everything.
But about lens. I agree on full frame 17mm is not for landscape photography... if you play by the rules. Problem is that some people like to see things differently. And since I'm one of them, I actually like super wide angle lenses for landscape or something else too. I even shoot bunch of sport with wide angle lenses since you get angle on which people are not used to, and photos look different then most others right away. So if you like it, get it no matter if people consider (by the rules of course) this lens is not for landscape.

[pradeep1]

That's what I thought. U.C.A.W.I.P. The next time I see him, I'll just smile. I also subscribe to the primoz view of life, and I use differing angles for taking photos of mundane objects. I like macro photography and wide-angle work. Tele-photography is cool too, but I do too much of that.

The biggest beef I had with this "pro" photographer was not his insistence on not buying the 17-40L, but his insistence on how I should do photography. That is what irked me the most. Just because someone owns a 10D with a 70-200 f/2.8L, they think they are so much superior to you and can "advise" you on photography. I think he saw my lowly Powershot G3 and assumed I am an novice. Maybe he should take a look at my portfolio. :p

[Mike Panic]

fishey... right.........

[griff2]

I like your portfolio, you have a good eye for composition. Just goes to show, it doesn't matter what equipment you have (within reason) it's how you use it.

[KevC]

benvision posts the cool russian fishy shots, show him those ;)