Nov 29, 2013 17:48 | #1 I was talking with a friend in the 60D forum about the Sigma 8-16 and he asked me to show him a comparison between 8 and 10 mm FL (obviously thinking about the EF-S 10-22   10 mm  12 mm  13 mm (misjudged 14 mm)  16 mm  Switching to the Canon EF-S 18-200 18 mm  20 mm  Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 29, 2013 17:55 | #2 Switching to the EF 24-70  28 mm  35 mm  50 mm  70 mm  Switching to the EF 70-200 70 mm is a little different..  88 mm (I was going for the popular 85)  Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 29, 2013 17:58 | #3 100 mm  135 mm  200 mm  These photos do not purport to show/compare IQ or anything else than FOV. Eventually I will edit to post links to uploaded full resolution photos for downloading Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
stang67 Senior Member  385 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2013 Location: Melbourne, Australia More info | Nov 29, 2013 18:02 | #4 Nice work. 8mm sure is a lot wider than 10mm. I've done this from 8mm to 500mm on APS-C. It's crazy Canon 6D - Canon 1D Mk III - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | Σ 105mm f/2.8 | Canon 400mm f/5.6L | Σ 35mm f/1.4 | 17-40mm f/4L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 29, 2013 18:02 | #5 At 500 I am sure you can read the brand on the lock of the door! Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
stang67 Senior Member 385 posts Likes: 2 Joined Mar 2013 Location: Melbourne, Australia More info | Nov 29, 2013 18:11 | #6 MakisM1 wrote in post #16489047 At 500 I am sure you can read the brand on the lock of the door! Haha I wouldn't be surprised Canon 6D - Canon 1D Mk III - 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II | Σ 105mm f/2.8 | Canon 400mm f/5.6L | Σ 35mm f/1.4 | 17-40mm f/4L
LOG IN TO REPLY |
1Tanker Goldmember  4,470 posts Likes: 8 Joined Jan 2011 Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction More info | Nice comparo Gerry, but why the all the switching of lenses (8-16, 18-200,24-70,70-200)? Kel
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 29, 2013 19:31 | #8 Well... the 8-16 doesn't go beyond 16... Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
FarmerTed1971 fondling the 5D4  More info | Nov 29, 2013 19:33 | #9 Thanks for this. Getting better at this - Fuji X-t5 & X-t3 - 16 1.4 - 35/50/90 f2 - 50-140 - flickr
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Nov 29, 2013 19:43 | #10 You can see less distortion in 8 mm than the 18-200 at 18 mm...  Funny that the crop becomes the UWA monster...  Gerry
LOG IN TO REPLY |
vertigo235 Goldmember More info | Nov 29, 2013 22:06 | #11 Thanks for this, 8mm is definitely a lot wide than 10mm, and makes my widest lens 15mm look like a tele!
LOG IN TO REPLY |
1Tanker Goldmember 4,470 posts Likes: 8 Joined Jan 2011 Location: Swaying to the Symphony of Destruction More info | Nov 29, 2013 22:27 | #12 MakisM1 wrote in post #16489209 Well... the 8-16 doesn't go beyond 16... The 24-70 doesn't go down to 18, or 20... The 18-200 doesn't really go to 200 (you saw the difference between the 24-70 and the 70-200 at 70...) the 70-200 is longer at 200! But seriously, I plan to upload full resolution files for anybody that wants to download them. Which file would you prefer say at 35? The 18-200 or the 24-70? The idea was to show the FOV of the most popular primes. Say you are wondering should I get the EF 20 or the 24?. Or, I got a 28, should I spring for a 35? Ok..just seemed weird at first. Kel
LOG IN TO REPLY |
 | x 1600 |
| y 1600 |
| Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!
|
| ||
| Latest registered member is semonsters 1043 guests, 107 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15,144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 | |||
