Lens Challenge - I'm wide 'n' I'm long!

I also think this is a great idea! Feel free to click on the image to get the full size image. The full size images are quite large, though, so be warned!

Images were not edited at all. These are straight out of the respective cameras, opened in ACR with default settings across the board.

5D + 24-70L at 24mm/2.8

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

I guess we have to use the same camera right? How about multiple teleconverters? Do we have to stack a 1.4x and a 2x if we have them?

I'll try and find some time within the next week and make a set of 15 images. 15mm FE being the widest on all three formats (FF, APS-H, APS-C) and the 600mm. For the 600mm, I'll shoot it bare, with a 1.4x TC, with a 2x TC, and the 1.4x and 2x TC stacked.

Dunno if these will count because there's only 5mm difference (100mm compared to 105mm). Just lens, focus and f-stop changed. The softness (especially in the 2nd image) I think is a result of the huge JPG compression I applied to get the files < 150KB :/

I'll try another test tomorrow!

#1 (24-105L @ 105mm):

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

bahelmer wrote in post #7931237
Here is a comparison. Less extreme range than first example. 40D. 24 f/1.4 L lens compared to 85 f/1.8 lens.

Great entry, thanks, but is that second shot cropped? I know I shoot with a 1.6x-cropper, but the difference "looks" too much to me...

les_au wrote in post #7931262
cool idea, i'll go play with a couple of toys i have in my bag

Looking at your gear list, you mean 18mm and then 300mm yeah?!

infinite012 wrote in post #7931265
I also think this is a great idea! Feel free to click on the image to get the full size image. The full size images are quite large, though, so be warned! Images were not edited at all. These are straight out of the respective cameras, opened in ACR with default settings across the board.
5D + 24-70L at 24mm/2.8
5D + 135L at f/2
And here's the other half of my test:
40D + 24-70L at 24mm/2.8
40D + 135L at f/2
I definitely enjoy the colors and sharpness of the 5D images more than the 40D.

EXCELLENT ADDITION! Thanks so much. You're really showing the difference between full-frame and crop! But as to colour, I wonder if the lack of colour/contrast in the 40D shot at 135mm is more due to humidity in the air? Over here now, anything "long distance" is looking increasingly misty....

jacuff wrote in post #7931306
I guess we have to use the same camera right? How about multiple teleconverters? Do we have to stack a 1.4x and a 2x if we have them?

Nope....just the widest then longest you can be, as is. Which would be 15mm, then 600mm plus 2x TC, unless you want to stack to see the absolute maximum, but I just expect we'll see a bad deterioration in IQ, no?
Hmmm, actually....yeah....go on, do it! Could be really interesting

gcflora wrote in post #7931309
Dunno if these will count

Strictly speaking, nope. You should have gone from 24mm to 105mm....but the massive change in DoF is interesting.
btw, is the second shot truly "within" the first?
If not, you broke TWO rules!

It was on a tripod, so I am guessing that it is truly within the first.. didn't move a thing

Edit: I think you can even see the first in the second, the blurry bit at the bottom of the frame

Edit: Ugh, no. I guess I broke two rules. The first is within the second

I'll do better tomorrow!

^^^^^^^^

No worries

Even though I'm trying to get people to see the differences between various body/lens combinations, it's still just for fun.

Actually, I am gonna have to take the same two photos tomorrow! I don't understand why the 100mm macro is so "wide".

gcflora wrote in post #7931564
Actually, I am gonna have to take the same two photos tomorrow! I don't understand why the 100mm macro is so "wide".

Me too.....do post up the results so we can see what's going on.

skygod44 wrote in post #7931522
Great entry, thanks, but is that second shot cropped? I know I shoot with a 1.6x-cropper, but the difference "looks" too much to me...

Interesting comment. I double-checked that the images with 24mm and 85mm were not cropped, just converted to JPEG using DPP.

The theoretical relative field-of-view should be 24mm/85mm = 0.282. Using a couple of objects in this pair of photos (such as the height of the campanile), I compare the heights in the images and I measure a relative field-of-view of 0.305 +/- 0.010. A problem with one of my lenses, or normal?

I might repeat the test in a more controlled situation, measuring also the distance from camera to object and the object dimensions.

bahelmer wrote in post #7931642
Interesting comment. I double-checked that the images with 24mm and 85mm were not cropped, just converted to JPEG using DPP.

The theoretical relative field-of-view should be 24mm/85mm = 0.282. Using a couple of objects in this pair of photos (such as the height of the campanile), I compare the heights in the images and I measure a relative field-of-view of 0.305 +/- 0.010. A problem with one of my lenses, or normal?

I might repeat the test in a more controlled situation, measuring also the distance from camera to object and the object dimensions.

Well, the thread is certainly opening my eyes and raising questions that need to be answered!

bahelmer wrote in post #7931642
Interesting comment. I double-checked that the images with 24mm and 85mm were not cropped, just converted to JPEG using DPP.

The theoretical relative field-of-view should be 24mm/85mm = 0.282. Using a couple of objects in this pair of photos (such as the height of the campanile), I compare the heights in the images and I measure a relative field-of-view of 0.305 +/- 0.010. A problem with one of my lenses, or normal?

I might repeat the test in a more controlled situation, measuring also the distance from camera to object and the object dimensions.

I might also verify the actual focal lengths of my "24 mm" and "85 mm" lenses.

http://www.bobatkins.c​om …asuring_focal_l​ength.html

bahelmer wrote in post #7931642
Interesting comment. I double-checked that the images with 24mm and 85mm were not cropped, just converted to JPEG using DPP.

The theoretical relative field-of-view should be 24mm/85mm = 0.282. Using a couple of objects in this pair of photos (such as the height of the campanile), I compare the heights in the images and I measure a relative field-of-view of 0.305 +/- 0.010. A problem with one of my lenses, or normal?

I might repeat the test in a more controlled situation, measuring also the distance from camera to object and the object dimensions.

Yeah....the maths holds out, it was simply because the visible difference seemed more than I was expecting.

As said by gcflora, the results are opening my eyes too!

gcflora wrote in post #7931647
Well, the thread is certainly opening my eyes and raising questions that need to be answered!

Yep! That's why I think this will be an excellent thread.

Folks, let's follow the OP's rules in the first post so this thread doesn't drift all over the place. The rules are simple:

Pick a spot.
Take a picture with the widest focal length you own.
Don't move your feet, and then take a picture with the longest focal length you own, using your longest teleconverter (if you own one).
Minimize any post-processing. Absolutely no cropping or sharpening allowed.

Let's stay on track -- I think the results will open up our creative minds!

Bryan

Ok, these are really bad examples, but it still illustrates the point of this thread.
The sequence will be 15mm FE shot at f/2.8, then 600mm shot at f/4, then 600mm + 1.4x shot at f/5.6, then 600mm + 2x shot at f/8, then 600mm + 1.4x + 2x shot at f/11 though it reports to the camera as f/8.

I'll separate each camera body into a separate post. I know this exceeds the 8 per thread limit but hopefully this is useful to someone.

Full Frame: