UWA Lens for DX That Covers FX

[D-B-J]

Tokina's 12-28mm f/4 ATX covers full-frame from 18mm to 28mm. Read the Ken Rockwell review...it has excellent optics, and probably the lowest distortion of ANY wide zoom he's ever tested. Around $600 at the time of the review. Tokina 12-28mm Review

While I like the idea of a much wider zoom range, I really want it to be a 2.8 lens so I can use it for astrophotography. f4 just wouldn't cut it.

Best,
Jake

If you want images of point light sources that look like crap, shooting a cheap, ultra-wide angle lens at f/2.8 is great way to get it!

Yes, but I'll likely only shoot at 2.8 for astro stuff! And hey, 450 is an attractive price.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jsecordphoto]

the tokina 11-16 is pretty sharp at 2.8. I'm always happy with it shooting at night, and during the day shooting at F8-F11....damn

 

[D-B-J]

the tokina 11-16 is pretty sharp at 2.8. I'm always happy with it shooting at night, and during the day shooting at F8-F11....damn

Good to know, cause it should be here in a few days...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PaulWog]

This thread is getting me thinking on whether I should stick with DX and get an 11-16 and 35mm, or go to FX and just get an ultra wide angle lens and 50mm would be as wide a prime as needed. I hear the 11-16 is usable at 16mm on FX, which would suffice as an ultra wide angle lens (kind of like a prime). Not sure how it would be stopped down though.

Congrats on the purchase by the way. Hope you enjoy it. Definitely looking forward to hearing how you like it.

 

[D-B-J]

This thread is getting me thinking on whether I should stick with DX and get an 11-16 and 35mm, or go to FX and just get an ultra wide angle lens and 50mm would be as wide a prime as needed. I hear the 11-16 is usable at 16mm on FX, which would suffice as an ultra wide angle lens (kind of like a prime). Not sure how it would be stopped down though.

Congrats on the purchase by the way. Hope you enjoy it. Definitely looking forward to hearing how you like it.

I'll make sure to upload some sample images and a quick review after the first week. I'm really excited to use it for astrophotography.

Best,
Jake


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jsecordphoto]

Here a few samples using the 11-16, all at 2.8

View attachment 67624View attachment 67625

 

[crimbfighter]

And 16mm on FX is still wider than my 11mm on DX (16.5). Hmmmm.

Yup, thought about that after I posted it and went, "wait a minute, what the hell was I thinking?.." I think I was thinking about the versatility of the zoom that is maintained by using DX crop mode? Clearly it is wider at 16mm on FX. Hmm, some days I wonder where my mind gets things from.. Anyway, I still advocate for the 11-16!

 

[Gavjenks]

FX/DX doesn't really matter much for wide angle. Unless you're currently converting and are worries about lenses being compatible, etc.
But in general, it costs about the same to get lenses for either format that are equivalently wide as the other format. DX lenses are cheaper due to less glass for the sensor coverage, but more expensive in that they have to combat the crop factor. These forces turn out to almost perfectly cancel each other out.

It's sort of like how you get "shallower depth of field" in large format film photography by about 3 stops, but then as it turns out there aren't any affordable lenses faster than like f/5.6, which is about 3 stops slower than affordable lenses in 35mm. And diffraction sets in about 3 stops later... So again, it basically all just cancels out, because LF coverage requires more glass just like wide apertures do, and doing both requires a LOT more glass / impossible designs sometimes = $$$.

Sort of thing happens a lot in photography, I have found.




The main reason to choose formats boils down as much to TRADITION than to technical realities.
Large format captures a lot of detail on so much film surface on the technical side, but just as importantly on the traditional side, that's just the format that they happen to build the most flexible view cameras for, so if you want crazy movements, you use that. They could just as well build view cameras for small format. They just don't, because it didn't make much sense in the past (it does not with mirrorless sensors, but the tradition isn't there).
Similarly, 35mm full frame digital cameras do offer legitimately much better ISO performance. But just as importantly on the tradition side of things, Canon and Nikon traditionally make their best lenses in focal ranges that make sense most on 35mm, and so you get the most advantage out of them with that format. They COULD build EF-S L lenses, but they just don't.

 

[D-B-J]

FX/DX doesn't really matter much for wide angle. Unless you're currently converting and are worries about lenses being compatible, etc.
But in general, it costs about the same to get lenses for either format that are equivalently wide as the other format. DX lenses are cheaper due to less glass for the sensor coverage, but more expensive in that they have to combat the crop factor. These forces turn out to almost perfectly cancel each other out.

It's sort of like how you get "shallower depth of field" in large format film photography by about 3 stops, but then as it turns out there aren't any affordable lenses faster than like f/5.6, which is about 3 stops slower than affordable lenses in 35mm. And diffraction sets in about 3 stops later... So again, it basically all just cancels out, because LF coverage requires more glass just like wide apertures do, and doing both requires a LOT more glass / impossible designs sometimes = $$$.

Sort of thing happens a lot in photography, I have found.




The main reason to choose formats boils down as much to TRADITION than to technical realities.
Large format captures a lot of detail on so much film surface on the technical side, but just as importantly on the traditional side, that's just the format that they happen to build the most flexible view cameras for, so if you want crazy movements, you use that. They could just as well build view cameras for small format. They just don't, because it didn't make much sense in the past (it does not with mirrorless sensors, but the tradition isn't there).
Similarly, 35mm full frame digital cameras do offer legitimately much better ISO performance. But just as importantly on the tradition side of things, Canon and Nikon traditionally make their best lenses in focal ranges that make sense most on 35mm, and so you get the most advantage out of them with that format. They COULD build EF-S L lenses, but they just don't.

Hmm, interesting points. I hadn't thought of it in that sense.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[D-B-J]

The Fremont Street String Band by f_one_eight, on Flickr

For those that were following, I LOVE this lens. Used it last night at a small pub, and it performed amazingly! What a great lens, and I'm so glad I bought it.

Best,
Jake

 

[jsecordphoto]

Glad you like it! It really is a great lens especially for the price