Why does my 17-55mm 2.8 take a different picture than a 16-35mm 2.8?

[GTHill]

I have been visiting Ken Rockwell's site quite a bit and like his work. A lot of his shots that I have been viewing have been with a Canon 16-35mm 2.8. However, they have that "wide-angle" look to them. My D300 with my 17-55mm 2.8 is a great lens, but doesn't have that same wide look. Being a tech type guy I look at the number and see that my lens is only 1mm larger at the smallest size. So that begs the question, there is more to the numbers then right? What Nikon lens should I look at to get that same type of shot as the Canon 16-35mm 2.8?

Thanks!

Gene

 

[Alex_B]

Well, the Nikon D300 is a DX camera, right? which means it has a smaller sensor area, hence 17mm on a DX camera give a considerably smaller angle of view than 17mm on a full frame camera.


oh, and it is Canon by the way, Cannons are meant to shoot people in a slightly different way.

 

[GTHill]

Well, the Nikon D300 is a DX camera, right? which means it has a smaller sensor area, hence 17mm on a DX camera give a considerably smaller angle of view than 17mm on a full frame camera.


oh, and it is Canon by the way, Cannons are meant to shoot people in a slightly different way.

Sorry about the Canon thing. (I'll edit if I can) I knew it looked wrong...

So my lens on a D3 (full frame) would look "wide angle"?

Thanks!
Gene

 

[GTHill]

Wait, my lens is a DX, which is designed for a non-full frame right? Am I going to have to spend more money?

Gene

 

[passerby]

I am not tech type of a guy but for the nikon 16mm there is a new lens 16-85mm. Maybe this is the width equivalent? But this is barely a week old in the market. Btw, is Ken Rockwell self appointed reviewer, or is he recognized as an official reviewer by a reputable manufacturer?

 

[GTHill]

I am not tech type of a guy but for the nikon 16mm there is a new lens 16-85mm. Maybe this is the width equivalent? But this is barely a week old in the market. Btw, is Ken Rockwell self appointed reviewer, or is he recognized as an official reviewer by a reputable manufacturer?

Self appointed reviewer I think. I'm new to the photo industry but I like his style of photography and he has reviews on just about everything.

Gene

 

[Alex_B]

Wait, my lens is a DX, which is designed for a non-full frame right? Am I going to have to spend more money?

GEne

I am not a Nik(k)on digital person, but I think it means it is designed for non-full frame, which means it would not really be able get light on the corner areas of a full-frame sensor or film (the image circle it projects is just smaller than the sensor). But still, 17mm are 17mm so a 17mm DX lens on a DX camera does not give you that wide feel.

I think there are some acceptable wide angle zooms from sigma, but others have to jump in here and give the details since my widest lens is 17mm (on film and full frame though).

 

[Alex_B]

oh, and not everyone likes Ken

 

[GTHill]

oh, and not everyone likes Ken

Sorry to bring up a sore subject then. I've never met him but I have corresponded by email so that is my only impression so far. His site has been helpful and he is cordial in email so I can't say anything bad.

Aside from that... I'm still not sure about the different looks that a lens of same specs provides. I see the term wide angle all the time but no numbers to substantiate it.

Thanks for the help so far, but I'm not sure that I have figured it out yet.

Gene

 

[Alex_B]

Sorry to bring up a sore subject then. I've never met him but I have corresponded by email so that is my only impression so far. His site has been helpful and he is cordial in email so I can't say anything bad.

no, not a sore subject .. but more or less all people pronouncing their personal opinion on the internet cause some controversial discussion nevermind!

As for the crop factor, some examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop_factor

Actually, wide angle starts way earlier, what you are looking for is actually ultra wide angle

 

[Mav]

A lot of the 16-35mm shots you're referring to are from his Canon 5D, which is a full-frame camera. Your D300 has a crop factor of 1.5, so you have to multiply the focal length you're shooting at by that to get the "equivalent 35mm / full-frame" point of view. 17mm on a Nikon/DX is equivalent to 26mm in 35mm/FF terms, and thus a lot less wide than 16mm on a full-frame (1.0x crop factor) Canon 5D. To get super wide like that on a Nikon DX you need something like a 12-24mm (Nikon, Tokina) or a Sigma 10-20mm. The widest you can get is the 10.5mm DX fisheye which gives a 180-degree diagonal field of view, and 160-degrees horizontally, but fisheye lenses aren't always the best for landscape photos.

Here's one from my 10.5 and D80.

 

[JIP]

Now I may be making an innacurate statement here but to my knowledge the 17-55 is designed specifically for a digital sensor so the crop factor should not be an issue. Actually this

"The world's first constant f/2.8 3.2x zoom lens developed exclusively for use with Nikon's DX-format."

is directly from the NikonUSA website so I think the people who say "crop factor" and "sensor-size" are wrong.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-N...AF-S DX Zoom-NIKKOR 17-55mm f/2.8G IF-ED.html

 

[Alex_B]

but 17mm are still 17mm. and a smaller sensor is still a smaller sensor, so the angle of view will be smaller than with 17mm on a larger sensor.

Developed exclusively for the DX format only means it will not work on full frame sensors or 35mm film... just because it is made for a DX-format sensor, does not increase the size of the sensor.

Now I may be making an innacurate statement here but to my knowledge the 17-55 is designed specifically for a digital sensor so the crop factor should not be an issue. Actually this

"The world's first constant f/2.8 3.2x zoom lens developed exclusively for use with Nikon's DX-format."

is directly from the NikonUSA website so I think the people who say "crop factor" and "sensor-size" are wrong.

http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2147/AF-S%20DX%20Zoom-NIKKOR%2017-55mm%20f/2.8G%20IF-ED.html

 

[JIP]

No it means for a DX sensor a 17 is a 17 and not some differend adjusted for "crop factor" focal length. Otherwise why bother making DX formatted lenses.

 

[Alex_B]

to further cite your link:

3.2x zoom covers from a wide angle of 79 degrees and is ideal for architecture, landscape, groups shots and portrait work.

Now 79 degrees, that is exactly a 17mm lens on a 1.5 crop. on full frame, a 17mm lens gives around 104 degrees.