Lenses

[mercer]

On 4/14/2019 at 12:51 AM, Zach Goodwin2 said:

Well I just found out this existed:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1385403-REG/tokina_tc_16exp_ep_cinema_1_6x_expander_ef.html/?ap=y&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI7oC8v-TO4QIVGksNCh1ecwIvEAQYASABEgIGzPD_BwE&lsft=BI%3A514&smp=Y

This would be pretty cool if they made an EF-S to EF with electronics. I’d love to be able to use the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 on my 5D3.

[webrunner5]

You can probably use it. I used the Canon EF-S 10-22mm on the 5D3 by just setting it to 12mm before I put in on the body. It would vignette like hell on a full frame anyways at 10mm even if I cut the back of the plastic off the lens. You won't be able to use it at 17mm either maybe, so set it to 20mm and see if it works. Don't have the shutter set to anything but single shot at first to try it. It won't fit on if it is going to hit the mirror. It will be a tight fit to even put on at first. You may have to go higher than 20mm.

Some text from this site. So yeah 21mm just like I suspected.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=796701

"Okay folks, I just played around with my EF-S lenses on FF to see how things would go. Overall, my impressions are extremely positive.

The mirror, as it flipped up and down, swiped against the rear elements a few times as I tested out the extremities of how wide I could go with the 10-22/17-55. Turns out to be around 11.5mm on the 10-22 and 21mm on the 17-55. The rear elements are pretty darn tough as the mirror slams hardly made a mark (and when it did, it easily wiped off).

For some reason I had thought that the focal range would be 'translated' on FF, but that's of course wrong. The ranges essentially stay the same, post cropping. If anything, post-cropping, you lose a few millimetres on the wide-end of any potential EF-S zoom. So with that said, that's pretty much the sole disadvantage with using EF-S on FF (besides the framing compromise one has to take).

On the other hand, the advantages are notable. Firstly, if you use a single APS-C body and a single FF body whereby some of your EF-S lenses are your primary tools, you can rest easy that if your APS-C body fails during a shoot, the FF body acts fine as a backup. You just lose a few millimetres on the wide-end, but everything else is sweet. That's great for me, who'll be shooting a 5D/30D setup for a little while.

Secondly, post-cropping, the pixel density of a current FF body is lower than that of an equivalent APS-C body, and this should inherently remain a fact for a long time to come. A case example is the 5D Mark II vs. the 7D or 50D. Hence using a 17-55 on a 5D Mark II would give you better local micro-contrast and sharpness than using the lens on a 7D or 50D. Notable.

Thirdly, and very importantly, the advantages in noise. I'm effectively trading off a few millimetres off the wide-end for an extra 1-2 stop in high-ISO performance (i.e. 50/7D vs. 5D II). Very notable.

Fourthly: weight. One of the closest relatives of the 17-55 designed for FF is the 24-70L. But it's much heavier. Of course, as already implied, the 24-70L would be able to go wider than a 17-55 on FF (usable FL, that is), but suppose we can negate this point. Note that the 24-70L doesn't have stabilisation either, so for now, the 17-55 on FF is gonna arguably be the closest thing we have to a 24-70 f/2.8L IS until Canon decides to release such a lens. So in summary, the 17-55 would deliver a similar output on FF compared to a 24-70L, but with stabilisation while offering better balance with the camera (since it's a lighter lens).

So yeah, I just had a nice little discovery session. Importantly, I'll be looking forward to using the 17-55 on FF more often and taking advantage of the better image quality and high-ISO performance than one would achieve on a 7D or 50D, with the only real drawback the fact that I lose a few millimetres on the wide-end."

[BTM_Pix]

On 3/28/2019 at 1:39 AM, mercer said:

I assume you have to use the tripod collar with a speedbooster set up? I wonder how ibis would work if you hold a lens and not the camera... lol. 

Sorry, forgot I said I'd do this so I belatedly went out yesterday to do a quick shot with the GX80 on the 35-350mm

Well, two shots from the same spot to show its range.

Shutter speed was 1/60th which is way below the reciprocal for what is effectively a 700mm lens on this camera.

Its still so unbalanced though that I wouldn't recommend shooting it handheld irrespective of how good a job the IBIS does on it !

[mercer]

On 4/16/2019 at 12:22 AM, webrunner5 said:

Some text from this site. So yeah 21mm just like I suspected.

Cool, thanks. I was reading the other day that the Sigma Art 30mm 1.4 will also work on FF with only mild vignetting but since I shoot 2:35, I don’t think it will be an issue at all. Plus it’s so mild, it would probably add some character. 

 https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1541382/

5 hours ago, BTM_Pix said:

Well, two shots from the same spot to show its range.

 Shutter speed was 1/60th which is way below the reciprocal for what is effectively a 700mm lens on this camera.

Its still so unbalanced though that I wouldn't recommend shooting it handheld irrespective of how good a job the IBIS does on it !

It looks good though. Thanks, interesting test.

[BTM_Pix]

Some non-ART (in both senses) Sigma lens stuff from the 17-50mm f2.8 OS

This lens can be had for well under £200 used and usually under £300 new and whilst not quite in the same division as the ART series and quite a bit slower, I think it is a really good value for a general purpose constant f2.8 for APS-C users and unlike the ART lenses has OS with makes it a good choice for Pocket 4K.

 

[webrunner5]

Nice street photography.

[mercer]

13 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Some non-ART (in both senses) Sigma lens stuff from the 17-50mm f2.8 OS

This lens can be had for well under £200 used and usually under £300 new and whilst not quite in the same division as the ART series and quite a bit slower, I think it is a really good value for a general purpose constant f2.8 for APS-C users and unlike the ART lenses has OS with makes it a good choice for Pocket 4K.

 

Yeah, those look great. I briefly had that lens for my D5500 and really liked it but sold it when I sold the Nikon. Are those screengrabs from the P4K? I assume they’re Leica though?

[BTM_Pix]

9 minutes ago, mercer said:

Yeah, those look great. I briefly had that lens for my D5500 and really liked it but sold it when I sold the Nikon. Are those screengrabs from the P4K? I assume they’re Leica though?

Sigma SD.

If Sigma and Leica settle whatever is going on with the MC21 adapter then it will be finding a new home on the Leica as the SA version of the adapter is about £60 in Japan.

Ditto the Sigma ART 30mm f1.4 as that came free with SD so to get it onto the Leica for £60 will be a real result but I just don't know yet whether this incompatibility is a forever thing.

[mercer]

39 minutes ago, BTM_Pix said:

Sigma SD.

If Sigma and Leica settle whatever is going on with the MC21 adapter then it will be finding a new home on the Leica as the SA version of the adapter is about £60 in Japan.

Ditto the Sigma ART 30mm f1.4 as that came free with SD so to get it onto the Leica for £60 will be a real result but I just don't know yet whether this incompatibility is a forever thing.

Wow, those look great... very... cinematic. Sorry for the bad word. I think I may buy that lens and give it a try on my 5D3. It has a sharp, modern look with that slight vignette and corner softness that adds that bit of character. 

[BTM_Pix]

33 minutes ago, mercer said:

 very... cinematic. Sorry for the bad word. 

 

[mercer]

Just curious... if you could have only one lens... what lens would it be?

I guess based on what I own now, I’d have to choose tha Canon 28mm 1.8. At the risk of sounding corny, this lens always shows me how I’d really like to see the world. It finds the beauty and character in the mundane...

[noone]

While it would never be possible for me to live with just one lens, generally for me it would have to be the Canon 17mm TS-E as I can not stand buildings and trees leaning backwards now.  Used on a FF Sony it also is usable as a 17-35 FF zoom and an 25.5-52.5 APSC zoom.     Then again, it can never replace a 150mm 2.8 macro or 300mm telephoto.

I am having a lot of fun playing around with a little super zoom Canon point and shoot with a 24-960mm equivalent FF angle of view (If I could put a lens this size with that reach on an interchangeable lens camera, I guess THAT would be the ONE- when I don't use the tilt shift lens).   

[JordanWright]

46 minutes ago, mercer said:

Just curious... if you could have only one lens... what lens would it be?

 

Gotta be the Tok 28-70 2.6 for me... my only downside is the close focus isn't great.

[mercer]

@noone I’ve never used a TS lens but they sound pretty cool. That clear zoom function must be so useful. In FF, I could totally get by with one lens... a fast 28mm would give me everything I need.

[mercer]

43 minutes ago, JordanWright said:

Gotta be the Tok 28-70 2.6 for me... my only downside is the close focus isn't great.

As I’ve mentioned before, I briefly had the Tokina Angenieux and it was pretty great. At the time I had the Canon 24-70mm f/4 so it was a little redundant. I’ve owned a few Tokina and Angenieux lenses and they were all great. I still have the Tokina 24-40mm 2.8. It doesn’t get great reviews but I just love the build quality and the character of the images from it. And the Angenieux 15mm c-mount was one of my favorite lenses back when I had the Micro.

Btw, how do you like it with the P4K?

[JordanWright]

It seems to just take the edge off the sharper image. However, i'm still looking for something a bit wider to compliment it. I don't have any better images with me at the moment but I do have this I took today. It was also using a Tiffen VND  

[mercer]

Great image! I love silhouettes. I always thought the RMC 17mm 3.5 matched it fairly well. I guess it would give you about 24mm 2.5 speed-boosted on the P4K?

[kye]

11 hours ago, mercer said:

Just curious... if you could have only one lens... what lens would it be?

I guess based on what I own now, I’d have to choose tha Canon 28mm 1.8. At the risk of sounding corny, this lens always shows me how I’d really like to see the world. It finds the beauty and character in the mundane...

Tricky question.

I'd be torn between the 17.5mm 0.95 on my GH5, vs a fast zoom and having to go to APSC or FF.  Even then I'd have trouble choosing between a 24-70 or a 16-35.  I really like 16mm, 35mm, and 80mm lengths, and having to choose between 16 with it's 'wow' factor vs something longer than 35mm would be tricky.  I'd probably go the 16-35 and then go 8K ASAP to be able to crop in and extend the lens.

[webrunner5]

11 hours ago, kye said:

  I'd probably go the 16-35 and then go 8K ASAP to be able to crop in and extend the lens.

That is the beauty of Clear Zoom on the Sony cameras. You can have your 24-70 with that one lens, and do it in FF if you use a A7 series body..

[BTM_Pix]

On 4/18/2019 at 6:58 PM, mercer said:

Just curious... if you could have only one lens... what lens would it be?

I don't actually own it yet but I'm curious whether a Sigma ART 24-35mm f2 (in EF mount for universality of adapting) could possibly be the one for me with the caveat of having speed boosted and non speed boosted adapters for it.

Although I have to say that for pure versatility the Tamron 16-300mm EF mount I've got (again if allowed with both types of adapters) is probably a more practical choice, particularly as it also has OIS.