06-02-2011, 09:33 AM
[quote name='PuxaVida' timestamp='1307003841' post='8994']
Of course it all about the photo... I really don't understand why this very simple fact is put on the table when it comes to comparing lenses. Consider that the same person takes photo of the same scene with the same body but different lenses... How many pro / photo artists can you count who use low grade equipment and shout out "it's all about me, not the equipment" (except for Ken Rockwell maybe)... Photographic talent without a decent equipment can be no way better than photographic talent with a decent equipment.
[/quote]
A cheap Tokina 19-35mm at f8 on a full frame body is decent equipment. A photo taken with that does not get significantly better with more expensive lenses, and also won't get better with APS-C cameras with APS-C UWA.
There are a LOT of "photo artists" who use very low priced equipment and get what they need.
It is as simple as... just get the tools you need. If you need good quality UWA at f8 and up, even a Tokina 19-35mm which costs €100 will be fine.
Other example:
My Canon EF 35mm f2 lens is a cheap, simple lens. It costs a fifth of for instance a Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM. Yet, some photos that I have made with the 35mm f2 can not be bettered with the 35mm f1.4 L.
You can twist it any way you want, but no, full frame wide angle does NOT need "higher quality optics". In fact, the optics can be of "lower quality" because the pixel density is lower, CA will be less due to not as short focal length. That you point out that the top UWAs have a lot more glass which makes them much more expensive is fine.. Does not mean that FF needs more expensive UWAs though.
Now if we talk about EQUIVALENT lens specs, it gets even more interesting. Suppose we have a FF body with EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II. Very expensive wide angle prime of high quality.
Equivalent APS-C lens?
15mm f0.9 lens. I want to bet that a 15mm f0.9 lens will be a LOT more expensive than a 24mm f1.4 L....
Of course it all about the photo... I really don't understand why this very simple fact is put on the table when it comes to comparing lenses. Consider that the same person takes photo of the same scene with the same body but different lenses... How many pro / photo artists can you count who use low grade equipment and shout out "it's all about me, not the equipment" (except for Ken Rockwell maybe)... Photographic talent without a decent equipment can be no way better than photographic talent with a decent equipment.
[/quote]
A cheap Tokina 19-35mm at f8 on a full frame body is decent equipment. A photo taken with that does not get significantly better with more expensive lenses, and also won't get better with APS-C cameras with APS-C UWA.
There are a LOT of "photo artists" who use very low priced equipment and get what they need.
It is as simple as... just get the tools you need. If you need good quality UWA at f8 and up, even a Tokina 19-35mm which costs €100 will be fine.
Other example:
My Canon EF 35mm f2 lens is a cheap, simple lens. It costs a fifth of for instance a Canon EF 35mm f1.4 L USM. Yet, some photos that I have made with the 35mm f2 can not be bettered with the 35mm f1.4 L.
You can twist it any way you want, but no, full frame wide angle does NOT need "higher quality optics". In fact, the optics can be of "lower quality" because the pixel density is lower, CA will be less due to not as short focal length. That you point out that the top UWAs have a lot more glass which makes them much more expensive is fine.. Does not mean that FF needs more expensive UWAs though.
Now if we talk about EQUIVALENT lens specs, it gets even more interesting. Suppose we have a FF body with EF 24mm f1.4 L USM II. Very expensive wide angle prime of high quality.
Equivalent APS-C lens?
15mm f0.9 lens. I want to bet that a 15mm f0.9 lens will be a LOT more expensive than a 24mm f1.4 L....