12-21-2010, 04:05 AM
Your points are all completely valid but I think we're talking past each other here. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/unsure.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' />
Of course a FF camera with a 35mm lens will be the better option over an APS-C camera with a 24mm. But that wasn't really what I was asking for.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1292890831' post='5135']If you're going to use this lens stopped down... you'll get some of the highest resolution you can get at this focal length using DSLR lens.[/quote]
I'm not looking for the maximum possible sharpness, just "good" sharpness. I'm not much into pixel-peeping but I had the chance to try the original 24L on an APS-C camera a while ago and was not really impressed by the sharpness of it, even comparing it to my "cheap" consumer primes. Maybe a bad copy... I don't know, but that's why I was curious about how the 24L II fares on a high-resolution APS-C body.
Tilt-shift lenses are interesting but that's not what I'm looking for at the moment.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1292890831' post='5135']
2. I seriously doubt you're going to get any more "reach" by using this lens at f/1.4 on an APS-C because of lens resolution and shallow DOF. Plus if you get a 35mm lens for FF, you get the same reach as the 24mm on APS-C... in fact, you get more, because there's no 21MP APS-C camera at the moment.[/quote]
I was not talking about this particular lens, just about reasons why not everyone wants to buy a FF camera.
I'm shooting quite a bit of motorsport and for that, I can get a 7D complete with a 160-640mm equiv. telezoom for ~2500€ new. That's the main reason for me not switching to FF. And carrying a second body just for the non-tele shots is a no-go for me (I'm not shooting weddings after all - at least not at my own will <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ).
Anyway, Klaus stated his reasons why there won't be a review and I'm fine with that.
' /> Of course a FF camera with a 35mm lens will be the better option over an APS-C camera with a 24mm. But that wasn't really what I was asking for.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1292890831' post='5135']If you're going to use this lens stopped down... you'll get some of the highest resolution you can get at this focal length using DSLR lens.[/quote]
I'm not looking for the maximum possible sharpness, just "good" sharpness. I'm not much into pixel-peeping but I had the chance to try the original 24L on an APS-C camera a while ago and was not really impressed by the sharpness of it, even comparing it to my "cheap" consumer primes. Maybe a bad copy... I don't know, but that's why I was curious about how the 24L II fares on a high-resolution APS-C body.
Tilt-shift lenses are interesting but that's not what I'm looking for at the moment.
[quote name='genotypewriter' timestamp='1292890831' post='5135']
2. I seriously doubt you're going to get any more "reach" by using this lens at f/1.4 on an APS-C because of lens resolution and shallow DOF. Plus if you get a 35mm lens for FF, you get the same reach as the 24mm on APS-C... in fact, you get more, because there's no 21MP APS-C camera at the moment.[/quote]
I was not talking about this particular lens, just about reasons why not everyone wants to buy a FF camera.
I'm shooting quite a bit of motorsport and for that, I can get a 7D complete with a 160-640mm equiv. telezoom for ~2500€ new. That's the main reason for me not switching to FF. And carrying a second body just for the non-tele shots is a no-go for me (I'm not shooting weddings after all - at least not at my own will <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
' /> ).Anyway, Klaus stated his reasons why there won't be a review and I'm fine with that.