"Steven Green" <steven.green30@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:iEOCj.102$Nr1.81@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>I am not invested in a system as yet so I am not wed to either Nikon or
> Canon.
There is a difference when using FF lenses on the smaller
framed digital bodies - the Nikon equivalency is 1:1.5,
the Canon is 1:1.6, so the same FL lens will be slightly
wider on a Nikon body (as in, a 24mm will be 36mm
equiv. on a Nikon, but 38.4mm equiv. on a Canon).
Meaningless with longer lenses, but with very short
FL lenses (like the astoundingly good 14mm-24mm
Nikkor), it can be noticeable, along with the better
quality of the 14mm-24mm lens (21mm-36mm equiv.
on a D300) compared with the Canon equivalent (um,
there really isn't one...) - and that lens covers FF nicely
if you go that way in the future.
> Originally when I was posting here I was curious how the wide angles,
> meant for the FF stacked up to the wides for meant for small sensors
(not
> the FF lenses on an smaller sensor) I will likely not get any lenses
that
> are only good on the the small sensor because I may want to upgrade down
> the road.
Then look at the Nikkor 14mm-24mm and 17mm-35mm
Nikkors - these are the best of type WAs for either FF
or the smaller digital frame size. BTW, Nikkor non-zoom
wides have always been considered excellent (and often
better than the Canon equivalents), but the 17mm-35mm
f2.8 Nikkor really surprised me (see my comparison with
some good Nikkor non-zooms FF on film here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/wa-zooms.htm).
> I am really considering either a Canon 5D or the Nikon D300 (the D3 is
> out of my range). I am leaning toward the 5D because I would eventually
> like to get a 24mm PC lens. I know Nikon has just announced a variety of
> PC lenses but I am curious how they would work on a smaller sensor.
Probably quite well, since they were designed to cover FF,
and in the past, Nikon's PC lenses have been excellent. See
my Nikkor comparison list, at --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html.
For an idea
of what the 28mm Nikkor f4 PC can do, extended fully up
(beyond recommendation) with a vertical frame, see --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/commercial.html
and
click on "architecture". The limitation would be the one
already noted, the magnification factor, but there are no PC
lenses of shorter FL for these cameras - though you can stitch,
or you can put a shorter FL lens on, level the camera, and
crop the resulting image (the 14mm-21mm would be good
for doing doing this).
> At 24mm FF I am trying to decide if it would still be wide enough for me
on
> the smaller sensor. Odds on it probably would be, but I had a 28mm for
my
> Contax and I would have preferred a little wider.
> Anyone use a PC lens on the smaller Canon sensors?
> Steve
See above for why you may prefer Nikon for wide angle...
--
David Ruether
d_ruether@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
www.donferrario.com/ruether
|
