Home News Buyers Guide About Advertising
 
 
 
   
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    Lightbulb Cost per shot analysis: Wide angle

    I believe a deep breath and moment of consideration needs to be taken, here. A while back, in the Canon forum, we kicked around a cost analysis for a wide angle shot, based on the use of APS-C lenses and Full frames. Well, it’s a little bit later and since SONY has kind of done the same thing … what the heck, right?

    Analysis: Cost per shot.

    Wide-Angle w/ α900

    α900 = $2995
    CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 = $1799

    Equivalent APS-C w/ α700

    α700 = $999
    SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX = $500 or ...
    TAMRON SP AF 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5 Di-II LD = $499

    Totaling out …

    Full frame = $4794
    APS-C = $1499

    Okay, what’s wrong with this picture? Personally, that 16-35 shot better be three-dimensional looking. We shall see, in short order …
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-04-2009 at 07:09 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    2,204
    Well the distortion is pretty minimal as far as I can tell from the examples I saw.

    A few other things to note: The CZ is a constant F/2.8, has SSM (not that I really see a need to for an UWA), and has better quality glass (duh it's a Zeiss).

    and I would rather have the Tamron 10-24mm (also $499 )

    But yes, it's expensive!
    flickr

    Canon 7D - 5D | 550EX - 430EX II - (2) PW FlexTT5 | 24-105 f4L | 70-200 f2.8L IS | 100 f2.8L IS | 50 f1.8 II

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Wild, Wonderful, Wyoming
    Posts
    1,043
    What's your point? Sure, you can get WA shots with an APS C body and an ultra wide angle lens, not a problem. I would say most buying full frame bodies aren't buying them just for UWA performance.

    When I went full frame, super wide angle was close to the last reason I went there. Richness of the capture, DOF like my film camera, decreased pixel density, low light performance, just wanted one, lenses behaving like I remember. I am very happy with my 5D, and paired with my 30D I get the best of both worlds.

    On top of all of that, comparing a consumer grade slow lens like the Sigma at f/4-5.6 with a pro grade Carl Zeiss f/2.8 lens is hardly fair either. You've again skewed the results to make your point stronger, at least do a fair comparison.
    Last edited by TenD; 01-04-2009 at 06:52 PM.
    A good photograph is knowing where to stand.
    Ansel Adams

    Rule books are paper, they will not cushion a sudden meeting of stone and metal.
    Ernest K. Gann-Fate is the Hunter.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Brisbane, CA
    Posts
    3,590
    I'm not sure about Sony, but I think with Canon the FF cameras have a longer shutter life. Shouldn't that be factored in for a cost/shot analysis?
    Lukas

    Camera: Anonymous
    I could tell you but I wouldn't want you to get all pissy if it's the wrong brand

    Flickr

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545

    Question What's in a buck

    Well, I'm not sure who has had an α900 long enough to even consider "shutter life" to be a factor for any computation.

    Basically, with the advent of the two new lenses for the SONYs ... I just wanted toss that out there for debate. What are you getting for your extra $3300 for the shot?

    Of course, as you snap away, the respective costs are reduced.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    Wait a minute. What's wrong with putting the Sigma on the A900? I think your "cost analysis" is inflated and flawed.
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    The SIGMA AF 10-20mm f/4-5.6 DC EX is designed for APS-C bodies ONLY ... not on a Full Frame, otherwise you vignette your shot or worse. You would have to resort to "CROP" (11MP) mode ... thereby reducing any advantage you had in mind for purchasing a FULL FRAME in the first place. That's like tossing the extra $2000 you paid for that 24.6 MP body right into the hopper!

    The idea behind the CZ 16-35mm f/2.8 is a crisp looking, wide field lens ... on a FULL FRAME.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    2,132
    Then for your comparison purposes, put the Sigma 12-24 in the equation?
    Nikon D300 | Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 | Nikkor AF-S 70-300mm VR | Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D | SB-600 | Lowepro Voyager C | Lowepro Slingshot 300 AW

    For Sale:
    Nikkor AF 35mm f/2 D - Like New (FX compatible)

    Wish List
    Nikkor AF-S 17-55 f/2.8
    Nikkor AF-S 70-200 f/4 VRII
    Tokina AF 11-16 f/2.8
    SB-900 (2)
    Umbrellas
    New Tripod

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Des Plaines, IL
    Posts
    9,545
    Doesn't cover the same footprint on the wide side.

    I could go with a TAMRON SP AF 17-35mm f/2.8-4 XR Di LD or K-M 17-35mm f/2.8-4 "D" to be fair, I suspect ... but, this exercise was being done for the new Carl Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 (the "Oh, I gotta have one") lens. It arrives this month.

    It should be interesting to do a side-by-side on these.
    Last edited by DonSchap; 01-04-2009 at 07:16 PM.
    Don Schap - BFA, Digital Photography
    A Photographer Is Forever
    Look, I did not create the optical laws of the Universe ... I simply learned to deal with them.
    Remember: It is usually the GLASS, not the camera (except for moving to Full Frame), that gives you the most improvement in your photography.

    flickr & Sdi

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    670
    FWIW, the Tamron 10-24 has not received overly positive comments from the first wave of users. If they are to be trusted, I would not consider the 10-24 as a very good option compared to the Sigma 10-20 or 12-24 on APS-C.

    As for the Zeiss ZA 16-35/2.8, people have high hopes for it, as there are very few top performing fast WA zooms on the market. Nikon is the only one to have mastered it so far with the 14-24/2.8, but it doesn't have the classic and very useful 16-35 focal length range. Their 17-35/2.8 comes close, but still has corner performance issues at large apertures at the wide end.
    Last edited by e_dawg; 01-04-2009 at 08:17 PM.

    Nikon: D300, D700, Nikkor: 24-70, 70-200, 70-300/VR, 24/2.8, 35/2, 50/1.4G, 60/2.8G, 180/2.8,
    Sigma: 10-20, 50-150/2.8, 50/2.8, Tamron: 17-50/2.8, 28-75/2.8, Tokina: 12-24, Zeiss: 25/2.8
    Olympus: E-520, E-3, 7-14, 9-18, 11-22, 12-60, 14-35/2, 14-54, 35-100/2, 50-200, 25/2.8, 35/3.5, 50/2
    Panasonic: G1, Leica: 14-50, 14-150, 25/1.4
    Sony: A700, A900, 24-85, 35-70, 70-210/4, 20/2.8, 24/2.8, 50/2.8, T 90 macro, Zeiss: 24-70/2.8, 135/1.8
    P&S: Canon S90, Panasonic: LX3


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •