Digital SLR for Wide Angle Fan?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 12:53:53 GMT, Greg G <gdguarino@verizon.net>
wrote:

>Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size"
>sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else?

Depends what you mean by reasonalbe, there are none in the price range
of the D70 or DRebel. The Sigma 12-24mm (18mm with the focal length
factor on a D700) can be had for around $600.

Ron

Ron Lacey
Murillo Ontario
ron@ronsfotos.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Greg G" <gdguarino@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ttkvt09m58h5skja1it6aub38ok9mvtjmf@4ax.com...
> I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into
> a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really like
> wide-angle photography and it seems that only special (read:
> expensive) lenses will do what I want due to the smaller-than-35mm
> sensor.
>
> The lenses I use most with my 35mm film cameras are 28mm and 17mm. And
> those are old Canon FDs, which I don't expect to be able to use with a
> digital camera.
>
> Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size"
> sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else?

In full size (35mm equivalent) sensor cameras, there are currently only
three choices, the Kodak DCS Pro SLR/c (Canon lens mount) for $4500, the
Kodak DCS Pro SLR/n (Nikon mount) at $5000 and the Canon 1DS Mark II at
about $8000. Not exactly "affordable" for the run of the mill photographer.
They are high resolution cameras, though, the Kodak offerings weigh in at
13.8 megapixels, the Canon at 16.7, more than twice the next best
"affordable" DSLR.
If you're looking for fixed focal length lenses, there doesn't seem to be
much available wider than 14mm, which won't give you the same field of view
as a 17mm on a 35mm film camera, unless you want to go the fisheye route.
Canon makes a 10-22mm f3.5-4.5 zoom that'll get you 16mm at the wide end on
a RebelD or 20D, Nikon makes a 12-24 f4, on their 1.5x sensor that will look
like a 18mm did on a 35mm film camera. Olympus makes an 11-22 f2.8-3.5, but
their smaller sensor makes that something like a 22mm at the wide end.
KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, but, of
course. Sigma makes a 12-24 f4-5-5.6 in several of the above mounts, but
the lens is rather slow.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Ron Lacey wrote:
>
> Depends what you mean by reasonalbe, there are none in the price range
> of the D70 or DRebel. The Sigma 12-24mm (18mm with the focal length
> factor on a D700) can be had for around $600.


Nikon's 12-24 costs $1,000 plus a $1,000 D70 body.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <zKSDd.46551$8e5.44565@fed1read07>,
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>
>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . .

Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Frank ess wrote:
> Looks as if Adorama lists an FD-EOS adapter for around $40.
> CZFDEOSA Adorama Canon FD Lens to EOS Body Adapter 39.95
> Anyone tried this? I have a 50mm FD macro I'd like to use...

There are two types of adapters:
1. Mechanical adapter: Does not allow focus to infinity
2. Optical adapter: Has an optical element and allows focus to
infinity.

The latter are around $80-$90 and the former are the ones that
Adorama's selling. However, the optical adapters aren't that great in
quality so you might have to hunt down one of Canon manufactured
FD-to-EOS adapters that are expensive and hard to find.

But if you want good quality at cheap prices then you can buy the
tonnes of M42 lenses off eBay and a $12 mechanical M42-to-EOS adapter.
Good quality Pentax Super-Takumar M42 lenses go for very low prices on
eBay. I bought a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for approx $50 and am
very happy with it (for my Canon 300D).

More about manual lenses on EOS bodies here on Bon Atkin's wonderful
site:
http://www.bobatkins.com/photograp [...] s_EOS.html
HTH,

Siddhartha

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <5oXDd.46993$8e5.45893@fed1read07>,
Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>"John Francis" <johnf@panix.com> wrote in message
>news:crpbun$dd5$1@panix5.panix.com...
>> In article <zKSDd.46551$8e5.44565@fed1read07>,
>> Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . .
>>
>> Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45
>>
>Missed the 16-45, and what I was talking about was for zooms, which I
>didn't, at that point, make very clear.

Well, it's not really much wider than 17mm, so you're excused :-)

By all reports it's an excellent lens. I've only played with
one briefly, but if I made much use of shorter focal lengths
it would be in my bag.

The 17-35, by the way, isn't a normal zoom; it's a fisheye zoom.
It's a really great lens on a film camera, but on the *ist-D you
lose most of the fisheye feel, and just end up with a zoom lens
with rather pronounced barrel distortion.

This shot was taken with the fisheye zoom at 17mm (on film):

<http://www.panix.com/~johnf/gallery/images/muir-14.jpg>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 8 Jan 2005 05:33:27 -0800, "Siddhartha Jain"
<losttoy2000@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Greg G wrote:
>> I've noticed that some low end digital SLRs are starting to move into
>> a price range that I might consider. The problem is that I really
>like
>> wide-angle photography and it seems that only special (read:
>> expensive) lenses will do what I want due to the smaller-than-35mm
>> sensor.
>>
>> The lenses I use most with my 35mm film cameras are 28mm and 17mm.
>And
>> those are old Canon FDs, which I don't expect to be able to use with
>a
>> digital camera.
>>
>> Are there any (reasonably priced) digital SLRs that have "full size"
>> sensors? Or 11mm lenses that don't cost a fortune? Or something else?
>
>Want to have some fun and not spend a zillion dollars. Lookup the net
>for the Peleng 8mm ($200) and the Zenitar 16mm ($100). And you will
>have to get a M42-to-EOS adapter to use these (I am assuming you have a
>Canon dSLR). There are M42-to-Nikon adapters as well.
>
>You can use the old FD lenses with the Canon digital SLRs. All you need
>is a FD-to-EOS adapter and lots of patience. Check eBay, they are
>available for around $90.

I haven't bought a DSLR yet. I was curious about the possibility of
using my FD lenses with a digital, but I seem to remember hearing some
discouraging things about it. If anyone has some first-hand info, or a
link to such, I'd really appreciate it.

Greg Guarino

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Siddhartha Jain wrote:
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Looks as if Adorama lists an FD-EOS adapter for around $40.
>> CZFDEOSA Adorama Canon FD Lens to EOS Body Adapter 39.95
>> Anyone tried this? I have a 50mm FD macro I'd like to use...
>
> There are two types of adapters:
> 1. Mechanical adapter: Does not allow focus to infinity
> 2. Optical adapter: Has an optical element and allows focus to
> infinity.
>
> The latter are around $80-$90 and the former are the ones that
> Adorama's selling. However, the optical adapters aren't that great in
> quality so you might have to hunt down one of Canon manufactured
> FD-to-EOS adapters that are expensive and hard to find.
>
> But if you want good quality at cheap prices then you can buy the
> tonnes of M42 lenses off eBay and a $12 mechanical M42-to-EOS adapter.
> Good quality Pentax Super-Takumar M42 lenses go for very low prices on
> eBay. I bought a Pentax Super Takumar 50mm f/1.4 for approx $50 and am
> very happy with it (for my Canon 300D).
>
> More about manual lenses on EOS bodies here on Bon Atkin's wonderful
> site:
> http://www.bobatkins.com/photograp [...] s_EOS.html
> HTH,
>
> Siddhartha

Thank you. Plenty to learn and think about.


--
Frank ess

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <crpbun$dd5$1@panix5.panix.com>, johnf@panix.com says...
>
>In article <zKSDd.46551$8e5.44565@fed1read07>,
>Skip M <shadowcatcher@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>KonicaMinolta and Pentax don't offer anything wider than 17mm, . . .
>
>Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45
>

The Pentax 14mm is in the $1400-$1600 categorymore than even the *ist. Tokina
is bringing out a 12-24mm, both Adorama and B&H are selling it for $499 but it
is still a vapor lens (Canon and Nikon only).

Tom