Digital SLR for Wide Angle Fan?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Greg G, Jan 8, 2005.

  1. Greg G

    Greg G Guest

    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?
     
    Greg G, Jan 8, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Greg G

    Ron Lacey Guest

    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 Lacey, Jan 8, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. 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.

    HTH,

    Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 8, 2005
    #3
  4. Greg G

    Skip M Guest

    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 M, Jan 8, 2005
    #4
  5. Greg G

    JR Guest

    The Tokina 12-24/4 lens is now available and I have a had time telling
    the difference between that and the Nikkor 12-24/4 lens. At $499 it's a
    great buy for wide angles.

    JR
     
    JR, Jan 8, 2005
    #5
  6. Greg G

    paul Guest


    Nikon's 12-24 costs $1,000 plus a $1,000 D70 body.
     
    paul, Jan 8, 2005
    #6
  7. Greg G

    Frank ess Guest

    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...
     
    Frank ess, Jan 8, 2005
    #7
  8. Greg G

    John Francis Guest

    Don't know about KM, but Pentax have a 14mm and a 16-45
     
    John Francis, Jan 8, 2005
    #8
  9. If you don't limit yourself to original lenses,
    there is (at least for Pentax) possible to
    buy third party stuff.


    /Roland
     
    Roland Karlsson, Jan 8, 2005
    #9
  10. 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/photography/eosfaq/manual_focus_EOS.html
    HTH,

    Siddhartha
     
    Siddhartha Jain, Jan 8, 2005
    #10
  11. Greg G

    Skip M Guest

    Missed the 16-45, and what I was talking about was for zooms, which I
    didn't, at that point, make very clear.
     
    Skip M, Jan 8, 2005
    #11
  12. Greg G

    John Francis Guest

    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>
     
    John Francis, Jan 8, 2005
    #12
  13. Greg G

    Greg G Guest

    Hmmm. So far it looks like I'll stick to film...

    Greg Guarino
     
    Greg G, Jan 8, 2005
    #13
  14. Greg G

    Greg G Guest

    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
     
    Greg G, Jan 8, 2005
    #14
  15. Greg G

    Skip M Guest

    What an interesting thought...
    There had been some accusations, over the years, that the Vivitar 17-35 was
    a fisheye zoom, but I'm sure that wasn't Vivitar's intent!
     
    Skip M, Jan 8, 2005
    #15
  16. Greg G

    Frank ess Guest

    Thank you. Plenty to learn and think about.
     
    Frank ess, Jan 8, 2005
    #16
  17. Greg G

    Ed Avis Guest

    You might make do with a 1.3 crop factor (eg Canon 1D) and a 14mm
    lens: this will give roughly the same field of view as 18mm on a
    full-frame camera.

    Canon's 10-22 lens on a 300D or 20D sounds appealing though: get
    around the smaller sensor size by mounting the lens closer to the
    sensor, this is a bit like miniaturizing the whole camera. (I haven't
    tried this lens.)
     
    Ed Avis, Jan 8, 2005
    #17
  18. Greg G

    Tom Monego Guest

    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
     
    Tom Monego, Jan 9, 2005
    #18
  19. Greg G

    Darrell Guest

    The Canadian retail of the SMC DA Pentax 14mm f:2.8 (IF) ED is normally
    around $750.00 I have one and it's a great lens, FOV equal to a 21mm. USA
    price at B&H is: $660 usd (USA) or $499 (grey)
     
    Darrell, Jan 9, 2005
    #19
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.