|
|
| Author |
Message |
eprom
|
|
wide angle lenses
| 
Mar 29 07:30 UTC 2004 |
hmmm....
I have a 28-210 f4-5.6 right now. When I'm taking pictures of
interior spaces, I can't get everything to fit in the frame.
So I'm thinking about going for a fixed 24mm f2.8 lense.
Any comments? Am I wasting my money? I can't seem to find any
pictures on the web that gives side-by-side comparision of
28mm vs 24mm.
|
| 9 responses total. |
gull
|
|
response 1 of 9:
|
Mar 29 15:39 UTC 2004 |
I don't have any experience with a 24mm. I do have a fixed 19mm lens,
and it does a good job getting a lot into the frame in interior shots,
but it's such a wide angle that the distortion starts to become pretty
noticable.
Here's a shot with that lens (taken inside the steam hoist building at
Quincy Mine): http://www.gull.us/photos/hoist.jpg
|
happyboy
|
|
response 2 of 9:
|
Mar 29 17:54 UTC 2004 |
re 0 i'd go with a 19 mm.
|
eprom
|
|
response 3 of 9:
|
Apr 1 01:53 UTC 2004 |
I won the 24mm lense I had bid on.
I did look at the 19mm's on eBay, but the price difference
($50 vs. $100+) was a huge factor for me.
I did some quick calculations and this is what I found out
for a 28mm (viewing angle of 74 deg) vs. 24mm (84 deg) lens.
in a room 50 sq/ft (7.07ft by 7.07ft), with the 28mm lense
you can cover a maximum area of 85.969% with the 24mm you
coverage is 94.759%. This is assuming you are in a corner
of the room and have the camera pointed to the other corner.
( located at pt (0,0) facing vector <7.07,7.07> )
In a room 100 sq/ft (10 x 10 ft) with you camera centered and
perpendicular, facing the opposite wall, the coverage changes
to 66.704% for the 24mm and 50.471% for the 28mm.
( located at pt (5,0) facing vector <0,10> )
see http://members.triton.net/eprom/24mm.jpg
|
gull
|
|
response 4 of 9:
|
Apr 2 16:08 UTC 2004 |
Correction to what I posted above:
I was digging through my camera bag today and realized that the lens I
used is 17mm, not 19mm.
|
eprom
|
|
response 5 of 9:
|
Apr 11 03:30 UTC 2004 |
The 24mm lense came in. I think it's now my favorite lens.
Its a little tricky and takes some time getting used to.
If the pictures come out good, i'll post em' online.
|
gull
|
|
response 6 of 9:
|
Apr 16 00:56 UTC 2004 |
I want to get a lens somewhere around 30mm for my Canon Digital Rebel.
The Rebel's image sensor is smaller than a 35mm film frame, so there's a
field of view cropping effect of 1.6x. A 30mm lens would be equivalent
to a 48mm lens on a regular 35mm camera. It came with a 18-55mm,
f3.5-5.6 zoom but I'd like something faster. With the sensitivity
adjustable from 100ASA to 1600ASA, this has the potential to be a great
camera for "available light" work.
|
eprom
|
|
response 7 of 9:
|
Apr 27 04:21 UTC 2004 |
Here's a picture of my living room that I captured with my 24mm lens
http://members.triton.net/eprom/wide.jpg I think it's about 1-stop
over-exposed.
|
gull
|
|
response 8 of 9:
|
Apr 27 14:49 UTC 2004 |
That seems like a good lens for the purpose. Pincushion distortion
seems really well controlled.
|
ball
|
|
response 9 of 9:
|
Dec 26 03:43 UTC 2006 |
Has anyone here tried a Phoenix lens? I have been looking
for an affordable 28mm lens, but the closest I've found is a
24mm f/2.8 for US$ 75. I was expecting to pay about twice
that for an entry-level wide angle prime. Is it too good to
be true?
|