Best combination?

[Eyesthruthelens]

I did... but it's not full frame but DT lens... for APS-C sensors. Costs a bomb too at $800 thereabouts.

Hi,
OT a bit.. few questions on DT lens and FF lens:

1. Can a DT lens use on FullFrame DSLR? If in future, KM is going to release a FF DSLR like canon 5D.

2. If you use DT lens on DSLR, KM5D, is a 18-70mm lens on DSLR is actually 18-70mm or 27-105mm as compare to FF camera?

 

[BBTM]

Wrong the current KM 17-35mm f/2.8-4 is a full frame lens. The G lens is much better, much better distortion control as well... the Sigma has pretty terrible distortion control plus noticeable light fall off at the corners, vignetting slightly.

Try a 17-35 F2.8-4 on SLR n you are wasting $. It's suit DSLR more than SLR. Btw, this is a new lens n they launch it during DSLR sales. Therefore, their primary target is at DSLR. The 17-35 F3.5 is then really for SLR. I dare not to try the new version 17-35 on my SLR, wait all photos not nice.

 

[BBTM]

Hi,
OT a bit.. few questions on DT lens and FF lens:

1. Can a DT lens use on FullFrame DSLR? If in future, KM is going to release a FF DSLR like canon 5D.

2. If you use DT lens on DSLR, KM5D, is a 18-70mm lens on DSLR is actually 18-70mm or 27-105mm as compare to FF camera?

Me n UY79 (Correct?) debate it on the DT effect on FF. I check with KMSC and they say can use, but the build of DT don't suit SLR n so, no result lor. (You can try if you want. ;p )

For qns 2, I don't know how to answer ;p

 

[Eyesthruthelens]

Me n UY79 (Correct?) debate it on the DT effect on FF. I check with KMSC and they say can use, but the build of DT don't suit SLR n so, no result lor. (You can try if you want. ;p )

For qns 2, I don't know how to answer ;p

For Q2, If you use a FF lens on KM5D, due to sensor size, there is a 1.5x factor.. so actual effect zoom on DSLR as compare to if you use on a FF DSLR, it is 27-105mm.

For DT lens, do we need to add the 1.5x factor?

 

[Eyesthruthelens]

Try a 17-35 F2.8-4 on SLR n you are wasting $.

Care to explain why it's a waste of $$?

 

[BBTM]

Care to explain why it's a waste of $$?

Distortion, Vignetting etc... You still want that photo? Unless you take it as fisheye but it isn't.

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

FYI. 17-35 F2.8-4 is not for SLR but for DSLR due to the crop factor. The TRUE 17-35mm F3.5 from KM cost over $2k and hardly could find it nowadays. Distortion level for this lens is slow and if you got the $, you may try it. ;p

peng you... i use that new 17-35 for D7 lor, no vignetting so far leh...

 

[BBTM]

For Q2, If you use a FF lens on KM5D, due to sensor size, there is a 1.5x factor.. so actual effect zoom on DSLR as compare to if you use on a FF DSLR, it is 27-105mm.

For DT lens, do we need to add the 1.5x factor?

DT mean for Digital, I think. Therefore, same rules applied. 1.5x the focal length. ;p

 

[BBTM]

peng you... i use that new 17-35 for D7 lor, no vignetting so far leh...

Then Distortion? ;p

 

[Del_CtrlnoAlt]

Then Distortion? ;p

din notice... seriously, u thinking of shooting model shoot with a 17mm? so y bother about distortion? ;p

 

[Eyesthruthelens]

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=7565460102&rd=1&sspagename=STRK:MEWA:IT&rd=1

Is it a good buy?

Price from Dyxum website is US$499..
http://www.pbase.com/image/42653604

 

[TME]

Price from Dyxum website is US$499..
http://www.pbase.com/image/42653604

The KM model is about $600+ in Singapore.

 

[Eyesthruthelens]

The KM model is about $600+ in Singapore.

Is there a KM lens 15-30mm?

 

[TME]

Try a 17-35 F2.8-4 on SLR n you are wasting $. It's suit DSLR more than SLR. Btw, this is a new lens n they launch it during DSLR sales. Therefore, their primary target is at DSLR. The 17-35 F3.5 is then really for SLR. I dare not to try the new version 17-35 on my SLR, wait all photos not nice.

?? Are u kidding?

FF lenses optimised for DSLRs are made to ensure that incoming light rays hit the sensor surface perpendicularly due to the design of the sensor. Sensor sites on the CCD are recessed with a microlens above it. For lenses without this optimisation, the incoming light rays hit the film surface (and also the sensor surface) at an angle. This is not a problem for film since the surface is completely flat. For a digital sensor, that kind of incidence angles will cause abberations in the image qualities, like chromatic abberations as well as purple fringing... also the coating of DSLR-optimised FF lenses are also meant to help in the same way...

The image circle for a FF lens optimised for DSLR is the same as any other FF lens not optimised for DSLR... there should be no difference in quality of the image.

So I dun understand your statement about wasting money on using the current KM 17-35 f/2.8-4 wide angle on a film SLR.:think:

 

[BBTM]

?? Are u kidding?
So I dun understand your statement about wasting money on using the current KM 17-35 f/2.8-4 wide angle on a film SLR.:think:

Not kidding. Wide lens on SLR is not so recommended due to distortion issue. Therefore, you might need this lens for landscape, building etc... and not human. If not, the effect might not be what you want and also, you might ended up with scolding from other. 28mm and below, IMO, is not recommonded for taking human photos. So, isn't that it is a waste if I purchased the lens?

 

[BBTM]

din notice... seriously, u thinking of shooting model shoot with a 17mm? so y bother about distortion? ;p

I ever encounter a 100+ from my company. Using 28mm (7i) and build-in flash, still manage to pull through.(Inside a room) Therefore, if I got D7 with 17-35mm F3.5 that time and 3 5600 flash, the result, will be a sharp and nice 8R photo also without problem, haha!

 

[TME]

Not kidding. Wide lens on SLR is not so recommended due to distortion issue. Therefore, you might need this lens for landscape, building etc... and not human. If not, the effect might not be what you want and also, you might ended up with scolding from other. 28mm and below, IMO, is not recommonded for taking human photos. So, isn't that it is a waste if I purchased the lens?

Of course buying the lens for portraiture photography is a waste but then again whoever does that??? The question that initially arose was whether it was a good lens given the cheap price... u seem to have skewed the question towards portraiture which I dun think the person who asked had this in mind... all he was asking was if the glass was good... at ultra-wide angle, all lenses distort the image, it's only how bad the distortion is and if it is pleasing to the eye...

 

[UY79]

Try a 17-35 F2.8-4 on SLR n you are wasting $. It's suit DSLR more than SLR. Btw, this is a new lens n they launch it during DSLR sales. Therefore, their primary target is at DSLR. The 17-35 F3.5 is then really for SLR. I dare not to try the new version 17-35 on my SLR, wait all photos not nice.

I've took many wonderful shots with the 17-35 on my D7. Am I wasting money?

Not kidding. Wide lens on SLR is not so recommended due to distortion issue. Therefore, you might need this lens for landscape, building etc... and not human. ... So, isn't that it is a waste if I purchased the lens?

Therefore, if I got D7 with 17-35mm F3.5 that time and 3 5600 flash, the result, will be a sharp and nice 8R photo also without problem, haha!

What makes you think the 17-35 G wouldn't have distortion as bad as the 17-35 D?

And are you contradicting yourself here?

 

[BBTM]

Of course buying the lens for portraiture photography is a waste but then again whoever does that??? The question that initially arose was whether it was a good lens given the cheap price... u seem to have skewed the question towards portraiture which I dun think the person who asked had this in mind... all he was asking was if the glass was good... at ultra-wide angle, all lenses distort the image, it's only how bad the distortion is and if it is pleasing to the eye...

Mainly ppl will get a zoom lens for all purpose. This lens serve DSLR well, esp with 1.5 crop and for party use, it is ok. But if put at SLR, I think I will be having headache after that. haha! Other than that, it is a ok lens but not for me. ;p

 

[BBTM]

I've took many wonderful shots with the 17-35 on my D7. Am I wasting money?
What makes you think the 17-35 G wouldn't have distortion as bad as the 17-35 D?

So, is your shots on human or landscape? Show me, I want to see.

17-35 G is build to minimize distortion. If not, why the price is 4X the price of the 17-35D? Even cents count.

Btw, where is your testing on the DT lens on D7? Can work or either one of it spoilt? ;p