Wide Angle DX - FX Test

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
This is just for me, but I thought I’d post the results for anyone who might be interested. What I did is take my D300 with the 17-55 f/2.8 DX lens and take a photo at 17mm. Then I took my D800 with the 28-70 f/2.8 and took a photo at 28mm. I was curious at how much difference there would be between 17mm on DX and 28mm on FX. Similar enough for me, tho the 17mm on DX did give a little more coverage, I doubt it will affect the way I use the 28-70 on the FX body. Both cameras set on tripod. Both shot at f/7.1, but different ISO settings, but it didn’t really matter what settings I had in the cameras, just the results at the widest setting on both lenses. Comments?

First one with D300, second with D800. Exif data should be in tact.

original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


original.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
I would expect the 17 to cover a bit more than 28, since 17 is 25.5 FX equivalent. I see quite a bit of CA with the 28-70, but that doesn't surprise me, mine was pretty bad too in that area.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
5,004
Location
New England
The biggest difference in the 2 photos is the exposure: 2nd shot at least a stop more to the right than 1st shot, making 1st shot look much more contrasty & superior.

As far as the FOV, as ddietiker makes clear, we see exactly what we should see.

JT
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
I would expect the 17 to cover a bit more than 28, since 17 is 25.5 FX equivalent. I see quite a bit of CA with the 28-70, but that doesn't surprise me, mine was pretty bad too in that area.

I didn’t know what the FX equivalent of the 17-55 was at 17mm. That explains the difference. It’s not much, and I doubt it will ever come in to play in use.

I don’t see the CA at all. I’m not sure I would if I knew what to look for. Actually, I can’t remember what CA stands for, or I would Google it. I haven’t used the 28-70 for 3 or more years since I bought the 17-55, and have only dusted it off since buying the D800.

Kind of looks like a cpl was used on the first one...

I hate acronyms. What is CPL?
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
The biggest difference in the 2 photos is the exposure: 2nd shot at least a stop more to the right than 1st shot, making 1st shot look much more contrasty & superior.

As far as the FOV, as ddietiker makes clear, we see exactly what we should see.

Exposure was immaterial for this test, or I would have set both cameras up identically in manual. The clouds moved in for the second photo, so that effected exposure also.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
I see quite a bit of CA with the 28-70, but that doesn't surprise me, mine was pretty bad too in that area.

Ok, I opened Photoshop and found out how to spell Chromatic Aberration and Googled it. I don’t see it. Not even with the full size image and playing with the CA sliders in ACR. What is it in particular you are seeing?
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
4,830
Location
Newcastle, Wa
Ok, I opened Photoshop and found out how to spell Chromatic Aberration and Googled it. I don’t see it. Not even with the full size image and playing with the CA sliders in ACR. What is it in particular you are seeing?

In the corners, the blue fringe where the branches meet the sky.
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
In the corners, the blue fringe where the branches meet the sky.

I can see that in the upper right corner in the full size image if I look closely. In the image I posted here, it is visible, but one has to be looking for it. I just looked at most of the photos I’ve taken with the 28-70 in the last week or so I’ve had the D800, and could only find one image that showed some CA. It seems to rear it’s ugly head under certain light conditions. I can live with it. Most will never notice it. Not enough to make me want to sell the lens and go for the 24-70.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
5,004
Location
New England
Exposure was immaterial for this test, or I would have set both cameras up identically in manual. The clouds moved in for the second photo, so that effected exposure also.

In the OP, you asked for "Comments"--correct? It matters IMO. BTW, overexposure increases CA.

JT
 
Joined
Mar 16, 2008
Messages
2,001
Location
Oregon
Sorry, cpl= circular polarizer

No filters.

In the OP, you asked for "Comments"--correct? It matters IMO. BTW, overexposure increases CA.

Comments on the differences in the lens coverage on the DX and FX bodies, yes. Not exposure. I think I made that clear in my first post. Exposure was unimportant for this test. However, the comment ddietiker made about CA was informative and helpful. I learned something about the 28-70 I either didn’t know, or had forgot about. After looking thru a bunch of photos with the 28-70, I could only find CA in one photo. It seems lighting and subject have just as much to do with CA as over exposure might, but keep in mind, I did mention that exposure was not important in my original post. I was looking for comments on FOV between the two lenses and DX and FX. By the way, the histogram for that shot shows good exposure.

I’m thinking about doing another test similar to this one, but just using the 70-200 f/2.8 on both bodies. I’ll try to remember to shoot all manual so that the subject stays on focus.
 
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
5,004
Location
New England
No filters.



Comments on the differences in the lens coverage on the DX and FX bodies, yes. Not exposure. I think I made that clear in my first post. Exposure was unimportant for this test. However, the comment ddietiker made about CA was informative and helpful. I learned something about the 28-70 I either didn’t know, or had forgot about. After looking thru a bunch of photos with the 28-70, I could only find CA in one photo. It seems lighting and subject have just as much to do with CA as over exposure might, but keep in mind, I did mention that exposure was not important in my original post. I was looking for comments on FOV between the two lenses and DX and FX. By the way, the histogram for that shot shows good exposure.

I’m thinking about doing another test similar to this one, but just using the 70-200 f/2.8 on both bodies. I’ll try to remember to shoot all manual so that the subject stays on focus.


Wrong--in the OP u have a 1 word sentence as follows:
Wingspar: Comments?

But don't worry, it's clear you have a phobia towards learning, so I'll be sure to avoid all your threads FNO. I'm out of here--see ya. :biggrin:

JT
 
Joined
Feb 7, 2005
Messages
1,027
Location
Annandale, VA
Wrong--in the OP u have a 1 word sentence as follows:

But don't worry, it's clear you have a phobia towards learning, so I'll be sure to avoid all your threads FNO. I'm out of here--see ya. :biggrin:

JT


It's clear you have not read the Cafe rules. Our catchphrase is civil, respectful and objective discussion. At the request of the OP the thread is closed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest threads

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Forum GIFs powered by GIPHY: https://giphy.com/
Copyright © Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom