I always wondered why you did that msmoto...why not just switch to DX mode on the D4 and keep the lens as is?
10.5 on FX is 15.75 on DX.
where there’s smoke there’s forum fire
Spraynpray, that one's not a hard calculation. To make the 8"x10" print of the scene taken with DX, you have to enlarge all of the fuzziness by a factor of 1.5 relative to FX print. This works out to FX having about a one-stop advantage over DX.
To illustrate by taking it even further, the diffraction fuzziness would not even need to be enlarged if you were shooting large format 8"x10" negatives to make the 8"x10" print. So the smaller the sensor format, the more important diffraction becomes.
@spraynpray I realize that buddy. What I believe mismoto did is she physically cut out the outer preeminently installed hood in order to prevent it from showing up with such a wide angle lens. I personally, would have just switched the setting within the camera to work with DX. The pictures below is what I'm talking about:
D4 10.5 DX Fisheye 2.8 in DX mode
Or is it something different that you did or I'm miss understanding msmoto?
And, the reason I did that was because I like this look...
I remember the first fisheye...I think an 8mm f? about 3 inches across, and fairly expensive at that time... It produced a full round image on 35mm film as I remember. The effect of a "fisheye" is what I wanted. If I want a lens that covers about 150° horizontally, I can shoot the 10.5mm in DX mode.
I am not certain how this is about diffraction and teleconverters..... oh well...
And, this...not possible with a hood on the lens..
Just found the macro with this lens
That art museum shot is a 'wow' msmoto. Nicely seen.
@msmoto: I get it now...thx for clarification :D
You must log in to post.