August 21, 2014, 10:21:59 AM

Author Topic: L lens vs Full Frame  (Read 9285 times)

epsiloneri

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 355
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2012, 11:49:30 PM »
The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing.
Depends on expectations of course, but I think 50/1.4 on FF coming from APS-C will be anything but disappointing.

Perhaps you mean that a single prime will be a bit limiting? I agree, a wide and a short tele would be the perfect addition. That said, some photographers swear by the 50...
« Last Edit: April 29, 2012, 11:54:33 PM by epsiloneri »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #15 on: April 29, 2012, 11:49:30 PM »

EOBeav

  • 7D
  • *****
  • Posts: 404
    • View Profile
    • My Landscape Photoblog
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #16 on: April 29, 2012, 11:59:42 PM »
The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing.  Save up until you can buy a camera with lenses.

Disagree on both accounts. An L lens is just going to make any of the Canon bodies that much better, clear on down to the Rebels. And if I could only have one lens for my 5DmkII, it'd have to be my 50mm f/1.4.  The benefits of that lens are well documented on here.
In landscape photography, when you shoot is more important than where.

Gear: Canon 5DmkII, 17-40mm f/4 L, 50mm f/1.4, 70-200mm f/4.

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
    • http://dylannguyen.smugmug.com/browse
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #17 on: April 30, 2012, 01:06:53 AM »
The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing.
Depends on expectations of course, but I think 50/1.4 on FF coming from APS-C will be anything but disappointing.

Perhaps you mean that a single prime will be a bit limiting? I agree, a wide and a short tele would be the perfect addition. That said, some photographers swear by the 50...

My 2cents....50mm f1.4 + FF are great match.  So buy 5d II NOW and save your money for new 24-70 II. Keep in mind, the AF on 5D II is NOT that great. It's great camera for landscape and still shooting. NOT FOR FAST SHOOTING.
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Penn Jennings

  • Guest
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #18 on: April 30, 2012, 02:07:24 AM »
In general, i do agree that good glass should have a slightly higher priority than bodies.  However, in this case I don't think that guideline applies since you are going from crop to full frame.  This is not just a case of "better" images, it's also a case of "different" images.

I would suggest going with the 5DII unless you shoot a lot of action.  The focusing on the 5DII could be better.  however, I think that you will enjoy shooting with it much more than your old body with a new lens.  I also think that you results will probably be better with a 5D II compared to a new lens.


adebrophy

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 55
    • View Profile
    • xtrashot PR and Photographic
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #19 on: April 30, 2012, 02:55:01 AM »
This is a fun - if somewhat extreme example of this question:
http://www.digitalrev.com/article/pro-dslr-cheapo-lens-vs/Njk0Mw_A_A

I'd say ultimately, as you already have a great prime lens start there, go 5D, and build up your glass later over time. I just went from a 40D to the 5Dmkii and the files and quality of the fullframe body plus the ability to get lovely limited DOF is something that better glass won't get you as easily - it just adds a new dimension to your photography and makes your fast primes shine. Crops are excellent for reach, but you don't seem to worry about the longer end of things so the value of that seems limited for you.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2012, 04:06:11 AM by adebrophy »
5D mk ii, 40D, Canon 24-105 L, Canon 100 f2.8 L, Canon 135 f2 L, Canon 40mm f2.8, Canon 70-200 f4L,  Canon 50 f1.8, Canon 600 EX RT, 2x Canon 430ii

ecka

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #20 on: April 30, 2012, 03:49:38 AM »
Hello everyone,

Right now I have 50d + kit 18-55 (useless thing) + 50 1.4.
I've got two ways now:

1. Sell 50d + kit and buy 5d mark ii
2. Or to buy 35L or 24L or 50L (they almost the same budget) for my 50d

I'm confused, what is better way to go, good lens and crop or not so good lens and full frame?

Thank you,
Serhiy

Using L primes on crop bodies is a waste, crop sensor uses less than half of that precious glass and that's where the quality comes from (size matters). Those are made for FF ;D. My advice - go for 5D2. I'd choose 5D2+50/1.8II over 50D+35L or 5D2+85/1.8USM over 50D+50L (or 5D2+135L over 50D+85LII) any day.

Quote
+ I will have money enough for someting like 35 f/2

50/1.4USM is a very nice lens on FF, but I don't recommend the 35/2. IMHO it's pretty bad on FF at f/2-2.8 (too soft + vignetting) and at 2.8+ it's barely better than a zoom lens. I'm going to try the Samyang 35/1.4UMC, that is a beautiful piece of glass (fully manual though).
...and EF 28-135 IS USM is a decent budget zoom for FF, if you need one.
FF + primes !

Ew

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 154
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2012, 04:36:51 AM »
28/1.8 is often overlooked - had it for years with crops.. Still love it with 5d2.
5D3 | 600D | EOSm | Samyang 8mm 3.8T | Samyang 14 2.8 | 17-40 | 28 1.8 | Sig 35 1.4 | 40 | 50 1.4 | 100 2.0 | 135 L | 70-200 4L IS + x1.4mk2 | Nippon Kogaku 50 1.4 (1965) | Nikkor 43-86 (mid 1970s) | M: 22

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #21 on: April 30, 2012, 04:36:51 AM »

TotoEC

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 51
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #22 on: April 30, 2012, 05:15:06 AM »

Here's something for you to ponder:

1. Crappy camera body (FF or crop sensor) + crappy lens = crappy picture
2. Crappy camera body + L lens = beautiful picture
3. Best camera body + L lens = stunning picture

sjp010

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 46
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2012, 06:00:01 AM »

Here's something for you to ponder:

1. Crappy camera body (FF or crop sensor) + crappy lens = crappy picture
2. Crappy camera body + L lens = beautiful picture
3. Best camera body + L lens = stunning picture

4. Best camera body + crappy lens = .......?

ecka

  • 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 605
  • Size matters ;)
    • View Profile
    • flickr
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2012, 06:45:44 AM »

Here's something for you to ponder:

1. Crappy camera body (FF or crop sensor) + crappy lens = crappy picture
2. Crappy camera body + L lens = beautiful picture
3. Best camera body + L lens = stunning picture

4. Best camera body + crappy lens = .......?

4. Best camera body + crappy lens = best camera body on a craigslist ;D
5. Good FF camera + decent non-L lens + great photographer = stunning picture
FF + primes !

RLPhoto

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3354
  • Gear doesn't matter, Just a Matter of Convenience.
    • View Profile
    • My Portfolio
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2012, 08:16:17 AM »
The "L" lenses are overkill for a 50D, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing.  Save up until you can buy a camera with lenses.

I disagree. It's a great combo. Henry cartier bresson, Ralph Gibson, and even ansel Adams used 50mms quite a bit on their leicas.

The 50mm is at its prime on a full frame camera. :D

expatinasia

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 898
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #26 on: April 30, 2012, 08:26:57 AM »
I have read through most of the replies and it seems like everyone is telling you to get a new body. I however suggest the opposite.

I would recommend you to get the L lens of your choice, and then save to get a new FF body. The 5D Mark III has only just come out, the 1D X will be out soon(ish) and the price of existing cameras such as the 5D Mark II and 7d I can only see dropping further.

Plus as more people get their hands on brand new gear there will be a lot more available on the second hand market, bringing prices down even further.

The lens on the other hand won't move too much in terms of price, unless you are lucky enough to catch one of the sales like was just announced for B&H.

1D X + backup + different L lenses etc.

7enderbender

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 635
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2012, 11:18:57 AM »
, but a FF body with just a 50mm f/1.4 is going to be disappointing. [...]

And why is that? As I've said before I'm biased towards that combo for a number of reasons and it may not be everyone's cup of tea. But disappointing?
5DII - 50L - 135L - 200 2.8L - 24-105 - 580EXII - 430EXII - FD 500/8 - AE1-p - bag full of FD lenses

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #27 on: April 30, 2012, 11:18:57 AM »

dnnphotography

  • Guest
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #28 on: April 30, 2012, 11:47:05 AM »
My gf and 2nd shooter was just faced this same problem recently.  She had the 24-105f4L, the 10-22, and the 50 1.4 on a T2i, she also uses my 24-70f2.8L and 70-200f2.8ISL from time to time on the body, but recently she used my 5D2 with just her 50f1.4 and was ready to trade in her T2i and lenses to upgrade to the 5d2 and JUST the 50.  The image difference is night and day.  I would not upgrade to junk lens but the 50 1.4 is a beauty of a budget lens.

neuroanatomist

  • CR GEEK
  • ********
  • Posts: 13846
    • View Profile
Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2012, 12:38:59 PM »
You will probably get more out of a 5D2+50mm 1.4 then a 50D+Lsomething.  While people tend to fetishize the L glass, it generally represents a fairly incremental upgrade, and the lower fstop of the 1.2 L lenses might not even impact your camera (there are debates regarding if the sensors actually get any additional light from faster lenses or if the geometery doesn't work)... but moving to a full frame will get a lot more out of your existing glass.

I don't know that many people would advocate buying the f/1.2L over the f/1.4 just for the half-stop of light (and as you state, some tests have shown that that half-stop isn't effective with dSLR sensors, and the camera just surreptitiously  increases the ISO to compensate).  But, I wouldn't call it an incremental upgrade, either - in the case of the 50L, it's just that the 'upgrade' you're getting isn't something that is readily measured in a test and plotted on a graph, you're paying for the smooth, creamy bokeh that the 50/1.4 just cannot deliver.
EOS 1D X, EOS M, and lots of lenses
______________________________
Flickr | TDP Profile/Gear List

canon rumors FORUM

Re: L lens vs Full Frame
« Reply #29 on: April 30, 2012, 12:38:59 PM »