50mm 1.2L + 24mm 1.4L on crop body?

[Random Orbits]

Remember, a 50mm lens on a 1.6 might be about 85mm, but you still have the 50mm perspective.

What the heck are you talking about? What's might be a 85mm but have 50mm perspective?

That's the biggest mis-concept ppl have been stating over and over again.

focal length and frame size determines angle of view. Angle of view AND position determines framing. Position alone determines perspective.

Putting a 50 on crop, putting a 85 (approx) on FF, stand at the same position, frame the same picture, the perspective are exactly the same.

Conclusion? 50mm on crop will have 85mm equivalent angle of view as on FF, and will have 85mm equivalent perspective as on FF.

Position alone does NOT determine perspective. Focal length has a major impact on the relative size of FG and BG ojbects (AOV). Using a lens on a crop camera is like taking scissors to a print and enlarging it back to the original size. It does not change the perspective or ratio of near/far objects. That is why short telephotos are recommended for portraiture -- wide angles tend to empahasize features closer to the camera (i.e. nose).

 

[sandymandy]

could u please discuss that elsewhere?

 

[briansquibb]

could u please discuss that elsewhere?

I think a small discussion on perspective with different length lens is relevent. Just not to turn it into a long debate

 

[wickidwombat]

the 50mm is still going to have a focal length of 50mm
the angle of view of the lens doesnt change either
the 1.6 crop sensor only takes in the light from the sweet spot in the center of the lens
which will give and APPARENT focal length of 80mm and a percieved change in angle of view
the depth of field does not change per the characteristic of the lens

say we put a 50 1.2 on a FF and a crop side by side and then framed the exact same shot so the composition was essentially identical in both view finders

the crop sensor camera would obviously be further away from the subject than the FF camera it would be in a similar position that a FF camera with an 85mm lens might be

it is because the FF camera is closer to the subject that it will have a much narrower Depth of field than the crop camera with the exact same lens.
Sometimes you might hear people say that a certain aperture lens behaves more live a narrower aperture, this is refering to the DoF not the light gathering capability with regards to shutter speed and iso for exposure purposes.

If we take the above example and now stop down the FF camera and leave the Crop camera at f1.2 we might have to stop the FF camera down to perhaps 1.8 to give that camera an equivalent Depth of field (not the actual number I just picked an aperture there for the example.

Neuro actually did a series of shots which he previously posted quite a while ago that shows all this very well maybe he still has them and could post again

while 50mm dont particularly apply any distortion to the image it will not have the same focal characteristics of an 85mm on FF just as a 35 on a crop wont mimic the 50 on a FF they will be similar but there will be subtle differences.

None of this makes these lenses bad on a crop at all in fact great lenses get added benefits of the sweet spot effect where because of the crop the image is actually only taken from the best part of the glass. they will just have DIFFERENT look not a worse look

hope that makes sense

 

[Random Orbits]

While your DoF explanation is right, the focal length does not change hence "angle of view of the lens doesnt change either" doesn't make any sense.

What is focal length? Focal length alone doesn't dictate angle of view. Focal length + frame format dictate angle of view. (Simple trigonometry: half angle of view = atan(half frame length / focal length)). When you "crop", you change angle of view.

You could argue that but the lens still projects FF equiv. angle of view, it's just the outer area of light falls outside the sensor. Well, who cares about the light outside of sensor? The term "angle of view" is always a relative term which really means the angle of view the current sensor is able to see.

That's all I have to say.

Focal length is a property of the lens. For example, the 14L has a 114 degree angle of view diagonally. The 50L has a 46 degree angle of view. To get an object to be the same size with the 14mm lens, you have to be a lot closer, but the angle is still 114 deg. Try it for yourself. Take photos of the same object at two different focal lengths and fill the image with the object. You will see a lot more background with the wider lens due to its angle of view.

 

[nightbreath]

I believe that "compression" is what was meant there. Yes, you can compose approximately the same frame with crop + 50mm and fullframe + 85mm, but with 85mm distant objects will be 1.6 times closer than with 50mm.

No it won't, it will be exactly the same distance on both systems.

Got it now. Thank you for your emphasize on this

 

[n0iZe]

I only got the 50mm 1.8 II. Perhaps i will just buy the 35mm f/2.0 (is it any good?) and then leave it like that until i buy a fullframe camera. I dont need a tele lens.

I just wonder if Canon will release another fullframe body. The 5D Mark 3 is waaay more expensive than the 5D MK 2. Nearly 1500 Euro difference. And its a difference for me to save up money like that. Was the 5D mk2 also that damn expensive when it was released?! Im not going fullframe soon, so im 99,9% sure mk2 will be sold out everywhere when i wanna upgrade.

Thought I'd throw in my two cents as well.

If you have a 50mm f/1.8 II already, you really shouldn't go for the 50mm f/1.2L.
Reason is that the 50mm f/1.2L is only slighty sharper at f/1.8 than the 50mm wide open (also at f/1.8). What you really pay all that extra cash for (extra cash you could easily buy a used 1Ds Mark II or maybe also a used 5D Mark II) is build quality. The f/1.8 (I'm tired of writing 50mm all the time - damnit I did it again!) is optically great, only build quality is nothing special. It's plastic, but so what. It will deliver almost as good pictures as the 15 times more expensive f/1.2L - actually I'm pretty sure you couldn't tell the difference on the 1100D, seriously.

If you're really into primes, that's a good thing. Canon primes are reasonably priced yet they're great - even the non L lenses.
If I were you for a tele I'd get a 100mm f/2 (or the macro 100mm f/2.8L which is reasonably priced for being an L lens) and for something wider you could go with the 35mm f/2 or the 28mm f/1.8 USM.

Of course in the end it's up to you, but I'd highly suggest you to not waste your money on expensive L lenses which will just slow you down on getting to the FF camera. Lenses are important, don't get me wrong. But you don't have to get the very best lenses for the beginner-DSLR of Canon - it's a waste.
Lenses mentioned above won't be bad on a FF camera and if you really really need to get something better, then you didn't lose a lot of money. While if you'd realize that you do not really need the L lens but could've stayed with a smaller priced non-L lens without losing anything - well that hurts. A lot.

Just think it over, lenses won't run away. Maybe you could even go and rent a lens before you buy it, or test it in the store - should be possible in a good store. Customer is always king, or should be at least.

Hope this helped,
n0iZe

 

[robbymack]

If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.

 

[briansquibb]

If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.

I would suggest the 50 f/1.8 is no more than a fallback/budget lens as the bokeh is terrible. I would be very tempted to skip the 50's and go for the shorty forty on the crop.

PS There are far better primes than the 135, albeit the 135 is very good and a very good price point. A 24-70II might be better than multiple primes

 

[bdunbar79]

If you got the money to burn on these two pieces of glass then more power to you. I am sure you will love them regardless of the crop vs ff debate. That being said I'd echo a few other comments regarding the need for the 50L when you already have the 1.8. Yes the 1.8 is plastic and cheap, but if you drop it and crack it, no worries, $100 gets you a new one. And the 50L does not IMHO produce 15 times better images than the 1.8 as price should dictate. The 24L is a different animal, there really isn't competition in the canon prime line up in this general focal range, the 28 1.8 is probably the closest option, but at $500 it's 3 times less expensive and I actually think the 24L is probably worth the price difference here and is close to 3 times better. So maybe keep the 1.8, get the 24L and look to a prime in the telephoto range, the 85 1.8 is excellent for the price or the 135L which may be the best canon prime made today. In fact you could get the 24L, 135L, 85 1.8, and throw in a 50 1.4 (if you feel the need to upgrade from the plastic) for about what you'd spend on the 24L and 50L combined.

I would suggest the 50 f/1.8 is no more than a fallback/budget lens as the bokeh is terrible. I would be very tempted to skip the 50's and go for the shorty forty on the crop.

PS There are far better primes than the 135, albeit the 135 is very good and a very good price point. A 24-70II might be better than multiple primes

I'm thinking the 24-70L II will be better than the 35L, and probably the 50's, as far as edge to edge sharpness. The 24-70L I already is sharper stopped down than the 35L.

 

[Bosman]

No one can tell me it is a shame to put my 24L on a 1dm3. It is the perfect focal length for candids, just a bit wider than 35mm on a crop body so it really helps when shooting weddings to have that extra 5mm. Basically on any body you buy it will be like pure gold to your images. You want lenses get them. You can use a FF later but enjoy the amazing bokeh and sharpness of the 24L & 50L on your images. The 50L is on the 5dm3 most the time and the 24L is on the 1dm3 most the time, sometimes i swap them but always end up with blissful images.