L Lenses for crop bodies
- Thread starter koolman
- Start date
L
Loswr
Guest
candc said:
I've been saying that all along... At low ISO (above 800, although that depends on the cameras being considered), there is NO 'reach advantage' to using APS-C (unless you need to print very large). At higher ISOs, the cropped FF is better.
Note that the linked page, and my statement above, apply in focal length limited situations. If you suggest that you can get the same results on FF and APS-C if you don't need to crop the FF image, you deserve to be yelled at...
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
unfocused said:
To some extent, yes. But…if you can keep the ISO low on the 7D (i.e., shooting in good light), it does give more MP. While the cropped FF image doesn't give better IQ at those low ISOs, it's not worse, either. However, if you'd be cropping the 7D image, you'll have to crop the FF image even more severely, and at some point you just don't have enough pixels.
Also, mainly I referred to it as an 'optically perfect teleconverter' and that's still basically correct - you don't get additional distortion or CA when using a crop sensor. If you've got a supertele, the penalties for using a 1.4x TC are small, but on most other lenses (perhaps not the 70-200 II), you take a pretty significant optical hit. Cropping is better than a 1.4x TC on a 100-400L, for example. A teleconverter also slows down AF, too.
Upvote
0
okay sounds reasonable. how about if we look at a real world example like the sigma 120-300 but we think its a bit short for a wildlife lens on a ff camera so instead of cropping or using a tc, lets we put it on a crop body instead. how about this also, if an image cropped from a ff body can be similar to one taken with the same lens on a crop body then is it possible that an image taken with a sharper faster but shorter lens on a crop body could be similar to one taken with a longer not quite as sharp or fast lens on a ff body?
Upvote
0
candc said:
Sure it's *possible*, but as you're referring to the real world rather unlikely because you'd have to screw a fast killer prime lens on the crop camera, say a 200L or 135L, and compare it to something crappy like a 70-300 non-L on ff.
But anyone who can afford a ff would use a better lens; the other way around is more likely if you're saving $$$ on the body to put it into a lens or use a crop as a backup camera but you're still paying and carrying glass your crop camera doesn't use.
Upvote
0
Like comparing the excellent 135/2 lens on crop (equivalent to a 216/3.2) to the cheaper 200/2.8 on FF?candc said:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=108&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=245&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0
No
Upvote
0
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=854&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=786&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0candc said:
Even the cheap sub-standard Sigma 24-70 has the 18-35 beaten at some settings. This Tamron adds VC at a similar price, and the Canon is optically even better. All three have a broader zoom range.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:
Distortion - no, but additional CA - not so sure. TDP shows increased CA with crop bodies with the same lens in some cases, and decrease in other.
My experience, and TDP, show that teleconverters offer better IQ than cropped sensors in general. This is very much lens (and center-vs.-borders) dependent; and indeed, the 70-200 II is phenomenal in this respect.
Upvote
0
i took a look at dxo mark and the sigma 24-70 is pretty good but i would go with the tamron. put it on a 6d and you have a nice combo without breaking the bank. it does have better range than the sigma 18-35 on a crop body but they seem pretty similar otherwise.
Attachments
Upvote
0
So the real question is at what point do you print large or screen with enough DPI/PPI to need the extra resolution?
A crude example is I'm sure back in the day of "32kb RAM is enough", many people would have said 480 lines present on a DVD was plenty. Now they just look crap on computer LCD screens lol.
A crude example is I'm sure back in the day of "32kb RAM is enough", many people would have said 480 lines present on a DVD was plenty. Now they just look crap on computer LCD screens lol.
Upvote
0
dufflover said:
The answer changes quickly. Until recently, most monitors, even the state of the art ones, were 2mp. I work now on 4 to 5mp monitors, and while they are very good, they are not really state of art. I see thing that I have not seen before in my photos, both good and bad (softness, etc.).
Upvote
0
candc said:
But then the crop combo becomes soft as a jelly fish. How many times do you need to be reminded of this?
Upvote
0
if a combo has the same resolution and about the same sharpness then how can you claim one is "soft as jellyfish"?
Upvote
0
if you need 100mm equivalent i would go with the ef-s 60 its very good, for a 300mm eq i use the sigma 120-300 zoom, you can't get a 1.8ff equivalent dof on aps-c and iso performance is better on ff so you need to use faster lenses in bad light
Upvote
0
Similar threads
