Crop sensor camera lenses - help!

What's Hot
2

Comments

  • GrumpyrockerGrumpyrocker Frets: 863
    Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 



    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 728
    RMJ said:
    Budgie said:
    I use a full frame camera and my go to lens is a 24-70mm. The crop sensor equivalent is roughly 17-50mm. When I had a crop sensor Nikon I bought a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 and it was superbly sharp and a lot cheaper than the Nikon equivalent and reviewed rather well against too. I ended up selling the DX lenses when I changed to full frame and didn’t lose any cash at all. Sigma also make a 17-70mm lens too which is supposed to be good for the price. 

    I suppose it it depends on what sort of photography you are interested in. My interest is landscapes so I don’t need faster lenses as I generally use a tripod.


    Thanks. I really want to buy a standard zoom that is flexible enough to take in some landscape through to portrait. 17-50 on a crop seems decent range for that? 

    I've seen mixed reviews of the Sigma 2.8 but it is so much cheaper than the Canon equiv. Good to hear some real world experience. 
    Well, for landscapes, I mostly find 24mm to be wide enough. The 18mm I have is there to squeeze out a little extra if needed. As a walk about zoom 24-70mm is probably perfect.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 728
    Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 


    Funnily enough, I watched that before I changed to FX from DX. I suppose if you think you have a need for it - a camera is, after all, just a tool - you just get the tool for the job. In my case, and the primary reason I swapped, was that I have a need to photograph artwork to form a high resolution catalogue of sold work for potential prints after the painting has gone to a new owner. In addition, for landscape photography the dynamic range and the amount of detail captured with the ability to crop an image and still have a good usable file was again a plus. The files I get from my D810 are noticeably much better than they were from my D7100.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • mattdavismattdavis Frets: 255
    Wild card would be a 24mm and 50mm prime. Primes are generally just sharp all the time, even full frame ones. Canon has a nice 24mm ef-s prime that's tiny, sharp and fast  and the 50mm 1.8 will give you a nice portrait lens. Both together may be cheaper than a zoom, especially used. 


    This is what I do - my old Ef 50 mm prime and the newer ef-a 24mm pancake. Found it a great combo. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • GrumpyrockerGrumpyrocker Frets: 863
    Budgie said:
    Whenever I think of buying a 35mm ("full frame" is meaningless marketing bs) camera I rewatch Zack Arias' wonderful video on the subject. 


    Funnily enough, I watched that before I changed to FX from DX. I suppose if you think you have a need for it - a camera is, after all, just a tool - you just get the tool for the job. In my case, and the primary reason I swapped, was that I have a need to photograph artwork to form a high resolution catalogue of sold work for potential prints after the painting has gone to a new owner. In addition, for landscape photography the dynamic range and the amount of detail captured with the ability to crop an image and still have a good usable file was again a plus. The files I get from my D810 are noticeably much better than they were from my D7100.
    You clearly had one of those real use cases where it's worth having a larger sensor. On the whole though I think most hobbyists really don't need a sensor that big. And folks often don't understand the knock-on effect in the cost and size of lenses. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Matt_McGMatt_McG Frets: 121
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • boogiemanboogieman Frets: 5413
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 728
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
     If used well, wide angle lenses make incredibly compelling images. The key is really the foreground element of an image. I'd certainly agree that when used to make the vista 'wider' without the foreground interest, a wide angle lens falls very short for making interesting landscapes. I also agree that longer focal lengths (70-200mm) can result in excellent images.


    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • hywelghywelg Frets: 1601
    Personally, when on holiday the last thing I want to do is carry a a big (or even a small ) slr, never mind extra lenses. Consider a Sony RX100 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    Thanks for your inputs guys. I have ordered a used 17-55 f2.8 from mpb.  I think it's the best option for what I need, which is a standard zoom range that I can use in low light. 

    If cost and convenience weren't so .If I of an issue I would be going for various primes.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • GrumpyrockerGrumpyrocker Frets: 863
    boogieman said:
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    Oh God yes the rock or bit of driftwood with smoothed waves and sunset in the background. Yawn. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • BudgieBudgie Frets: 728
    I think you could level that criticism at all genres of photography though.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • jellyrolljellyroll Frets: 2282
    boogieman said:
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    Oh God yes the rock or bit of driftwood with smoothed waves and sunset in the background. Yawn. 
    The only sensible thing Ken Rockwell has ever said is that wide angle lenses aren't for "getting more in", they're for getting closer to the subject. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • LodiousLodious Frets: 851
    RMJ said: 
    Thanks for your inputs guys. I have ordered a used 17-55 f2.8 from mpb.  I think it's the best option for what I need, which is a standard zoom range that I can use in low light. 

    If cost and convenience weren't so .If I of an issue I would be going for various primes.
    I had that lens for a while it was a cracker.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • GrumpyrockerGrumpyrocker Frets: 863
    edited January 4
    jellyroll said:
    boogieman said:
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    Oh God yes the rock or bit of driftwood with smoothed waves and sunset in the background. Yawn. 
    The only sensible thing Ken Rockwell has ever said is that wide angle lenses aren't for "getting more in", they're for getting closer to the subject. 
    I tend to use my wide angle lens (Fuji 14mm) in a slightly unusual way. I always tend crop shots from it at least to 16:9 (and sometimes more like 2.35:1).

    It's a cinematic look. But then 14mm on Super35 is a popular combo in cinema. 

    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • Budgie said:
    I think you could level that criticism at all genres of photography though.

    Portraits shot wide open on a 105mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 or 135mm 1.8. YAWN. 

    I keep seeing portraits where the ears and nose are blurred enough that it actually makes them look larger and distorted. If they'd just stopped down to f/2.8 or f/4 it would look much more natural.

    Fun fact - I've never been asked to blur the background more, but I have had one person ask if I could remove the "blur filter" so the photo as a whole was sharper. Funny world! 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 10183
    jellyroll said:
    boogieman said:
    Matt_McG said:
    Can I add a dissenting voice? Wide angle lenses don't make for very interesting landscape photos. 

    If all you care about is 'fitting more into the frame', then sure. And you may have a really good reason for wanting to do that.

    But I think you'd be surprised what focal length was actually used on most/many of the more compelling/iconic landscape shots you see.
    I think the real problem is that a lot of WA landscape shots have pretty much been done to death and we’re too used to seeing the same style of shot, repeated over and over. Seascapes especially. 
    Oh God yes the rock or bit of driftwood with smoothed waves and sunset in the background. Yawn. 
    The only sensible thing Ken Rockwell has ever said is that wide angle lenses aren't for "getting more in", they're for getting closer to the subject. 
    I tend to use my wide angle lens (Fuji 14mm) in a slightly unusual way. I always tend crop shots from it at least to 16:9 (and sometimes more like 2.35:1).

    It's a cinematic look. But then 14mm on Super35 is a popular combo in cinema. 
    I do the same with the 10-24. I'll still often shoot at the 24 end and still crop, wide-in-widescreen can be really lovely too. 


    0reaction image LOL 1reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    Received my EFS 17-55 f2.8 today. Can't fault the quality of the test images I have taken with it. But fuck me sideways it's big. I'm really concerned about getting it round New York. Not exactly inconspicuous. 

    Dilemma - return it to mpb (can I even do that?) And pit the money towards a micro 4/3 system (Have been thinking about switching for a while), OR suck it up and embrace the heft in the knowledge I will get decent images of my trip of a lifetime.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJ said:
    Received my EFS 17-55 f2.8 today. Can't fault the quality of the test images I have taken with it. But fuck me sideways it's big. I'm really concerned about getting it round New York. Not exactly inconspicuous. 

    Dilemma - return it to mpb (can I even do that?) And pit the money towards a micro 4/3 system (Have been thinking about switching for a while), OR suck it up and embrace the heft in the knowledge I will get decent images of my trip of a lifetime.

    MPB have 14 day no quibble returns :) 

    What is your budget? If size is a real concern, I truly wonder whether you could swap your kit for a fuji xe-2 or xe-3 and the excellent fuji 18-55. Sony a6300 are great too, but lacking in small, good quality zooms.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    RMJ said:
    Received my EFS 17-55 f2.8 today. Can't fault the quality of the test images I have taken with it. But fuck me sideways it's big. I'm really concerned about getting it round New York. Not exactly inconspicuous. 

    Dilemma - return it to mpb (can I even do that?) And pit the money towards a micro 4/3 system (Have been thinking about switching for a while), OR suck it up and embrace the heft in the knowledge I will get decent images of my trip of a lifetime.

    MPB have 14 day no quibble returns :) 

    What is your budget? If size is a real concern, I truly wonder whether you could swap your kit for a fuji xe-2 or xe-3 and the excellent fuji 18-55. Sony a6300 are great too, but lacking in small, good quality zooms.
    Well the lens was 450. So probably 500....

    Fuji are APS-C no?
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJ said:
    RMJ said:
    Received my EFS 17-55 f2.8 today. Can't fault the quality of the test images I have taken with it. But fuck me sideways it's big. I'm really concerned about getting it round New York. Not exactly inconspicuous. 

    Dilemma - return it to mpb (can I even do that?) And pit the money towards a micro 4/3 system (Have been thinking about switching for a while), OR suck it up and embrace the heft in the knowledge I will get decent images of my trip of a lifetime.

    MPB have 14 day no quibble returns :) 

    What is your budget? If size is a real concern, I truly wonder whether you could swap your kit for a fuji xe-2 or xe-3 and the excellent fuji 18-55. Sony a6300 are great too, but lacking in small, good quality zooms.
    Well the lens was 450. So probably 500....

    Fuji are APS-C no?

    They are, but you have stumbled on what I believe is the failing of Canon and nikon - the full frame experience.

    In short, Canon and nikon didn't put tons of effort into decent lenses across a range of sizes. There were small, quite low quality kit lenses and some larger full frame equivalents.

    Fuji are committed to the smaller sensor, so you have choice - tiny, decent quality variable aperture lenses, mid range, good quality lenses a bit above the competition and the larger full frame equivalents that are aimed at serious photographers. The fuji 18-55 kit lens gives you the 18-55 range but the variable aperture is a full stop faster than offerings from Canon and nikon, and the optics are very good - so it's f/2.8 - f/4. It's not a huge lens, bit bigger than a cheaper Canon kit lens but smaller than the quite large f/2.8 lenses, focuses fast and gives great images.

    The older gen of cameras (xt1, xe2) and the newer xt20 offer phenomenal value. You should be able to get an xe2 or xt1 plus that kit lens for about £500 ish, and they are great cameras. The next gen (xt20, xt2, xe3) give better focusing, more pixels but not a whole lot else - definitely refinement rather than remaining the wheel. 

    However, it won't be as small as m43 and I'd recommend try before you but to make sure it's a good fit. You'll be surprised at how good that little fuji lens is though. Alternatively, I really still love the Panasonic gx85 and the absolutely diddy kit lens. Not fast, not amazing quality but tiny and still takes great shots. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    Thanks @ThePrettyDamned ....bloody nightmare this. Need to make a decision quickly as I go to NY on the 19th Jan. A smaller less conspicuous package that takes decent pictures sounds really attractive to me right now!! 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJ said:
    Thanks @ThePrettyDamned ....bloody nightmare this. Need to make a decision quickly as I go to NY on the 19th Jan. A smaller less conspicuous package that takes decent pictures sounds really attractive to me right now!! 

    Are you near Cambridge? Happy to let you try out my xt2. I don't have a zoom, just the 23mm 1.4 and 50mm f/2, but it'll give you a feel for size (bearing in mind the xt2 is larger than other models, it's still less intimidating than even a tiny plastic SLR, maybe due to styling).

    John Lewis always has some micro 43 cameras out to try. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    RMJ said:
    Thanks @ThePrettyDamned ....bloody nightmare this. Need to make a decision quickly as I go to NY on the 19th Jan. A smaller less conspicuous package that takes decent pictures sounds really attractive to me right now!! 

    Are you near Cambridge? Happy to let you try out my xt2. I don't have a zoom, just the 23mm 1.4 and 50mm f/2, but it'll give you a feel for size (bearing in mind the xt2 is larger than other models, it's still less intimidating than even a tiny plastic SLR, maybe due to styling).

    John Lewis always has some micro 43 cameras out to try. 
    Thanks but not local to you unfortunately 

    What's the xt1 like? Seems ok spec wise
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 10183
    edited January 9
    I'm still loving my XT1. I much prefer it over the X-Ex series for all the manual controls. As I feel like saying so often on facebook groups and forums "it was an awesome camera the day before they released the newer one and didn't become any worse after". 

    That with the 18-55 should make an awesome walkabout combination. I use the 18-135, 10-24 or 35 f1.4 depending on what I'm doing but can shoot all day with any one of those. I'm 100% sure the 18-55 is just as good and smaller than the other zooms too. Fuji literally doesn't make a single bad lens.

    FWIW I started with an Olympus M4/3, then went Canon 650D for better quality, then moved to Fuji after getting annoyed carrying a bulky DSLR around everywhere. I did all that within the space of 3 or 4 years, and have now had the XT1 for 4 years and not even considering anything else since, except now maybe an XT3 purely for better high-ISO performance and general speed. 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    Thanks @stickyfiddle ;

    The 18-55 looks very decent for a kit lens. That combination will set me back 600+ quid used by the looks of it 
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 10183
    RMJ said:
    Thanks @stickyfiddle ;

    The 18-55 looks very decent for a kit lens. That combination will set me back 600+ quid used by the looks of it 
    It's genuinely awesome. It's really not like any other "kit lens" from the Canikon side of things - serviceable but cheap. It's a properly great lens. The only reason i don't have one is because I already have the longer one, and that was chosen more for weather resistance than focal length. 

    Might be worth getting your hands on an XE2/2s/3 if you can, just for comparison's sake but the XT1+kit is definitely what I'd buy for that budget.

    I've also just remembered the EVF! It's amazing, and way better than the X-E version Buy the XT1! :D
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 1reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • GagarynGagaryn Frets: 1499
    If I was in your shoes I'd just use a EFS 10-18mm STM and the 50mm f1.8 STM. Both are more than good enough that poor shots are more likely be down to the user rather than the lens and they are small enough to stick in a coat pocket. Plus you could pick up the pair on MPB for £250 so you are unlikely to lose any money if you decide to move to full frame or mirrorless in the future.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • RMJRMJ Frets: 1247
    RMJ said:
    Thanks @stickyfiddle ;

    The 18-55 looks very decent for a kit lens. That combination will set me back 600+ quid used by the looks of it 
    It's genuinely awesome. It's really not like any other "kit lens" from the Canikon side of things - serviceable but cheap. It's a properly great lens. The only reason i don't have one is because I already have the longer one, and that was chosen more for weather resistance than focal length. 

    Might be worth getting your hands on an XE2/2s/3 if you can, just for comparison's sake but the XT1+kit is definitely what I'd buy for that budget.

    I've also just remembered the EVF! It's amazing, and way better than the X-E version Buy the XT1! :D
    The xt10 is quite a bit less expensive and seems to have similar features to xt1. Looks like it could work....
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
  • stickyfiddlestickyfiddle Frets: 10183
    RMJ said:
    RMJ said:
    Thanks @stickyfiddle ;

    The 18-55 looks very decent for a kit lens. That combination will set me back 600+ quid used by the looks of it 
    It's genuinely awesome. It's really not like any other "kit lens" from the Canikon side of things - serviceable but cheap. It's a properly great lens. The only reason i don't have one is because I already have the longer one, and that was chosen more for weather resistance than focal length. 

    Might be worth getting your hands on an XE2/2s/3 if you can, just for comparison's sake but the XT1+kit is definitely what I'd buy for that budget.

    I've also just remembered the EVF! It's amazing, and way better than the X-E version Buy the XT1! :D
    The xt10 is quite a bit less expensive and seems to have similar features to xt1. Looks like it could work....
    Yes, it's the same sensor and software so should be able to give you essentially identical pictures.

    The XT10 loses the ISO dial (not a huge issue - it's set & forget for most applications) and has a smaller EVF, and no weather sealing. But it's also smaller and lighter and cheaper, so most likely will be all the camera you need.
    0reaction image LOL 0reaction image Wow! 0reaction image Wisdom · Share on Facebook Share on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.